My gosh, I can't tell everyone how happy I am to believe in God and not be as horribly lost and WRONG as Sartre!!!! Thank you Lord Jesus for being my shepherd!! 🙏🏼
Though at the end Sartre could not live like Sartre before he died he told his friend Benny Levy that: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
I read a lot of Sartre beginning in my Junior year of high school (1964-65). It was his novels and plays (Nausea and "No Exit" among the worst ) that turned me against him more than Being and Nothingness with all his blather about the cogito. In my senior year I encountered Goethe and my life was changed for the duration. I am 73 now and have never swayed from the "classical" view. I see mechanistic materialism as the poison pill that is killing this planet. I learned that from Goethe and the longer I live the more I am convinced he had pointed out the real culprit(the pact with Mephistopheles). Seeking power and domination of the world is a devil's bargain. Sounds a lot like Darth Vader.
In the end even Sartre couldn't live like Sartre. In an interview later in life before he died with Benny Lévy. Sartre had said and I quote "“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
This was a truly wonderfully enlightening conversation. You guys touched on so many topics that made me rethink what I, a 54 year old man, had thought were some givens about life. Please keep up this excellent work! I know this is true of others but it is certainly true for me that you have taken a guy who was “side-swiped” by Catholicism and helped me grow my faith in a such a new and positive way. I am so glad I met you guys. God bless both of you and everyone involved in this mission.
I have 3 acquaintances (of very different backgrounds) who love Sartre’s existentialism and embrace it as their fundamental worldview. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence, but they are the 3 most arrogant people I’ve ever known.
I reckon there's a definite correlation between the two, Tom. Sartre's brand of existentialism is perhaps the most arrogant and self-centered philosophies around. I don't think even Nietzsche's Ubermensch philosophy comes close to Sartre's arrogance.
@@Nick-qf7vt Well to become an ubermensch, you actually have to prove the strength of the ideals you live by. Existentialists just basically go, “well it’s my truth, and if you don’t like it you can take a hike,” not realizing that a. they don’t live in a bubble and b. their thoughts and actions actually affect others.
I'm 69 years old, and have learnt St Catherine of Sienna's response to lack of prayer, violence and evil done to our neighbor, our closest neighbor, ourself, and our neighbor next to you. The fallen Gaul.. a curse on the Greco-Roman world.
I love learning from Bishop Barron and the good questions by Mr. Brandon Vogt. The Bishop's answers are always well-referenced and articulated to be understood clearly.
In an interview later in life before he died with Benny Lévy. Sartre had said and I quote "“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
I explored "existentialism" in my day. I have a copy and read "Being and Nothingness" (a ramble on nonsense) by Sartre, really I dragged myself to finish it. I was vindicated when I read Sartre himself said it was bull.. Looking forward to watching this. I have to go to the market but will be back. Respect Bishop Barron.
How many people are that “creative”per self invention…..is it simply an entry into super selfishness in the guise of finding my true authenticity…..I was fed this philosophy in college….I wrote paper after paper on this stuff…..those de la Salle brothers really nailed Christ to my heart….I was being reeled back in for years ….thank God …….I wrote good papers but it was always a subject not a belief….thank you for an exceptional episode
Something that I really hope gets brought up about Sartre and Foucault is that *they both petitioned the French government to lower the age of consent to 12!* Out of the four philosophers you are covering in this series (Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault) these last two, although the least well known, are probably my least favourite of the bunch.
Sartre and his girl Simone were freakin degenerates, other existentialists like Camus immediately dropped them as friends and colleagues once they found out. As they should.
I mean Friedrich Nietzsche is kind of the only one here who didn’t either actively advocate for horrible things, or whose philosophy didn’t directly lead to horrible things, Marx made some good points about the inherently unequal relationship between labor and capital but his ideology has also killed more people than any other in human history, and enough has been said about the other two you referenced above that were I to use the proper words to describe them RUclips Susan would get mad at me.
Fascinating and important! Concerning "proper self-love", if we wish to act in our will for the selfless good of the other, then we must be capable of offering our actions and life. That requires self-love and care or we'll be incapable of acting in love for others. As Bp Barron said - that is our "gift" for others.
The idea of self invention reminds me of patent law. One of the reasons patents expire is because that knowledge does not stand on its own. The invention is an innovation, it is the temporary peak of a giant mountain of prior ideas, inventions, philosophies, sciences, ect that preceded it and made it possible. A human lifetime is not long enough to invent everything from language to fire to electricity to cell phones. It is critically reliant on what became before it. I would argue that a human cannot truly invent themselves because who we are and what we believe is largely made up of that which came before us. It is by definition not self created. Our biology and DNA also are out of our control and span back generations and ultimately back to that which is not conditional. We are not our own god, and to believe this is narcissistic and self delusional. It completely lack humility, which creates a distorted image what is. It is a belief in the worst god imaginable, ourselves.
We also cannot invent ourselves as our knowledge and intellect is so limited. We can scarcely know who we even are, the deepest layers of our mind. So how can we achieve anything other than failure if we try to invent ourselves? The only path to success is by taking the person who is infallible and sees all, and conforming ourselves to that.
Though one may not be the originator of every element of what he/she believes or becomes, there exists fundamentally the freedom and liberty to choose! One can put themselves together in all kinds of various arrangements. As musicians and artists reinterpret the work and influence of previous artists while creating their own work, so too a human being chooses what to believe, what to value and ultimately what to become within the constraints of their own abilities, interests and genetics. Thus uniquely inventing themselves or not. For example was Picasso a genius? John Lennon a genius, Leonardo da Vinci a genius? How about Issac Newton? At various points though there is a first time when something is new and original. Most of us will never know that kind of genius. Picasso said "good artists borrow great artist steal". Is he a genius who invented himself? Is his work not genius though he may have borrowed or even stolen from previous artists? But it is our uniqueness, our ability to choose that makes us human. " If a man can not choose he ceases to be a man" Anthony Burgess. God is only a anthropomorphic projection of ourselves. If we don't create ourselves then we can say the burden of responsibility for who we are lies with God and that can't be right can it?
A wonderful talk, engaging and enlightening. My sincere hope is that many young people will listen and .... start thinking about the 'freedoms' they believe in.
Great discussion as always and very helpful in seeing just how deeply Sartre is today, especially in the idea of reinvention, that so many are doing to themselves now. Would be great if you could do one more of these videos on Freud too. Thank you.
From what little I know of Kierkegaard, he provides the door through the battle line that Bishop presents at the end. We are radically, wildly free, and we radically, freely give ourselves to God.
From my understanding of Kierkegaard, that’s actually when we become free. I know this is not the consensus in the analytical tradition, but I don’t consider Kierkegaard an existentialist (in the Sartre’s sense; existence proceeds essence).
@@mariog1490 I took that point from the Great Courses lectures on Existentialism. He put Kierkegaard up as a forerunner to the Existentialists and linked them on the theme of radical self-responsibility. I'm not learned enough to adjudicate the claim, so thanks for another bit of understanding.
@@mariog1490 Kirkengaard is probably better thought of as a proto existentialist. A lot of his ideas mesh with it, though he's unique in that he was one of the only religious ones.
It is a philosophy of empty freedom. That is to say, Sartre seems to enshrine what Cassirer called "negative freedom," which is a "freedom from." But for freedom to be meaningful, it must have a double aspect. Human freedom consists not only in a "freedom from" but also a "freedom for." For this more adequate understanding of freedom, one ought to turn to St. Paul.
This series is right on point. I have been explaining this to friends (in a much more casual way.) one question: does the current generation even know who are their philosophical influencers are? If not, and I think not, how does these deep philosophical currents get embedded in society? I think it is from the infiltration of our education system; without teaching specific philosophers. It is (has become) the philosophical bedrock of faculty. This began with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. Marxist revolution from within.
People turn up their nose at philosophy as "pointless navel gazing". This has been the greatest success of those who wished to weaponise their ideologies.
Monseigneur Barron, Merci mille fois ! Vous parlez toujour en bonne foi! Comme vous j'adore la langue francaise et je suis americaine. I thought this was interesting about Sartre that he refused to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature on the grounds it would be "inauthentic" for him to do so.
“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.” - Jean-Paul Sartre in conversation with Benny Levy before his death.
Replayed several of the suggested video episodes on this topic by B R Barron. They are very connected, with cohesiveness, without contradiction and show a progression or development of theological themes. The themes are the enduring heresy of gnosticism and Irenaeus on unity.
Sartre's book 'Nausea' sums up what I see as his philosophy. As a woman, I can definitely identify with the experience of the nausea I felt when my body was becoming conscious of a pregnancy, a new being growing within me.
Thank God for the brilliance of these beings educating me on classical philosphical traditions in contradistinction qith puresl secular human ideas. This could be synthesized into God gives existence with essence, but man must know and recognize how to do it in authentic manner relying in God but do the action himself to achieve the good, the beautifu and the best version of himself, not simply by instinct feelings.
In an interview later in life before he died with Benny Lévy. Sartre had said and I quote "“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
I wish when I got caught up in existentialism that I knew that Sarte himself repented, concluded he was a created being and according to some sources was visited by a priest prior to death. Camus also apparently questioned his existentialism as well….
Thank you for your dedication to study and sharing your sharing if "words". Satres own philosophy humansism essentialism to live where God is gone is hopless. Jesus came to earth to give us faith. Thank u for preaching Sartes essence is false..
What is wrong with Satre's idea of freedom: removing all barriers to our inner desires? I don't hear enough critics say what is actually wrong with this idea. I think I found the answer in C S Lewis' book "The Abolition of Man". Combined with Rene Girard's Mimetic theory. The answer is that our inner desires don't spontaneously arise out of our personal character or rational choices. Our desire itself is shaped by external forces. So if we just devote ourselves to fulfilling our desires, we are not at all free but instead slaves to the forces that shape our desires.
One thing I would add is how Logos and/or the intelligibility and order of the universe goes out the window aswell, and with it not just objective morality but even science. Science then becomes purely pragmatic and nothing necessarily to do with reality as it is. We can only see the world through a highly subjective and biased lense and therefore have no way of knowing if what we see is reality or just images our brains make in response to stimuli.
Unless you read Whitehead and his understanding of the "superject" as seeing the universe with these great first principles guiding the subjective view.
@@diannefitzmaurice9813 sounds like a person, so I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel on this matter. God mediates the mind and reality towards truth. That is the classical understanding atleast and the weight of it is compelling
The Lack of Acceptance is a key factor in what is happening with today's youth; the inability to accept the elements of our existence that are out of our own control.
Lol! In reference to some of your first comments, the Church's first birthday was technically in the Upper Room? So yeah it did not have its universities at that time! It is wonderful how she has grown in His wisdom and grace!
This is a difficult topic and I think Bp. Barron explained it well, considering the limitations of this format. It would be interesting if Bishop talked of more philosophers.
This is a great, positive summary of Sartre and his main ideas, thank you. It’s also useful to think of Sartre from a historical perspective, coming at the end of 30 years of war that included interminable horrors from Verdun to Auschwitz. His thinking was as much a brave, but also exhausted, response to unconscionable events as it was to philosophical currents.
PRAYER TO MARY, QUEEN OF THE ANGELS [ August Queen of Heaven Prayer ] An Indulgence of 500 days. (S. C. Ind., July 8, 1908; S. P. Ap., Mar. 28, 1935) August Queen of Heaven and Mistress of the Angels, thou who hast received from God the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan: we humbly ask thee to send to us thy heavenly legions so that, under thy command, they may pursue the demons let loose upon the earth, fight them everywhere, vanquish their audacity, and drive them back into the abyss. “Who is like unto God?” O good and tender Mother, thou shalt ever be our love and our hope. O divine Mother, send the Holy Angels to defend us [me] and repel far from us [me] the cruel enemy. Holy Angels and Archangels, defend and keep us. Amen. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PRAYER [Please Read] The faithful are asked to say this prayer frequently and fervently. It is of great importance given the following remarkable background: [1] The prayer was dictated by the Blessed Mother herself to the holy and venerable priest, Fr. Louis-Édouard Cestac, on January 13, 1863 as a means to combat the powers of Hell. [2] An exorcism prayer in itself, this is a formidable prayer for “spiritual battle” especially needed for our times when the ravages caused by the fallen angels are everywhere conspicuous and unrelenting. [3] It is a prayer approved by the Church: It was recommended to the faithful by Pope Pius IX, and later indulgenced by both Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. Prayers of the Auxilium Christianorum - Fr. Chad A Ripperger Mother of Charity of Christ, Mother of Prayer of Christ and Stigma of Christ, Immaculate Conception and Graceful and Immanuel and Blessed Lady within Lady
Seguramente me salgo del tema, pero ahora mismo pienso en mi trabajo como artista. Ahora rezo cada día porque mi trabajo sea reflejo de mi amor por Dios. "Señor: no me permitas hacer algo que te ofenda. Permite que mi trabajo lleve Tú Luz a donde vaya. Entonces, el "lienzo en blanco" ya no es angustia ni es "la nada" Gracias Obispo. Que Dios lo bendiga
17:38 can i say instead that ,The divinity that each of us can be graced to steward in life, if we choose to,is the representation of the ultimate objective value?
There's a right and a wrong way to break from tradition. The scribes and the Pharisees abused tradition for their own ill-gotten gain but John the Baptist came into the picture to restore God's people to what existed before. John came, then our blessed Lord, then the apostles. It was not a total abolition of tradition, but more of a restoration and traditionally rooted continuation.
Sartre’s pre-supposition is not the inexistence of God as a starting point; for Sartre the « I » wills freely that God does not exist. That pre-condition bestows onto the « I » the full authority and responsibility to equate its existence to the essence it wills. Thus existence begets essence. If I may complete your answer, bishop, as to Sartre’s « positive » contribution, could it be that authentic faith is based on the subject’s supreme authority and responsibility to choose God freely rather than the « tree » as the foundational point of existence, then, through and with God’s grace, align my beingness to His being. « BE perfect as your Father in heaven IS perfect. » Lévis Shalom
The main obvious downside to existentialism is that as a totally individual enterprise, it quickly degenerates into being locked in conversation with yourself. You have a blank canvas to paint your values on, but all you can do is point at it while other existentialist individuals say “that’s nice.”
Even in aworld where nobody believed in god we are still God's children we are part of god and return to god,all that is is god the blind and deafness jesus continues to talk of his jesus understanding of us we can't see the father, because of ego vanity and pride in our own self
What should be obvious is people believe in truth, those things which concern them in their life, institutional belief is to agree to believe that which you don't believe round the kitchen table.
You're not missing anything. If it sounds like gibberish, it's because it is gibberish. Confusion is not of the Lord and those philosophers were just trying to justify their immoral lives and sell books. I'm not impressed by any of them. Time would be better spent studying the Word of God.
To me phenomenology is... mostly mindfulness. That's my brand of phenomenology. Sartre was... a WWII veteran who seemed to get to some level of truth... my knowledge stops here, unfortunately. Nietzsche who seemed to start this current was, on the other hand, a philologist and he was the one to nail it properly in Thus Spake... All of these things got terribly mystified after those people passed away..... In any case, "L'enfer c'est les autres" means a lot and is straight-forward: Hell is them!!! The people that call themselves "we" :))
We have very compelling evidence that both Sartre (and Camus) came to believe in God. Eric Metaxas paints a vibrant picture in his most recent book: Is Atheism Dead? Highly recommend. If you're an Audible member you can listen for free in the Plus Catalogue.
👑🐪🕊 There Is only one God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Three parts ONE God. People have three parts, the body, the soul and the spirit, three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Your trust in Jesus and His shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins, is what saves you from hell. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved. Then, you should be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
God isn’t 3 parts. The Holy Trinity is 3 Persons in One Godhead: God the Father (1st Person); God the Son (2nd Person); & God the Holy Spirit (3rd Person). The body is reflective of this as we are made in the image of God.
2:5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. 9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. 10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. 11 There is no partiality with God. 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
I find that the genius of God seems to make it that the more intellectually intelligent a person seems to get the more spiritually stupid they become. Perhaps this is why children and the poor are the first to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Isn't true, Bishop Barron that through Sarte's teaching, we have come upon a 20th century "It's all about ME" kind of social struggle? For example not too long ago, we went back to the Acclamation of Faith, I believe, instead of We believe? And of course there's a messy version of feminists with the "Me Too" movement. I have the right to do with my own body whatsoever I choose, including the right to abort my baby even if I was a part of my own bad decisions? Or if as a woman I work in a predominantly male oriented work environment then I demand equity in payment even if I can't quite do the same exact work that a man does? These are the things I think of when I heard this exchange. I must be too conservative, because even though I respect people who think this way, I am trying to be more modest even in my own present circumstances. Thank you for your podcasts. God bless Word on Fire.
Re comments at 8:46 about which "comes first". Bishop Barron does not clarify what is meant by "first" and my question would be why not: because the whole difficulty philosophically is summed up in the distinction. This is not only the distinction between essence and existence but what Sartre and others mean by it and why I believe they are wrong. The second distinction is the critical one in understanding essentialism and the problem . It is not a temporal "first" as we might consider in Sartre's work as existence. Essence comes first A PRIORI -- meaning that the objective values are first principles. They make meaning possible or another way of saying it "discoverable". Without such first principles it would be like trying to navigate at sea without the stars! Sartre gets caught in the a posteriori difficulty that the reference is specific to knowledge and reasoning so that “A priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how, or on what basis, a proposition might be known. In general terms, a proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience, while a proposition knowable a posteriori is knowable on the basis of experience. " But remember -- experience is temporal ! So the whole basis for existentialism is 'temporal' and based not just on freedom but freedom within experience of the world including sense experience and the like . The antidote to the existentialists and their false dichotomy between essence and existence, is Whitehead through an alternative perspective. Whitehead's "organic process" is a return to metaphysics, objective value and God, but it also incorporates a modern scientific perspective that is more true to reality. Whitehead responds to the philosophies of the 20th century that not only get us into these difficulties, and result in the atheism, nihilism and ennui of our current world, but also identifies the key on which it is all overturned : that everything is alive and pulsing with value. It is not dead "matter" at the base of understanding ourselves, God and the universe but "process". In other words "value"! I have heard Bishop Barron occasionally refer to Whitehead but not always in a friendly way . So I would ask Bishop Barron if you could read him again and in light of the dialogue that is philosophy through the ages, as Whitehead's response to philosophy gone astray in the 20th century . Recently in following Bishop Barron's reflections on objective values, the light bulb went on for me regarding Whitehead's meaning of "objective immortality" . I always thought this was a critique of personal immortality in the Christian tradition. I realized that I was caught in the temporal problem that the existentialist leave us with. But this insight open's up a whole new understanding of process in Whitehead's work . He is hard to read and difficult to understand but I encourage anyone with an interest in philosophy to tackle this last of the great metaphysicians. I am not sure how it can contribute to the work of evangelism in our times, but I know Whitehead's understanding of God in our lives is true to the Christian belief of the Holy Spirit at work in our lives as the comforter. For Whitehead, God is the Great Companion, the fellow sufferer who understands ... So I look forward to Bishop Barron's commentary and reflections once he has completed the philosophers with Foucault and can take a leap into Whitehead's work on this problem for our times.
I think the Bishop is stark in his depiction of Sartre’s view as necessarily adversarial to Classical Philosophy. I actually think he challenges the authoritarian PRACTICE that can be pharisaical and oppressive. Certainly post WW ll as the excesses perpetrated at the direction authoritarian leadership became known in their complete scope, his notion of taking a free, moral, stance over against authoritarian directives made and still does make sound sense.
A Priest said we can't laugh the people suffering cause they're supporting much as Jesús Christ at cross what happen if you'll get more pain to they??? They're already suffering what we got of they??? That's why the merciful God never hurt no one so if He was hurted at the ends at Earth before back cause his LOVE no have ends and now is between us reigning in our Hearts to the end of times too. We can't wait more or less than his LOVE. And we never had to laugh the suffering people cause Demons could back to see them and we must LOVE people suffering if we don't have a thing for they cause all back one family at Heaven without sufferings
Sartre confused freedom for libertinage. He and Simone de Beauvoir had a strange relationship: He was a womanizer and she an enabler (Epstein/Maxwell). "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." I don't know if they influenced the present moment or if the natural man without God is in darkness anyway. I was telling my sister-in-law some of the points in "The Strangest Way" and when I said, 'in curvatus in se', she looked very frightened as if I had spoken an incantation from Harry Potter.
His ideas create the burden and overwhelming sense that one is never good enough. This leads to sadness and crushing depression while one tries to strive for the unattainable. Only God can properly bring human potential to satisfying fulfillment.
Ce qui arrive avec la modernité, c'est que le Néant a tellement avancé et que l'essence divine a tellement reculé que tu viens à douter de la présence de Dieu. Qu'est-ce que le rien? L'argent, l'apparence, les vices de l'esprit, les vices de la chair, etc. Qu'est-ce que le néant-plein: un monastère bénédictin. Ils ont beau lire, ils ne comprennent pas. Le néant non remplie de Dieu, n'est que l'absence des transcendentaux!
If God is dead then all love is vain. What is" not there" is an absence of the heart .The objective value of all life is gone. Yikes all freedom is lost. !
My gosh, I can't tell everyone how happy I am to believe in God and not be as horribly lost and WRONG as Sartre!!!! Thank you Lord Jesus for being my shepherd!! 🙏🏼
Though at the end Sartre could not live like Sartre before he died he told his friend Benny Levy that: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
@@Autobotmatt428 praise God. And thank you so much for sharing this with me!!
@@Autobotmatt428 They say he converted to judaism in the last moments of his life...
@@adelinod.5568 I that is what Levy said he was leaning too. I guess Peter Kreeft was right Sartre was faking it.
@@adelinod.5568 Even then hopefully he truly accepted the Living God. At least one step in the right direction (if he wasn't faking it).
I read a lot of Sartre beginning in my Junior year of high school (1964-65). It was his novels and plays (Nausea and "No Exit" among the worst ) that turned me against him more than Being and Nothingness with all his blather about the cogito. In my senior year I encountered Goethe and my life was changed for the duration. I am 73 now and have never swayed from the "classical" view. I see mechanistic materialism as the poison pill that is killing this planet. I learned that from Goethe and the longer I live the more I am convinced he had pointed out the real culprit(the pact with Mephistopheles). Seeking power and domination of the world is a devil's bargain. Sounds a lot like Darth Vader.
In the end even Sartre couldn't live like Sartre. In an interview later in life before he died with Benny Lévy. Sartre had said and I quote "“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
❤
This was a truly wonderfully enlightening conversation. You guys touched on so many topics that made me rethink what I, a 54 year old man, had thought were some givens about life. Please keep up this excellent work! I know this is true of others but it is certainly true for me that you have taken a guy who was “side-swiped” by Catholicism and helped me grow my faith in a such a new and positive way. I am so glad I met you guys. God bless both of you and everyone involved in this mission.
I have 3 acquaintances (of very different backgrounds) who love Sartre’s existentialism and embrace it as their fundamental worldview. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence, but they are the 3 most arrogant people I’ve ever known.
I reckon there's a definite correlation between the two, Tom. Sartre's brand of existentialism is perhaps the most arrogant and self-centered philosophies around. I don't think even Nietzsche's Ubermensch philosophy comes close to Sartre's arrogance.
@@Nick-qf7vt Well to become an ubermensch, you actually have to prove the strength of the ideals you live by. Existentialists just basically go, “well it’s my truth, and if you don’t like it you can take a hike,” not realizing that a. they don’t live in a bubble and b. their thoughts and actions actually affect others.
@@angelaziegler6713 we are in high gear with the >>ME
I'm 69 years old, and have learnt St Catherine of Sienna's response to lack of prayer, violence and evil done to our neighbor, our closest neighbor, ourself, and our neighbor next to you. The fallen Gaul.. a curse on the Greco-Roman world.
🤣
I love learning from Bishop Barron and the good questions by Mr. Brandon Vogt. The Bishop's answers are always well-referenced and articulated to be understood clearly.
I hope to one day be in the presence of Bishop Barron and thank him.
God bless him and Word on Fire ministries 🙏❤️✝️
Thank you Bishop Barron and Brandon, GOD bless you both. Stay safe. ➕ ❤
In an interview later in life before he died with Benny Lévy. Sartre had said and I quote "“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
I explored "existentialism" in my day. I have a copy and read "Being and Nothingness" (a ramble on nonsense) by Sartre, really I dragged myself to finish it. I was vindicated when I read Sartre himself said it was bull.. Looking forward to watching this. I have to go to the market but will be back. Respect Bishop Barron.
God bless. Each Bishop as best as they can... bishop! Synods are for, matters of ideas. God bless.
How many people are that “creative”per self invention…..is it simply an entry into super selfishness in the guise of finding my true authenticity…..I was fed this philosophy in college….I wrote paper after paper on this stuff…..those de la Salle brothers really nailed Christ to my heart….I was being reeled back in for years ….thank God …….I wrote good papers but it was always a subject not a belief….thank you for an exceptional episode
Its a challenge too in bringing your life in line with objective values.
Something that I really hope gets brought up about Sartre and Foucault is that *they both petitioned the French government to lower the age of consent to 12!*
Out of the four philosophers you are covering in this series (Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault) these last two, although the least well known, are probably my least favourite of the bunch.
If you think that's bad, Republicans in America have gone much further.
@@mr.loveandkindness3014 Give me an explicit example. Or do you just make it your business to say things without any proof?
Sartre and his girl Simone were freakin degenerates, other existentialists like Camus immediately dropped them as friends and colleagues once they found out. As they should.
I mean Friedrich Nietzsche is kind of the only one here who didn’t either actively advocate for horrible things, or whose philosophy didn’t directly lead to horrible things, Marx made some good points about the inherently unequal relationship between labor and capital but his ideology has also killed more people than any other in human history, and enough has been said about the other two you referenced above that were I to use the proper words to describe them RUclips Susan would get mad at me.
Yes, Foucault was a major ped0
Fascinating and important!
Concerning "proper self-love", if we wish to act in our will for the selfless good of the other, then we must be capable of offering our actions and life. That requires self-love and care or we'll be incapable of acting in love for others.
As Bp Barron said - that is our "gift" for others.
Love you, Bishop. Good bless and thank you.
Good stuff! Thank you Bishop, all the best to you in MN.
The idea of self invention reminds me of patent law. One of the reasons patents expire is because that knowledge does not stand on its own. The invention is an innovation, it is the temporary peak of a giant mountain of prior ideas, inventions, philosophies, sciences, ect that preceded it and made it possible. A human lifetime is not long enough to invent everything from language to fire to electricity to cell phones. It is critically reliant on what became before it.
I would argue that a human cannot truly invent themselves because who we are and what we believe is largely made up of that which came before us. It is by definition not self created. Our biology and DNA also are out of our control and span back generations and ultimately back to that which is not conditional. We are not our own god, and to believe this is narcissistic and self delusional. It completely lack humility, which creates a distorted image what is. It is a belief in the worst god imaginable, ourselves.
I agree with you way more than one thumbs up!!
@@TheMDelima thanks
We also cannot invent ourselves as our knowledge and intellect is so limited. We can scarcely know who we even are, the deepest layers of our mind. So how can we achieve anything other than failure if we try to invent ourselves?
The only path to success is by taking the person who is infallible and sees all, and conforming ourselves to that.
@@kelly4187 Or we can attempt transhumanism
Though one may not be the originator of every element of what he/she believes or becomes, there exists fundamentally the freedom and liberty to choose! One can put themselves together in all kinds of various arrangements. As musicians and artists reinterpret the work and influence of previous artists while creating their own work, so too a human being chooses what to believe, what to value and ultimately what to become within the constraints of their own abilities, interests and genetics. Thus uniquely inventing themselves or not.
For example was Picasso a genius? John Lennon a genius, Leonardo da Vinci a genius? How about Issac Newton? At various points though there is a first time when something is new and original. Most of us will never know that kind of genius. Picasso said "good artists borrow great artist steal". Is he a genius who invented himself? Is his work not genius though he may have borrowed or even stolen from previous artists? But it is our uniqueness, our ability to choose that makes us human. " If a man can not choose he ceases to be a man" Anthony Burgess.
God is only a anthropomorphic projection of ourselves. If we don't create ourselves then we can say the burden of responsibility for who we are lies with God and that can't be right can it?
A wonderful talk, engaging and enlightening. My sincere hope is that many young people will listen and .... start thinking about the 'freedoms' they believe in.
Brilliant, excellent, revealing, and exactingly understandable.
Yes, Brandon. Nothingness means that its for me, alone, to fill in the tabula rasa.
Just throwing it out there: an epilogue on Camus would be awesome. A series on Huysmans would be amazing.
I'd like a second series of this which is essentially "now let's talk about philosophers who DIDN'T get it all wrong"
Great discussion as always and very helpful in seeing just how deeply Sartre is today, especially in the idea of reinvention, that so many are doing to themselves now. Would be great if you could do one more of these videos on Freud too. Thank you.
From what little I know of Kierkegaard, he provides the door through the battle line that Bishop presents at the end. We are radically, wildly free, and we radically, freely give ourselves to God.
Pop
P
From my understanding of Kierkegaard, that’s actually when we become free. I know this is not the consensus in the analytical tradition, but I don’t consider Kierkegaard an existentialist (in the Sartre’s sense; existence proceeds essence).
@@mariog1490 I took that point from the Great Courses lectures on Existentialism. He put Kierkegaard up as a forerunner to the Existentialists and linked them on the theme of radical self-responsibility. I'm not learned enough to adjudicate the claim, so thanks for another bit of understanding.
@@mariog1490 Kirkengaard is probably better thought of as a proto existentialist. A lot of his ideas mesh with it, though he's unique in that he was one of the only religious ones.
It is a philosophy of empty freedom. That is to say, Sartre seems to enshrine what Cassirer called "negative freedom," which is a "freedom from." But for freedom to be meaningful, it must have a double aspect. Human freedom consists not only in a "freedom from" but also a "freedom for." For this more adequate understanding of freedom, one ought to turn to St. Paul.
God bless us as when listen. Amen😃
This series is right on point. I have been explaining this to friends (in a much more casual way.) one question: does the current generation even know who are their philosophical influencers are? If not, and I think not, how does these deep philosophical currents get embedded in society? I think it is from the infiltration of our education system; without teaching specific philosophers. It is (has become) the philosophical bedrock of faculty. This began with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. Marxist revolution from within.
People turn up their nose at philosophy as "pointless navel gazing". This has been the greatest success of those who wished to weaponise their ideologies.
Monseigneur Barron,
Merci mille fois ! Vous parlez toujour en bonne foi! Comme vous j'adore la langue francaise et je suis americaine.
I thought this was interesting about Sartre that he refused to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature on the grounds it would be "inauthentic" for him to do so.
One loves one's self as he loves his neighbor.
"If you're lonely when you're alone, you're in bad company." *- Jean-Paul Sartre*
“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.” - Jean-Paul Sartre in conversation with Benny Levy before his death.
That indeed was God at work in Sartre's soul. God rest him.
Thanks ever so much @@Autobotmatt428 for your gracious presence here.
I saw what you did there!
@@EcstaticTemporality
I amn't getting a clue as to what you are referring to and whom are you addressing.
@@marypinakat8594 Thank you. God Bless you to
I'm sitting down in a world-class philosophy course, free on RUclips...it don't get much better than that.
Man O Man
Sending gratitude; and, looking forward to seeing the new episode ✓
Replayed several of the suggested video episodes on this topic by B R Barron. They are very connected, with cohesiveness, without contradiction and show a progression or development of theological themes. The themes are the enduring heresy of gnosticism and Irenaeus on unity.
Sartre's book 'Nausea' sums up what I see as his philosophy. As a woman, I can definitely identify with the experience of the nausea I felt when my body was becoming conscious of a pregnancy, a new being growing within me.
Thank God for the brilliance of these beings educating me on classical philosphical traditions in contradistinction qith puresl secular human ideas. This could be synthesized into God gives existence with essence, but man must know and recognize how to do it in authentic manner relying in God but do the action himself to achieve the good, the beautifu and the best version of himself, not simply by instinct feelings.
In the end even Sartre could not live like Sartre
In an interview later in life before he died with Benny Lévy. Sartre had said and I quote "“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
Thank you Bishop. As always, your teachings will guide so many of us.
Really appreciate this video.
Great little primer on Existentialism! Like the Bishop this old moss-backed Lutheran never liked it much either.
Great!!! Thank you.
Hold strong Bishop 🌹
Good morning Bishop
Bishop Barron will u help teach me the rosary
Barron is one of the sanest people on youtube, maybe even #1.
Felicidades por sus lecciones de filosofía. Teólogo y filósofo.
Like if Catholicism is the true religion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
No. I’m not doing that just because you told me to.
@@curiouschris98 well, then you're a heretic
Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ.
I wish when I got caught up in existentialism that I knew that Sarte himself repented, concluded he was a created being and according to some sources was visited by a priest prior to death. Camus also apparently questioned his existentialism as well….
Thank you for your dedication to study and sharing your sharing if "words". Satres own philosophy humansism essentialism to live where God is gone is hopless. Jesus came to earth to give us faith. Thank u for preaching Sartes essence is false..
What is wrong with Satre's idea of freedom: removing all barriers to our inner desires?
I don't hear enough critics say what is actually wrong with this idea.
I think I found the answer in C S Lewis' book "The Abolition of Man". Combined with Rene Girard's Mimetic theory.
The answer is that our inner desires don't spontaneously arise out of our personal character or rational choices. Our desire itself is shaped by external forces. So if we just devote ourselves to fulfilling our desires, we are not at all free but instead slaves to the forces that shape our desires.
One thing I would add is how Logos and/or the intelligibility and order of the universe goes out the window aswell, and with it not just objective morality but even science. Science then becomes purely pragmatic and nothing necessarily to do with reality as it is. We can only see the world through a highly subjective and biased lense and therefore have no way of knowing if what we see is reality or just images our brains make in response to stimuli.
Unless you read Whitehead and his understanding of the "superject" as seeing the universe with these great first principles guiding the subjective view.
@@diannefitzmaurice9813 sounds like a person, so I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel on this matter. God mediates the mind and reality towards truth. That is the classical understanding atleast and the weight of it is compelling
... the private subjective unrestrained freedom often becomes tragic upon collision with others and the world.
Gracias
The Lack of Acceptance is a key factor in what is happening with today's youth; the inability to accept the elements of our existence that are out of our own control.
Lol! In reference to some of your first comments, the Church's first birthday was technically in the Upper Room? So yeah it did not have its universities at that time! It is wonderful how she has grown in His wisdom and grace!
This is a difficult topic and I think Bp. Barron explained it well, considering the limitations of this format. It would be interesting if Bishop talked of more philosophers.
This is 3/4 in a series, so yes - there's more.
As always 🙏🙏❤️
This is a great, positive summary of Sartre and his main ideas, thank you. It’s also useful to think of Sartre from a historical perspective, coming at the end of 30 years of war that included interminable horrors from Verdun to Auschwitz. His thinking was as much a brave, but also exhausted, response to unconscionable events as it was to philosophical currents.
PRAYER TO MARY, QUEEN OF THE ANGELS
[ August Queen of Heaven Prayer ]
An Indulgence of 500 days.
(S. C. Ind., July 8, 1908; S. P. Ap., Mar. 28, 1935)
August Queen of Heaven and Mistress of the Angels, thou who hast received from God the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan: we humbly ask thee to send to us thy heavenly legions so that, under thy command, they may pursue the demons let loose upon the earth, fight them everywhere, vanquish their audacity, and drive them back into the abyss.
“Who is like unto God?”
O good and tender Mother, thou shalt ever be our love and our hope.
O divine Mother, send the Holy Angels to defend us [me] and repel far from us [me] the cruel enemy.
Holy Angels and Archangels, defend and keep us. Amen.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PRAYER
[Please Read]
The faithful are asked to say this prayer frequently and fervently. It is of great importance given the following remarkable background:
[1] The prayer was dictated by the Blessed Mother herself to the holy and venerable priest, Fr. Louis-Édouard Cestac, on January 13, 1863 as a means to combat the powers of Hell.
[2] An exorcism prayer in itself, this is a formidable prayer for “spiritual battle” especially needed for our times when the ravages caused by the fallen angels are everywhere conspicuous and unrelenting.
[3] It is a prayer approved by the Church: It was recommended to the faithful by Pope Pius IX, and later indulgenced by both Popes Leo XIII and Pius X.
Prayers of the Auxilium Christianorum - Fr. Chad A Ripperger
Mother of Charity of Christ, Mother of Prayer of Christ and Stigma of Christ, Immaculate Conception and Graceful and Immanuel and Blessed Lady within Lady
Can you do this with Kant’s metaphysics of morals and the categorical imperative?
No doubt.
Seguramente me salgo del tema, pero ahora mismo pienso en mi trabajo como artista.
Ahora rezo cada día porque mi trabajo sea reflejo de mi amor por Dios.
"Señor: no me permitas hacer algo que te ofenda. Permite que mi trabajo lleve Tú Luz a donde vaya.
Entonces, el "lienzo en blanco" ya no es angustia ni es "la nada"
Gracias Obispo.
Que Dios lo bendiga
Word. Existentialism is one of the main stairs leading to atheism.
17:38 can i say instead that ,The divinity that each of us can be graced to steward in life, if we choose to,is the representation of the ultimate objective value?
Selon Anselme, le néant est plein de l'essence divine....
There's a right and a wrong way to break from tradition. The scribes and the Pharisees abused tradition for their own ill-gotten gain but John the Baptist came into the picture to restore God's people to what existed before. John came, then our blessed Lord, then the apostles. It was not a total abolition of tradition, but more of a restoration and traditionally rooted continuation.
Sartre’s pre-supposition is not the inexistence of God as a starting point; for Sartre the « I » wills freely that God does not exist. That pre-condition bestows onto the « I » the full authority and responsibility to equate its existence to the essence it wills. Thus existence begets essence. If I may complete your answer, bishop, as to Sartre’s « positive » contribution, could it be that authentic faith is based on the subject’s supreme authority and responsibility to choose God freely rather than the « tree » as the foundational point of existence, then, through and with God’s grace, align my beingness to His being. « BE perfect as your Father in heaven IS perfect. »
Lévis Shalom
The main obvious downside to existentialism is that as a totally individual enterprise, it quickly degenerates into being locked in conversation with yourself. You have a blank canvas to paint your values on, but all you can do is point at it while other existentialist individuals say “that’s nice.”
"...you hold her ; I'll run for HELP...!" (responsibility?)
"...tonight it will rain in Bouville..."
"Do your own thing" was the 60's society mantra. Now, 50 years later we see how hollow our lives are; like chewing gum that has lost it's flavor.
How can we talk to our youth in regards to what they are learning in our schools
Hume's radical skepticism
Even in aworld where nobody believed in god we are still God's children we are part of god and return to god,all that is is god the blind and deafness jesus continues to talk of his jesus understanding of us we can't see the father, because of ego vanity and pride in our own self
What should be obvious is people believe in truth, those things which concern them in their life, institutional belief is to agree to believe that which you don't believe round the kitchen table.
Enemy ever be as suffering people cause is suffering at all on something can't fix they must be LOVED sure
How can we get Bernardo Kastrup Bishop Barron on a show!
You’re way above my head!!
But, thanks anyway!!
You're not missing anything. If it sounds like gibberish, it's because it is gibberish. Confusion is not of the Lord and those philosophers were just trying to justify their immoral lives and sell books. I'm not impressed by any of them. Time would be better spent studying the Word of God.
To me phenomenology is... mostly mindfulness. That's my brand of phenomenology. Sartre was... a WWII veteran who seemed to get to some level of truth... my knowledge stops here, unfortunately. Nietzsche who seemed to start this current was, on the other hand, a philologist and he was the one to nail it properly in Thus Spake... All of these things got terribly mystified after those people passed away..... In any case, "L'enfer c'est les autres" means a lot and is straight-forward: Hell is them!!! The people that call themselves "we" :))
Few lived a more bourgeois life than Jean Paul Sartre who (he said, wink, wink) wished to destroy the bourgeoisie.
We have very compelling evidence that both Sartre (and Camus) came to believe in God. Eric Metaxas paints a vibrant picture in his most recent book: Is Atheism Dead? Highly recommend. If you're an Audible member you can listen for free in the Plus Catalogue.
👑🐪🕊
There Is only one God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Three parts ONE God.
People have three parts, the body, the soul and the spirit, three parts, ONE person.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21
Your trust in Jesus and His shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins, is what saves you from hell.
The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Then, you should be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
God isn’t 3 parts.
The Holy Trinity is 3 Persons in One Godhead:
God the Father (1st Person);
God the Son (2nd Person);
& God the Holy Spirit (3rd Person).
The body is reflective of this as we are made in the image of God.
What is the difference between spirit and soul?
2:5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. 9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. 10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. 11 There is no partiality with God.
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
@@parishvicar7612
I’m sorry. Whom are you addressing?
It’s not clear from your post.
@@kainosktisis777 The one presenting a narrowly Pauline, and non-sacramental, understanding of soteriology.
the new location makes his voice sound lower.
I find that the genius of God seems to make it that the more intellectually intelligent a person seems to get the more spiritually stupid they become.
Perhaps this is why children and the poor are the first to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Isn't true, Bishop Barron that through Sarte's teaching, we have come upon a 20th century "It's all about ME" kind of social struggle? For example not too long ago, we went back to the Acclamation of Faith, I believe, instead of We believe? And of course there's a messy version of feminists with the "Me Too" movement. I have the right to do with my own body whatsoever I choose, including the right to abort my baby even if I was a part of my own bad decisions? Or if as a woman I work in a predominantly male oriented work environment then I demand equity in payment even if I can't quite do the same exact work that a man does? These are the things I think of when I heard this exchange. I must be too conservative, because even though I respect people who think this way, I am trying to be more modest even in my own present circumstances. Thank you for your podcasts. God bless Word on Fire.
A priest talking about Sartre? Now this is advanced.
❤️
Re comments at 8:46 about which "comes first". Bishop Barron does not clarify what is meant by "first" and my question would be why not: because the whole difficulty philosophically is summed up in the distinction. This is not only the distinction between essence and existence but what Sartre and others mean by it and why I believe they are wrong. The second distinction is the critical one in understanding essentialism and the problem . It is not a temporal "first" as we might consider in Sartre's work as existence. Essence comes first A PRIORI -- meaning that the objective values are first principles. They make meaning possible or another way of saying it "discoverable". Without such first principles it would be like trying to navigate at sea without the stars! Sartre gets caught in the a posteriori difficulty that the reference is specific to knowledge and reasoning so that “A priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how, or on what basis, a proposition might be known. In general terms, a proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience, while a proposition knowable a posteriori is knowable on the basis of experience. " But remember -- experience is temporal ! So the whole basis for existentialism is 'temporal' and based not just on freedom but freedom within experience of the world including sense experience and the like . The antidote to the existentialists and their false dichotomy between essence and existence, is Whitehead through an alternative perspective. Whitehead's "organic process" is a return to metaphysics, objective value and God, but it also incorporates a modern scientific perspective that is more true to reality. Whitehead responds to the philosophies of the 20th century that not only get us into these difficulties, and result in the atheism, nihilism and ennui of our current world, but also identifies the key on which it is all overturned : that everything is alive and pulsing with value. It is not dead "matter" at the base of understanding ourselves, God and the universe but "process". In other words "value"! I have heard Bishop Barron occasionally refer to Whitehead but not always in a friendly way . So I would ask Bishop Barron if you could read him again and in light of the dialogue that is philosophy through the ages, as Whitehead's response to philosophy gone astray in the 20th century . Recently in following Bishop Barron's reflections on objective values, the light bulb went on for me regarding Whitehead's meaning of "objective immortality" . I always thought this was a critique of personal immortality in the Christian tradition. I realized that I was caught in the temporal problem that the existentialist leave us with. But this insight open's up a whole new understanding of process in Whitehead's work . He is hard to read and difficult to understand but I encourage anyone with an interest in philosophy to tackle this last of the great metaphysicians. I am not sure how it can contribute to the work of evangelism in our times, but I know Whitehead's understanding of God in our lives is true to the Christian belief of the Holy Spirit at work in our lives as the comforter. For Whitehead, God is the Great Companion, the fellow sufferer who understands ... So I look forward to Bishop Barron's commentary and reflections once he has completed the philosophers with Foucault and can take a leap into Whitehead's work on this problem for our times.
What about La Nausee
❤️🙏❤️🙏
Pastor jole Osteen church you give sermon so nice pastor sahib
I think the Bishop is stark in his depiction of Sartre’s view as necessarily adversarial to Classical Philosophy. I actually think he challenges the authoritarian PRACTICE that can be pharisaical and oppressive. Certainly post WW ll as the excesses perpetrated at the direction authoritarian leadership became known in their complete scope, his notion of taking a free, moral, stance over against authoritarian directives made and still does make sound sense.
A Priest said we can't laugh the people suffering cause they're supporting much as Jesús Christ at cross what happen if you'll get more pain to they??? They're already suffering what we got of they??? That's why the merciful God never hurt no one so if He was hurted at the ends at Earth before back cause his LOVE no have ends and now is between us reigning in our Hearts to the end of times too. We can't wait more or less than his LOVE. And we never had to laugh the suffering people cause Demons could back to see them and we must LOVE people suffering if we don't have a thing for they cause all back one family at Heaven without sufferings
Sartre confused freedom for libertinage. He and Simone de Beauvoir had a strange relationship: He was a womanizer and she an enabler (Epstein/Maxwell). "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." I don't know if they influenced the present moment or if the natural man without God is in darkness anyway. I was telling my sister-in-law some of the points in "The Strangest Way" and when I said, 'in curvatus in se', she looked very frightened as if I had spoken an incantation from Harry Potter.
His ideas create the burden and overwhelming sense that one is never good enough. This leads to sadness and crushing depression while one tries to strive for the unattainable. Only God can properly bring human potential to satisfying fulfillment.
For too many " self-invention" means bullying and brutal cancellation.
Ce qui arrive avec la modernité, c'est que le Néant a tellement avancé et que l'essence divine a tellement reculé que tu viens à douter de la présence de Dieu. Qu'est-ce que le rien? L'argent, l'apparence, les vices de l'esprit, les vices de la chair, etc. Qu'est-ce que le néant-plein: un monastère bénédictin. Ils ont beau lire, ils ne comprennent pas. Le néant non remplie de Dieu, n'est que l'absence des transcendentaux!
Size disparity?
If God is dead then all love is vain. What is" not there" is an absence of the heart .The objective value of all life is gone. Yikes all freedom is lost. !
If Kierkegaard espoused the same same existentialist dictum that "existence precedes essence", how might he have handled the gender issues today?
Well it’s quite obvious the guy had a complete misunderstanding of freedom and that his ideas continue to pull people into anarchy.
Jeremiah chapter 9 verse about 23 _26
Happy Aniversary Huánuco city! Thanks You God Father for all beloveds at eternity and than never fault You ✨🍿🎂🥰❄️🎊🍝😁🍳🍓🤣😋🍞🥳🌮🍇🍩🔥😜🥪🍼🌭☕🍮🍟💌👑💐💗💘😍🥲😇👼😭😘