21 күн бұрын
Жыл бұрын
Жыл бұрын
Жыл бұрын
Жыл бұрын
Жыл бұрын
Жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@36cmbr 8 күн бұрын
Tackling Kant & Murdoch simultaneously. Bold by permit.
@whatsrealin 14 күн бұрын
Pain and suffering are different
@gpxavier 14 күн бұрын
I agree, but how would you define the difference?
@whatsrealin 13 күн бұрын
Pain is bodily whereas suffering is ego-based
@Whixx 8 күн бұрын
Pain is natural, and suffering is self-induced. You can't avoid pain. Suffering is a choice.
@zeroonetime 18 күн бұрын
Pain and Joy I.S. Life-Force forcing your 010 binary consciousness.
@zeroonetime 18 күн бұрын
The end of Time I.S. The Eternal NOW ~ T.E.N. ~ 010 dimensions 1 Timing @ the end o Time ~ The Eternal NOW ~ T.E.N. ~ 010 dimensions Creation Evolution Entropy 1 2 3 a b c 010 From 0 we come to 0 we g0 We need to STAND_under to Understand 010 Synaptic Neutral ~~ Neurons .. QM: Time is Timeless 010 Matter anti Matter ~ Time I.S. Illusions Timing Reality. Infinite potentials = Enfinite Possibilities = QM x GR = M ind C apacity-2 Space Time ~ Self-Creation Electro-magnetic stream of Thought, Imagination, consciousness 010 Telepathy = Gravitational Propulsion Services. GPS .. n0 beginning n0 ends. Everything begins and ends, 010 packets of self-creation 01 self destroy light iN Dark Matter n0 "matter" Nothing lasts forever, only nothing can last forever, all at 10nce iN T.E.N. d. I.S. what I.S. INFINITY SQUARED. Uni-verse of 01 singularities. Always the same Butt different. Are zeros constant ? Are ones constant? Is Change constant? Is Life and Death constant on switch, Infinite Potentials. Yes and thank U & U so much.
@Lalisa-ms1uv 19 күн бұрын
Thank you for your videos!!
@dragonskinavi 26 күн бұрын
Thanks for your video. KZbin U.G was my 'guide & counsellor' for almost a decade..these days i only watch a video or two of him when i need a 'reality check.' i can only say that U.G helped lighten the load i was carrying all my life...and helped me see through concepts such as reality, family, love, anger, and so much more. And i owe him thanks for that, though he was just a dog barking (his own words) haha
@awakenotwoke7949 27 күн бұрын
Thank you for your views on U.G. I find his "dead" words are alive with "meaning ". Some aspects of enlightenment are the realization that there is no intrinsic meaning to Life. The unbearably painful undoing of all one's delusions about reality. The self is only a mentally constructed convenience to function in society, and not intrinsically real either. Enlightenment is merely an attempt at creating a wildly unrealistic , all or nothing, utopian makeover of life. How Life should be, as we blithely reflect how it actually is. Enlightenment is free, but it will cost you everything. Enlightened living is definitely an acquired taste.
@PeterStrider Ай бұрын
Thank you G.P.Xavier for this really clear and helpful summary of Scheler's ethical model and hierarchy of values. I was interested in learning more about Scheler on account of the work of Iain McGilchrist who has a profound philosophy of mind and life based around what is decribed as the "hemisphere hypothesis". Following your video in light of McGilchrist's analysis of the different attentional focus of the left and ight hemispheres is very illuminating. Scheler in particular seems to have a very profound and practical phenomenology. I have ordered this book as well as the Human Place in the Cosmos. Then I will move on to see what was the approach of another intellectual hero, Karol Wojtyla, in his PhD dissertation on Scheler's ethics. A really fruitful rabbit-hole to explore. Thank you again!
@gpxavier Ай бұрын
Thank you for the feedback - I'm glad it was helpful! I also plan to read Human Place in the Cosmos soon and to make a video on it and comparing his middle and later philosophy 🙂
@xaviervelascosuarez 2 ай бұрын
33:35 Re-incarnation is the Charybdis from a Christian point of view because of what you just said: it's de-personalizing. And it is so precisely because it undermines the uniqueness of the human experience and because it ultimately turns human freedom into a pantomime. The uniqueness of the human person hinges on identity, and identity is built upon and developed along relationships. I am who I am, first of all, because I am the second child of Jorge and Martha and the first brother of Santiago: these are the relationships pre-established for me that made me unique, that gave me my basic identity, as the foundation on which to build my ultimate identity. The Christian program is utterly dependent upon the possibility of establishing an eternal and unbreakable relationship of love with our Creator (the one relationship that constitutes the end in the building of our identities, or our ultimate identity). This final destination is pre-figured and signaled by the Sacrament of Marriage. This is why the Christian wedding ceremony puts so much emphasis on the personal identities of the spouses: they are unique and irreplaceable, just as each one of us is unique and irreplaceable to God. The marriage symbol is also very keen in preserving personal freedom, and the Catholic Church declares null any liason where the freedom of the assent has been compromised. Freedom, understood as the full ownership of the self, is indispensable insofar as this relationship of love between creature and Creator requires the total mutual self-giving, and nobody can give what is not theirs. Indeed, the capacity of fully disposing of something is the hallmark of ownership: only the owner can sell the house, only the owner can make the decision to irrevocably cede his/her right. Re- Incarnation, or the allowance for an infinite number of tries before the sale of the house is considered irrevocable, is incompatible with true ownership. If the sale is only valid when the seller fulfills the conditions set by another, he was never the true owner of the house. An infinite number of chances till you get it right and give your life to God would effectively cancel your freedom. And it would jeopardize the legitimacy of all those who get it right at first try. You can't possibly be truly free if only one decision will be accepted. Are you really free to marry your wife if you know you will not be allowed to marry anybody else?
@gpxavier Ай бұрын
Thanks for that profound comment, Xavier. Those are interesting links to the Sacrament of Marriage: both the necessity for freedom and (in Catholic thought, at least; if freely chosen) irrevocability. I still think that, in the context of Fr. De Young's talk, reincarnation isn't the 'Charybdis,' because it isn't the opposite to the 'Scylla' of gnosticism-Nietzsche's idea of the eternal return of all things is, because it preserves everything just as it is.
@arono9304 2 ай бұрын
I'm curious if you also wonder (part of me does) whether all this talk about what exactly happens after we die (I'm including Fr. Stephen DeYoung's comments) is rather left-brained in McGilchrist's sense? As this thought occurred to me, I became curious to see if McGilchrist himself stated anything about it. I think you'll find this rare occasion of him writing on it from _The Matter with Things_ interesting, I certainly did: _"But if, whatever that strange thing one calls one’s consciousness may be, it does not end at death - and nobody can be certain that it does - but persists in some form at which we can only guess, there is a real chance that an afterlife might be worse, not just better. I have experienced places in the universe that are real, but not reassuring. Faith is not simply comforting, but puts before one the full tremendousness of being, its meaning and its consequences. If one is a materialist, then there is no meaning in death, apart from the negation of life. Such people live in the comforting thought that life is meaningless, and has only personal consequences or none; then death, too, must be meaningless, and the quicker its acknowledgment is over, and the less grief there is, the better. But if life has meaning, death has meaning, and if death has meaning, so does life. They interpenetrate one another, and to be anaesthetised to this is to be deceived. ‘The fact, and only the fact, that we are mortal, that our lives are finite, that our time is restricted and our possibilities are limited, this fact is what makes it meaningful to do something, to exploit a possibility and make it become a reality, to fulfil it’, wrote Viktor Frankl. And he continued:_ "Death is a meaningful part of life, just like human suffering. Both do not rob the existence of human beings of meaning but make it meaningful in the first place. Thus, it is precisely the uniqueness of our existence in the world, the irretrievability of our lifetime, and the irrevocability of everything with which we fill it - or fail to fill it - that give significance to our existence." _It may, actually, matter how one lives one’s life, because we may play a part in the coming into Being of whatever is, and we cannot separate ourselves from whatever is, perhaps for ever._ Something depends on our way of being, and it is not just we ourselves. _In a world where no-one can avoid the experience of suffering we know that it is a real part of consciousness: suffering is a central element, not just in Christianity, but in Buddhism, and no doubt in most, if not all, religions. So the how of life, not just the what - its mere existence or non-existence, huge as that is - matters: it has a value and price we cannot fully conceive. Similarly one life and all life are reflected in one another, as we would see if we looked into the gems of Indra’s net. Life requires death; death is the friend of life, not its foe. Goethe wrote: ‘all that is to persist in being must dissolve to nothing’. According to historian of religion Mircea Eliade, myths from all over the world convey the mutual sustenance of death and life: ‘in countless variants’, there is a widespread myth that ‘the world and life could not come to birth except by the slaying of an amorphous Being.’ In one of Goethe’s greatest poems, he writes: ‘“Die - and so continue into being!” As long as you fail to see this, you are no more than a forlorn guest on the dark earth.’ The Latin word_ homo _is related to_ humus, _the earth, and to_ humilis, _humble; and man is ‘made of the dust of the earth’. Another ancient word for man is the Sanskrit_ marta, _‘he who dies’, cognate with Latin_ mortalis. _I understand the Christian belief in the redemption of death through God’s own suffering to mean that death is not an end, but plays a part - like the intermediate phase of destruction, of fragmentation, of the shattering of the vessels - in the greater story of repair and restoration; a story that is both mine and not mine, taking place in the immensity of a living cosmos where the part and the whole are as one, yet without the loss of the meaning of the part that is each one of us. Or so it seems to me."_
@sirasksalot8282 2 ай бұрын
That's a great quotation even though it is wordy. Eric Weinstein talks a lot about what he calls portals. The idea is that there is a period of transition an growth that is difficult and in some sense violent, especially if you refuse to pass through willingly. He uses the Exodus as an example. I find that idea useful hear. Death is, as far as we can see, our greatest portal. It connects also with Jesus words "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." I appreciate your thoughts.
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
That's a beautiful quote; I don't think there's anything in it I'd disagree with. What's the chapter/page number, by the way? I do think exploring the question of what happens after we die is important, however. The existence and nature of an afterlife can have tremendous practical effects in this life, positive or negative. In relation to the specific subject I'm wrestling with: the belief in a life after death devoid of suffering and violence is important because it grounds an ethic (the Christian ethic) in which suffering and violence are ultimately evil (note the 'ultimately'). The Nietzschean contention is that this has tremendously negative practical effects, over time, because it is misaligned with the basic nature of life and reality. Even if we forego an analytic exploration of the afterlife, we're still left with the question of values. I would say the exploration of the question of eternal life can illuminate the the question of values-of how to act in and relate to this life. My current hunch is that the Christian belief in life after death is an abstraction of certain elements of this life, which can't actually be separated from the complex, temporal, temporary, morally ambivalent whole which is this life. Likewise, Christian values... Thus it may be valuable to indulge in some left-brained critical analysis (as McGilchrist does) of a left-brained abstracted view precisely in order to put it back in its proper right-brained place.
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
@@sirasksalot8282 I think there are problems identifying the individual subject with our individual sense of self; in this I am in sympathy with Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. And because of this, I think I can agree with you that we should treat death as our greatest portal, though without believing in an individual afterlife. It is perhaps the life (or Life, or 'God') that lives through 'me' that grows through my individual life and death.
@arono9304 2 ай бұрын
@@gpxavier Thank you! Just to refer you to the correct page number: I have the e-book version, but this should probably be clear enough: Vol. II / Part III "THE UNFORESEEN NATURE OF REALITY" - Chapter 28 of _The Matter with Things_ "The Sense of the Sacred," (pp. 1193-1304) under "WHY IT MATTERS" (specifically the last two pages of the subsection "Religion or spirituality: a matter of societal flourishing?") right before the final subsection of the chapter (on "EVIL") Footnotes 341-344 are relevant for this quote.
@arono9304 2 ай бұрын
While I'm not yet convinced Christianity grounds existence moralistically, it is worth asking how Nietzsche grounds existence, and whether he really affirms it all, or is also "selective" in his own way. We've already been discussing psychological theodicy and his "aesthetic justification for life," but consider also _Antichrist_ §2: _"What is good?-Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. What is evil?-Whatever springs from weakness. What is happiness?-The feeling that power increases-that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?-Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak-Christianity...."_ Something to discuss with you later perhaps!
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
Nietzsche is certainly selective for power and against 'the weak and the botched'. I think he wrestles with and overcomes the poisonous emotional force of that on a personal level (or at least, goes some way toward this) in Zarathustra: on the deepest level he affirms all that is weak and botched, inasmuch as they exist and are part of the whole picture of life. Yet he still expresses these strong sentiments in later writing. I think we have to see this particular selectivity as reflecting his view of life itself: life affirms all that is while, at exactly the same time, it ruthlessly selects-and precisely on the basis of power, energy, efficiency, fitness, etc. Because life's nature selects based on power, while at the same time affirming all that is-so does the individual Nietzsche. It's not an arbitrary view or preference, but grounded in the nature of things. Likewise, if the nature of life or reality is self-sacrificial love... so with Christ and the individual Christian.
@arono9304 2 ай бұрын
I shared with you the fact of feeling less engaged later in the talk as opposed to earlier in the talk. Thank you for the valuable analysis. It seems to me that it's conceivable, still, to interpret Fr. Stephen DeYoung more charitably by e.g. distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary suffering? So (this is not meant as a "gotcha" at all, I'm genuinely curious): In the business of affirming the whole of sin too, do you affirm the r*ping of the r*pist, child p*rn*gr*phy, eternally? If not, why not?
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
It's a good question. The truest but perhaps least helpful answer is: no, because I don't currently affirm anything eternally, because I'm not a convinced Nietzschean and haven't yet tried in any really deep way to live that worldview. But to inhabit it for a moment, at least in imagination: the answer has to be yes. There is horror there, sure-perhaps enough to drive one mad, if one really dwells on it. Likewise, I know that there are forms of affliction I could directly suffer that would effectively destroy me, just as there are uncountable things that could happen to destroy me physically. But if the only alternative is eternal nonbeing, the universe never arising-do you choose that instead? If to say say yes to existence is to say yes to all that is possible, those are the options we have (or refusing to choose). I would take some solace in the fact that literal eternal return is no longer cosmologically viable. Lives as 4D objects in spacetime is perhaps the best way of expressing the same idea in current physics, but it's subtly different in the sense that these lives aren't really occurring again and again, they just are, they happen 'once' and then they 'end'-from 'within' that life everything happens once and then ends, even though objectively they remain, if you will, timelessly real. Finally, we must be careful to distinguish the kind of affirmation we can apply to existence itself from the kinds of affirmation we can apply within existence (or particular domains of existence). Affirming everything need not be to morally affirm it. I think that one can morally deny something at the same time that, on a deeper level, one affirms it as a possible manifestation of being.
@arono9304 2 ай бұрын
@@gpxavier Thank you! Clear. Now I believe we are moving closer to understanding each other. Your last two sentences articulate what I tried to convey previously (also using the DBH quotations), and I believe that's more or less the potentially Christian way of looking at ultimate reality, i.e. _"Affirming everything need not be to morally affirm it. I think that one can morally deny something at the same time that, on a deeper level, one affirms it as a possible manifestation of being."_ - Where we differ is that you think that on a deeper level Christianity does not affirm it, I take it? Something to discuss.
@sirasksalot8282 2 ай бұрын
@@gpxavier I love what you said about living the worldview. I think that is a key to this conversation. These are more than just ideas; they are meant to be lived and that is really the only way to test them. I really appreciate that Nietzsche from what I understand of him really experienced his ideas and lived with them in some sense. I wanted to say that but I also have a question and consideration. You said you take solace in knowing the eternal return is not possible, and that you do not currently affirm anything eternally. What do you think about the idea existentially, though? Is one moment or perhaps a few moments in your life enough to justify whatever has or ever could happen to you? In my case I find the question challenging, and enlightening. If it is something that I can say yes to without having experienced it, then I find myself agreeing with Nietzsche. There are things in my life that I would not trade anything for, even with the uncertainty of the future. Ironically, it is why I could sing Gods praise for ten thousand years. There are moments in my life like Nietzsche described that make eternal life worth living.
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
@@arono9304 Thanks for that, Aron-I suspect we really do agree far more than we seem to disagree 🙂 To your question, though: yes, it seems that way to me.
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
@@sirasksalot8282 Thanks for sharing that, Rex. I think on the existential level the thought of eternal return is incredibly powerful and helpful. It's a challenge to see your life in a different light (if you're resentful, for instance) and a challenge to relate to it and act in it in a way you could genuinely affirm eternally-though without introducing all the problems of eternal duration (after all, it is the finite, definite, delimited life that returns again and again). I think the sense that 'this moment justifies all the others' is just a starting point-ideally, life is a whole and must be affirmed as a whole. One can move from that perspective to seeing all the other moments, even the more banal or 'bad' as having both a unique and interconnected worth, rather than just being necessary prerequisites for the good moments. Of course, there may be moments and lives (let's assume, for sake of argument, through no fault of one's own) so horrible that an actual human being could never affirm them for eternity. I don't think the thought of eternal return is some foolproof means of existential salvation. Rather than leading me to reject being, though, this gives me a sense of trembling awe while deepening my gratitude. So much is beyond my control; what is in my control I will seize and use for the utmost good. What you say resonates with me. I'll concede that in moments of vast joy, love, vitality, and gratitude-in these moments one feels like one could live forever, could sing God's praises forever.
@arono9304 2 ай бұрын
I really appreciate the fact that for both of us that upload was a synchronicity moment. On Sunday evening, I was talking over my back-and-forth with you with my dad, and we _specifically_ had to halt the conversation [as I had to take a train home] right during talking about Nietzsche's perspective on the bodily resurrection (i.e. close-reading Nietzsche's _Antichrist_ §43), and seeing the announcement for that upload the next day...
@sirasksalot8282 2 ай бұрын
It is important to recognize that this transition from henotheism to monotheism is recognized in the text. After all, Yahweh sends the Israelites into exile because they worshiped other Gods. This is the chief sin that Yahweh puts against Israel. You can say, in a sense, that the purpose of the exile was to create that negation of negation so that Israel as a nation would return to worship of Yahweh solely. Furthermore, the Israelites had to face the reality that the babylonians - the enemy - were being used as a tool by God. So, it follows that Yahweh is a monotheistic God who has power over the forces of good and evil. I would also like to point out that there is space in the biblical text for spiritual beings that make up the 'gods' of the old testament. Any one who is interested I suggest you look up Dr. Michael Heiser and the Psalm 82 worldview. As to non-dualism in a modern context, I do not see how any monotheist can suggest that their god does not have sovereignty over evil. In the Christian sense, God created evil and permits it to exist and act. It is a reality of belief in the Christian God and it cannot be escaped. What I do not understand is how that requires that we affirm the evil. Rather, we affirm the better good that comes because of that evil.
@geoffr4018 2 ай бұрын
The second I see a beard I stop listening
@donnievance1942 2 ай бұрын
I'll bet you stop listening on all kinds of impulses.
@randomchannel-px6ho 2 ай бұрын
@@geoffr4018 so in otherwords you irrationally hate men?
@randomchannel-px6ho 2 ай бұрын
I don't think it is possible to have an elaborate theology and not introduce some dualism. Even some sufis known to be quite radical monist emphaisze the human beings duality. I think that's just part of the paradox of existence.
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
I think you're spot-on: every monotheistic or monist theology is going to need to harmonize with duality somehow, considering how integral the latter is to human experience. The crucial point would be just how this is done and the relative weight given to each.
@bf99ls 2 ай бұрын
It is undeniable that the Hebrews and even the later Israelites, were henotheistic, and that is even clear in the ‘ten commandments’: ‘you shall not worship other gods’, as opposed to ‘there are no other gods’.
@Pigeon_Birb 2 ай бұрын
The bible says to not worship false idols, thus excluding any other deity then the hebrew god considering it's not mentioned what other real gods are unless we consider gods like Asherah and the other hebrew gods.
@Tanjutsu4420 2 ай бұрын
thats logic and you're on to something as opposed to the Egyptians who were monotheistic. wouldn't happen to be related to theogony by any chance would it?
@ADEpoch 2 ай бұрын
@@Pigeon_Birb Could you please provide a reference for the term you use, "not worhip false idols". Thanks. Because that's not the words used in the 10 commandments, so I'm guessing it's elsewhere?
@Pigeon_Birb 2 ай бұрын
@@ADEpoch exodus 20:4-5 and 20:23, deuteronomy 4:15-19, 1 john 5:21, romans 1:25 and exodus 32
@ADEpoch 2 ай бұрын
@@Pigeon_Birb As expected, most of those do not mention "false" idols. The only one that pertains to what you say is in fact Romans 1:25. Written by a time where monotheism had well and truly been adopted by the Jews (around the Hasmonean period). I sugegst a study of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Psalm 82. But use a combination of the DSS and MT to see the details, not an English translation.
@stevenconder8394 2 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing. Very interesting points you have raised.
@sirasksalot8282 2 ай бұрын
Excellent conversation if I do say so myself haha. I got distracted at the end by the closing thought and I forgot to say this - it was a blessing having this conversation. We touched on an iceberg that I will probably be chipping on for a long time. I really appreciate your insights GP and I respect your politeness, patience and ability to disagree without suffering. Or at least it's on a continuum. My retrospective questions are two fold for both you and anyone who listens. 1. Did our conversation manage to reconcile the conflict between Jordan Hall and Nietzsche? 2. Was the proposed reconciliation consistent with Christianity or perhaps more importantly the bible? Love to hear what others think in regards to those questions. Thanks again GP 😄
@gpxavier 2 ай бұрын
Thanks Rex-it was truly a blessing for me as well, and more than compensated for any suffering/difficulty from disagreement! To chip in regarding your questions: 1. I feel like Jordan Hall and Nietzsche are in agreement, based on what I've heard from them; the question would be whether Jordan Hall and Christianity are. I think we've definitely gone some way to showing how they could be. 2. Based on my understanding of Christianity, I think the proposed reconciliation is consistent with it. There are inherent limitations to our being creatures rather than God. The question would be how far those limitations extend: whether just to our not being infinite, or to chaos and suffering/difficulty as well. We know from our experience of living that there are forms of unpleasantness we readily embrace because they are entwined with greater flourishing. To call them 'unpleasantness' or 'suffering' may even be misleading (and this perhaps goes to your objection to the term) because they are so entwined that the overall experience is positive; we might only be able to separate them out as aspects in a somewhat artificial way. Exercising, doing fulfilling but effortful work, helping someone we deeply love. If Christianity affirms creation, it is consistent with it that these things should be preserved when creation is perfected: they are inherent to being creatures, not just to being fallen creatures. One may take a negative attitude to them; but then one might take a negative attitude to ontological finitude itself, as Satan resented being a mere creature rather than infinite and supreme. One doesn't have to; one may instead allow them to be the blessing that they are. All this without affirming gratuitous and evil suffering that isn't inherent to creaturely limitation but merely a result of the Fall. I think this is a promising and potentially compelling vision. My questions for you would be: 1. What exactly is the Fall? How can we make sense of it, when there appears to have been no such event that we can detect in the history of humanity or the universe, and the history of life on earth and of the universe predates human life by billions of years? If it is metaphorical, how are we to understand it, considering that in this proposal fallenness has a direct bearing on the nature of life and the universe? 2. How exactly can we distinguish between suffering which is beneficial and inherent to creaturely being, and that which is gratuitous and evil? What criteria do we have to guide us? In the present day, there are people who propose genetically engineering predation out of wild animals, neurologically removing the possibility of pain from humans, eliminating human aging and death. There are also people who seek to minimize distress to others to such a degree that they arguably impair their development of responsibility and strength and confuse their sense for truth.
@KOlsen-ks3fd 2 ай бұрын
To the second question, since I’m not theologically equipped to address the first: I don’t think you can draw a neat, clear delineation between suffering that is useful and suffering that is gratuitous. Suffering is inherently experiential and individual-it doesn’t exist outside of the organisms it affects. So it’s up to each individual person to decide for themselves what their suffering means to them, whether it seems minor or incalculable to an “objective” lens. I come from the perspective that suffering can be a path to meaning and purpose, even or especially when unavoidable, through the taking on of that suffering and choosing in the existentialist or Stoic sense how to respond emotionally, mentally, and physically. If Viktor Frankl can survive four different death camps during the Holocaust and write about the beauty and meaning he experienced in that time, it seems both facile and unnatural to ascribe “good” or “bad” categorization to it. I feel like it’s much more grey. To quote Frankl, “What is to give light must endure burning.” By the same token, I think there should be a distinction between evil and suffering. Yes, we should try to reduce malefic acts with intent to harm, especially innocents. That is entirely separate from trying to rid ourselves of natural processes like grief, aging, loss, and death. If suffering is inherently of the experience of finite creatures created in the image of the infinite, we make ourselves less human by avoiding it-and can we actually? I think it’s important to cultivate a mindset of acceptance of what is and approach it gracefully rather than living in fear of suffering. I think it’s natural to want to reduce it, because a person with any grounding in morality doesn’t like to see others suffer, but there are places and times where it’s not only proper, but necessary. Especially grief, because that grief is natural growth and the response to a loss of something significant and loved. I think there’s a quote of Kübler-Ross’s worth remembering: "The reality is that you will grieve forever. You will not 'get over' the loss of a loved one; you will learn to live with it. You will heal and you will rebuild yourself around the loss you have suffered. You will be whole again but, you will never be the same. Nor should you be the same, nor would you want to." - Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and John Kessler Apologies for being long winded. Hopefully that’s intelligible.
@sirasksalot8282 3 ай бұрын
First, I would like to say that Xavier Valesco-Suarez (XVS) did a good job of representing Christianity. Even though I am a dirty protestant, I would agree with the majority of how he represented Christianity. I think you guys hit the nail on the head in your clarification of happiness. I would agree that it might be best to express it in other terms such as joy, contentedness or meaning. In particular, I think that the idea of the Joy of the Lord in the bible is an expression of what you were clarifying. I think there is a lot to be said about that topic when we consider C.S. Lewis's observations in "Surprised by joy". He suggests that the pursuit of fleeting emotion is the wrong way to pursue life. Instead, he came to understand that it is better to pursue the source of those emotions. There was a lot more than that to ponder and I really enjoyed the conversation. Thanks guys!
@sirasksalot8282 3 ай бұрын
It is interesting. When I watched 'But Why Christianity', I identified deeply with what Jordan Hall said about this topic. Since watching this video, I see your point but I still identify with what Jordan Hall said. This is in part because I feel many modern Christians miss the part Christ says about "The kingdom of God is in your midst" and what that means. If Christianity is just escapism, then how can Christ suggest that the Kingdom is at least partly fulfilled now? I think what Paul says about the conflict between the flesh and the spirit in Romans 7 relates to this, as well. The present conclusion I have come to is that I agree with Jordan Hall because he understands something that most modern Christians miss; Heaven and the Kingdom of God is not a place we go to escape suffering. It is a place we go to because there is a greater life there. In fact, it is only through the embrace of suffering and life on this earth that we can attain this greater life, just as it is through suffering Christ opened the doors of heaven open to us. It is important to remember Christ's command. We are to pick up the cross (Death and the suffering of life) and follow Him. Jordan Peterson understands this when he describes the gate to Eden being guarded by a flaming sword. It chops you up and burns away all the unworthy parts so that we might attain something greater. This is one of the core virtues of Christianity: Suffering carried willingly is transformational. If I understand your description of Nietzsche and Will to Power correctly when you describe the progress of being, then I would say this is very much similar to Christianity. Suffering is part of the transformation, and to run from it is to lose out on the greatest form of life. This seems to align with the idea of Will to Power, which is to increase by embracing life. The primary difference in this case would be that Nietzsche as far as I understand it made no claims about what comes before or after, where the bible explains where this story started and where it ends. Ultimately, Christianity embraces life as a part of the greatest story, and the suffering that is part and parcel to it. I have a lot more to say about this and I would like to hear your take on it as well. I am open to talk about it, though I am not formally qualified to do so. Moreover, I would love to be a part of a community that discuss these sort of topics regularly. I intend to go and listen to your conversation with Xavier and I will likely comment there, too. Thanks! I enjoyed the video.
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! They're profound, and I mostly agree with them. If I were a fully believing, fully practicing Christian, this would be the approach I would take. You referred to the key difference with the Nietzschean view regarding what comes before or after. (I take it this is an allusion to Eden and the General Resurrection?) My question to you would be: what if this 'before' and 'after' are just projections of longings that only make sense relative to the dynamics of life as it actually is now (i.e. life with suffering)? When we suffer or exert ourselves too much for too long, we want peace and rest; we exert ourselves at all because we wish for greater happiness. But when we have rested, we gladly plunge back into the strife of living; when we have achieved what we thought would make us happy, we suffer again as we yearn for something still greater. So what if we had ONLY peace and happiness? Is that even conceivable? Is it even something we would WANT? The Nietzschean proposal is something like this: what if life itself, with all its strife and suffering, is the thing itself-the truly valuable thing, the thing that GIVES value to states of Edenic peace and glorious resurrection, which are really just ever-repeated moments WITHIN it and cannot be conceived as encompassing it (as though they could exist on their own terms or be extended forever)? Please reach out if you'd like to talk further! My email is my username at protonmail.com 🙂
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
I found an interesting dissertation abstract, which I think rightly both acknowledges Nietzsche's criticism but also points out that it does not seem conclusive (you can extrapolate from this that - if correct - Jordan Hall would arguably _not_ be a contradictory Christian, as you seem to argue), this is the abstract belonging to James Michael Ford's PhD Dissertation for Princeton University (2000), titled "Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Christian Theodicy":
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
_"This dissertation examines a hitherto neglected aspect of the problem of nihilism. Beginning with Nietzsche''s insight that nihilism is the product of what he considers Christianity''s misinterpretation of suffering, I consider the importance of suffering in Nietzsche''s philosophy and reconstruct his contrast between his own, life-affirming perspective and Christianity''s nihilistic, life-negating one. In this, I have two basic projects. The first is to offer a re-interpretation of Nietzsche, based on his published works, particularly those from his final two productive years (1887 and 1888). In the works Zur Genealogie der Moral, Gotzen-Dammerung, Ecce Homo, and Der Antichrist, Nietzsche offers his own, life-affirming perspective on suffering, amor fati ("love of fate"), his "Dionysian" perspective. In Nietzsche''s own account in Ecce Homo, the conflict between his philosophy and Christianity is decisive. I try to take that account seriously, and to show how this contrast between "Dionysus and the Crucified," between two opposing perspectives on human suffering, is the central theme of his philosophy. My second project is to respond to Nietzsche''s criticisms of Christianity. I try to do this, while at the same time showing what kind of religious critic he is, and what kind of resource he can be for understanding Christianity. Nietzsche is adept at highlighting how a certain strand of the Christian tradition can lead to nihilism. Nietzsche''s criticisms reveal a tension inherent in the Christian tradition, a tension between negating the world (because of the suffering it contains) and denying the reality of suffering (because of faith in a redemptive God). Nietzsche equates Christianity with the first extreme, the nihilistic rejection of the world. This is largely what he means by the "Crucified," that the death of god on the cross means the rejection of this world. Although I disagree that this is the "essence" of Christianity, Nietzsche''s attacks clarify the danger of nihilism that lies at one extreme of the Christian tradition. I briefly review certain claims by Augustine and Leibniz to show how, at its best, Christianity maintains the tension between these extremes, and affirms this world while acknowledging the reality of suffering."_
@xaviervelascosuarez 3 ай бұрын
From the little I know of Nietzche-particularly, the common view of him as one of the great philosophical atheists-, it seems to me that he denies the possibility of a higher kind of life. Since Christianity is based on the purpose of God becoming man "so that they may have life, and to have it in abundance," the bracketing of any life that's not strictly understood as this biological life (this life we share with other animals and plants), will necessarily lead to a skewed criticism.
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
@@xaviervelascosuarez It depends on what is meant by "higher" life. Nietzsche often alluded to "higher individuals" ("Höhere Menschen"). Nietzsche also thought that, while we _are_ in an important sense biological animals, we are interesting animals due to our capacity for valuations, among other important aspects. I'm not sure I'm fully grasping your point other than that, would you mind expanding? My thinking is not theologically oriented.
@xaviervelascosuarez 3 ай бұрын
@@arono9304 You are right. I'm starting from the assumption that the vision of a humanity devoid of its transcendent dimension is a limited and impoverished one. I trust that, as long as this transcendent dimension is a reality, you would also agree with this assumption. Christianity relies conclusively on it, so it makes no sense to criticize it while assuming human insignificance at the level where it emphatically maintains the fullness of meaning can only be found. You must first prove that there's no higher life that humans can aspire to beyond the biological, a life that transcends both space and time-all space and time, and not just the individual's. Otherwise, you'd be criticizing a tennis player with the standards that can only be applied to football. In other words, Christianity-and most, if not all religions, for that matter-only makes sense if its claims to an eternal life that fulfills all of humanity's seemingly infinite longings for joy, truth, love and beauty are indubitably established. Once these claims are debunked, only then all and any critics can be justified. Of course, at that point, all criticism becomes pointless-and so the criticism of any religion, for that matter.
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
@@xaviervelascosuarez I see, thank you for clarifying. I partly agree and partly do not. I do not agree in the sense that I believe we should apply the principle of parsimony / Occam's razor - sometimes the kind of approach that you suggest above motivates disagreement and confusion where there does not have to be any. For instance, you will lose many potential conversation partners _directly_ through such an approach who will be alienated by its jargon, and then I'm not even considering its potential falsity (which Occam's razor aimed to combat). I do, however, agree in the sense that I believe conscious experience is primary, and our conscious experience informs us of modes of existence that easily challenge the general picture of reductive materialists. Rejecting this would, again, be problematic from the perspective of applying the principle of parsimony. In other words, I'm likely sympathetic to many of your conclusions but I do not always share the means to arrive at them. Thank you for laying out your approach so clearly.
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
I would invite you to reflect about the extent to which Nietzsche could not completely square this reading of Christianity after Dostoevsky (that's what it seems like to me). Nietzsche discussed the biblical Job and Dostoevsky in the same aphorism, worth reflecting on: _"To represent terrible and questionable things is, in itself, the sign of an instinct of power and magnificence in the artist; he doesn't fear them.... There is no such thing as a pessimistic, art.... Art affirms. Job affirms. But Zola? and the Goncourts?-the things they show us are ugly, their reason, however, for showing them to us is their love of ugliness ... I don't care what you say! You simply deceive yourselves if you think otherwise.-What a relief Dostoievsky is!"_ (WP §821)
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
Consider also: _"Dostoiewsky who, incidentally, was the only psychologist from whom I had anything to learn: he belongs to the happiest windfalls of my life"_ (TI, §45) - What did he learn? Nietzsche was clearly conflicted: _"I value him as the most valuable psychological material I know - I am, in a strange way, grateful to him, however much he goes against my basest instincts."_ (Letter to Georg Brandes) Consider finally: _"Jesus: Dostoyevsky - I know only one psychologist who has lived in a world where Christianity is possible, where a Christ can arise at any moment… That is Dostoyevsky. He guessed Christ"_ You may have come across these passages before (e.g in my writing) - but I think this part should not be dismissed when considering Nietzsche still held this view after the Dionysus vs. The Crucified passage you keep referring to.
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
I personally think several stories in the bible don't condemn suffering as such (e.g. Job, which - again - Nietzsche thought _affirmed_ life), but meaningless suffering. Nietzsche even held that this is the case for Christians (though he is undoubtedly more positive about pagans and attic Greeks in this regard: _"What actually arouses indignation over suffering is not the suffering itself, but the senselessness of suffering: but neither for the Christian, who saw in suffering a whole, hidden machinery of salvation, nor for naïve man in ancient times, who saw all suffering in relation to spectators or to instigators of suffering, was there any such senseless suffering."_ (GM II.§7) Nietzsche mostly takes the utilitarian philosophers to task (and Epicurean hedonists) for wanting to get rid of suffering, _not_ the Christians
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
@@arono9304 While I appreciate allusiveness in general, it can get in the way of debate when debate is necessary. It seems to me there's a particular view of Christianity you're defending, but so far I haven't been able to grasp what it is. What exactly is your vision of a life-affirming Christianity, and how does it evade the problem that I (and Nietzsche) have put? How does the belief in an eternal blissful afterlife devoid of suffering NOT condemn suffering as such? Or are you proposing a Christianity without belief in an afterlife? Even in the last quote above: the "hidden machinery of salvation" suggests the very meaning of Christian suffering is as a means to ultimately escape suffering. In a way, this is an even stronger condemnation of suffering: its only value is as a way to its own removal. This accords with what Xavier said about suffering being meaningless without the advent of Christ. Likewise, as per JMF's thesis abstract, if Christianity is a tension between negating the world because of its suffering and denying the reality of the suffering (through faith in redemption)-again, I don't see how either of those extremes evade denigration of the actual world. The Nietzschean position (probably impossible for any person but coherent nonetheless) being something like: affirming the world AND the reality of its suffering.
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Is your position that the essence of Christianity (or what Christianity ought to be if it truly followed Christ) is what Nietzsche outlines in sections 32-35 of The Antichrist (purified of any contempt)? Christ as perfectly 'innocent'-in the sense of both blameless and childlike (Myshkin-idiotic). The utterly inward-oriented, knowing no rules or dogmas, united with the 'God' who is utmost inward reality and bliss. The utterly practical, in the sense that this way of living is everything, doctrine nothing. The utterly present-focused, as the experience of union with the inner One is present and timeless, and death and any 'life after death' infinitely less real than it. The utterly beyond (because utterly 'before') revenge or ressentiment... On that last point, that would create a nice symmetry with Dionysus: Christ and Dionysus are both immune from ressentiment, though in different ways: Christ 'below' or 'before' it (not even comprehending it); Dionysus above it, (at least inasmuch as he coincides with Zarathustra) having gone through it. Or maybe: Dionysus immersed in and fully affirming the world; Christ immersed in and fully affirming the reality upon which it is based...?
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
A side note on that, too: the similarity of Nietzsche's description of Christ to Eastern enlightenment is striking (and no doubt intentional, given the references to Samkhya and Lao Tzu). Hinduism has more resources for dealing with these two ideals, I think... while it doesn't exactly make Dionysus (full affirmation of the manifest world) the chief ideal, it does have Shiva-the god who dances-and the world is God's lila (divine play). But the chief ideal is something like Christ as Nietzsche describes him (perhaps also epitomized by Shiva in his other aspect: the yogi/ascetic). But it doesn't have any vision of the manifest world being 'perfected' or 'redeemed'-limitation and suffering are intrinsic to it; if they weren't there it wouldn't be the world, but Brahman himself. One could therefore immerse in and affirm the world OR immerse in and affirm its basis (or perhaps both?). But I feel like the logic of Christianity (the actual, historical system) muddies and nullifies this by holding out the vision of a perfected world: one is therefore prevented from affirming the world as it is AND affirming its divine basis oblivious to it (as Nietzsche suggests Christ did).
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
Intriguing conversation. Completely different angles but a good-faith dialogue
@Lucasvoz 3 ай бұрын
Double Xavier!! Excited for this
@elektrotehnik94 3 ай бұрын
❤
@xaviervelascosuarez 3 ай бұрын
I'd like to talk with you. As a Catholic who strives to be faithful to my faith, a thinker who periodically checks my intuitions and conclusions against the background of the Catechism, I can affirm that suffering is always evil. God sets the condition for the possibility of suffering by creating a universe with limited being, populated by forms that further limit being. This is done through the Logos. It's a logical separation, limitation and organization of being because is done according to and through the divine Logos. I believe that God doesn't do this as though he means it thus, but because an unlimited universe populated with unlimited beings is not congruent with the essence of God. God’s choice is to create. But once he creates it cannot be another unlimited being, for that is tantamount to creating another God with all the divine qualities, including infinite being, eternal and uncreated, tantamount to a complete absurdity (which gets even worse when we include God's being the source of all being). The human body might be a useful analogy. It comprises many different parts that, when functioning properly, within the boundaries set for them, all is well. Pain emerges when something gets out of place, thus violating the order set by the Logos. Blood that goes out of the controlled ways of circulatory system causes pain, and so on. Likewise, when humans violate the order of the universe, suffering ensues. Anyway, i like your approach and your way of thinking. Something good may come out of our interacting. I'd like to talk with you
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Thanks, Xavier! I'll email you 🙂
@dianagoddard6456 3 ай бұрын
Is reminiscent of Jung’s first half of life a second
@BMoore335 3 ай бұрын
I guess I’ll add a few thoughts. Though I grew up sort of Christian in multiple contexts, when I discovered Nietzsche in college I instantly was attracted to the widespread brutalist and erotic energy of dyonisian cultism. Despite this, nothing in my life on an existential basis actually changed except that amoral and heartless behavior became normal for me. What’s more, I think I learned, or rather was shown, is that this way of being was in fact contrary not just to a certain worldview, but life and spirit itself, which dyonisian vitalism supposedly promised. But I do know I’m in the minority for taking Nietzsche at his word and not plumbing the depths of this problem sage’s dark “genius” with a correct interpretation suitable to the higher rank. Maybe I misunderstood him. Maybe it’s just me.
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Thanks for your thoughts. I had a similar experience with Nietzsche when I was much younger. Now coming back to him after (at least somewhat) overcoming that immature egoism and developing some virtue, I see his thought in a much deeper and richer way. I think it's important to recognize Nietzsche himself was mature and virtuous when he developed his thought; so we should be wary of the less mature interpretations.
@F--B 3 ай бұрын
I'd suggest that, if anything, you used a partial understanding of Nietzsche to rationalise a nihilistic turn in your life.
@BMoore335 3 ай бұрын
Again I’m much keener to take nietzsche at his word. I do not think a bridge can be built between his “virtuous” and “mature” thought and reality. I think he really did despise the Christian path. I think he really did misunderstand the spiritual reality of things, in a very bad way. I suppose I’m happy that he points to Kierkegaard, who for him was probably a bridge figure, but to me was honest with the fear problem and who sought answers in a truly profound way. Again, I can’t beat back the Nietzcheans, especially on the internet, but I’m grateful you let me share my thoughts.
@TonyCRosa 3 ай бұрын
35:00 here's how I see it... The Christian future is not despair of the present, but hope for the fixing of all wrongs. It is not escape, but rest: the 7th day: Sabbath. There are some liturgical embodiments of this fundamental Xan paradox that the world is both good & fallen, and current life is both celebrated & rejected. Look at the western services of compline as an example.
@Zentapir 3 ай бұрын
Interesting Perspective and approach, i will probably respond more in general (when i am through listening)... but the "Will to Power" Source irritated me. The will to power is - as far as i know - a problematic and distorted source not published by Nietzsche but his sister (with all the wrong intentions) ... otherwise i am curious where this goes 🙂
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Will to Power is essentially a compilation of excerpts from his notebooks - as I understand it, it's contentious because of the selection and arrangement, but Nietzsche did write those notes. This particular one accords very well with his own published work, so I don't think there's any reason to disregard it.
@erica_mSoFla 3 ай бұрын
At the middle of this convo. I remembered something Joscha Bach says: “You can live forever. It just depends what you identify as.”
@erica_mSoFla 3 ай бұрын
I enjoy listening to this as a newly “reverted” Catholic. I struggled and still struggle to understand the cross, but I’m starting to figure out that is the wrong verb entirely. You don’t just “understand” it. You enter in and experience it. And my first intuition was that the cross is true because it’s the most beautiful thing that exists. Also - the will to power has no rest. I think there’s something unnatural in that. Idk how else to say it . . . Thanks for sharing! I hope this convo continues 👍
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Thanks Erica! I can totally respect that approach to faith 🙂 I think what you said about will to power having no rest is less of a problem if you consider it as joy rather than hunger (stemming from abundance rather than lack). Does God's will to power in creation need any rest?
@erica_mSoFla 3 ай бұрын
@@gpxavier yes I think you’re right. Violent joy lol there is always that necessary tension that creates growth and change. It’s kind of synonymous with the life force or God itself . . . maybe?
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
@@erica_mSoFla I would tend to agree with that... I think there's a hidden theism in Nietzsche 😉
@xaviervelascosuarez 3 ай бұрын
@@gpxavier "Does God's will to power in creation need any rest?" Yes! On the 7th day!😂
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
Great video! Only 30 minutes in. I actually think Pageau’s latest video is piece of the puzzle. More to discuss! Will hopefully report back soon (extremely occupied, but this is great work)
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Thank you, Aron! Do you mean the video on Lucifer? I'll check it out 😀
@gpxavier 3 ай бұрын
Just watched it - a beautiful video! I'm wondering exactly how you see it fit into the puzzle?
@arono9304 3 ай бұрын
@@gpxavier Sorry for the late response G.P.! - There is something about the way in which Christianity arguably already integrates far more than what people usually argue it exclusively stands in stark opposition to. This is I think Pageau's point connected to Lucifer, and we can similarly discuss the extent to which that applies to Dionysus
@WhiteStoneName 3 ай бұрын
35:30 “I don’t see how Christianity is not escapist.” Love this. That’s what I would want to talk to you about. Amongst other things.
@JordanX767 3 ай бұрын
Saying that is just opinion-based, off of what you already assume is the case, which is begging the question. Even if Christianity was "escapist", that wouldn't falsify it as a worldview.
@F--B 3 ай бұрын
@@JordanX767worldviews proper aren't based upon a universal rational standard and so can only be 'falsified' under their own terms
@WhiteStoneName 3 ай бұрын
@@F--BSeems right.
@WhiteStoneName 3 ай бұрын
Man. I’d love to talk to you about this section and chart on the “total vs partial affirmation of life”
@GeorgeDunn399 4 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing your commentary on TSZ, as guided by the interpretation of my friend Laurence Lampert. I'm sure he would have appreciated it.
@gpxavier 4 ай бұрын
Thank you-that means a lot! May his memory be a blessing 🙂
@arono9304 4 ай бұрын
Looking forward to our part II!
@nerian777 4 ай бұрын
Thought and perception are actually impossible without valuing.
@enthuesd 4 ай бұрын
Yes thank you
@Lucasvoz 5 ай бұрын
E P I C
@arono9304 5 ай бұрын
My goodness G.P.! You don’t stop! Hopefully I have the time to listen to this soon
@exalted_kitharode 7 ай бұрын
Great!
@fakethinksy101 8 ай бұрын
Great video thank you for making this 🙏
@arnold8757 8 ай бұрын
Sam, I'm a lowest common denominator believer. I think of God as, "God is." As in the Self-existence One. Beyond that, do we need to know or discuss or debate? Isn't it okay to NOT know? For example, I lean towards the Father-Son-Spirit being 3 names- not persons- of God. I'd rather "not know" than rehash learnings. Jesus learned obedience via the things he suffered (experienced). So should we I think or learn or even know otherwise? The mystery of the gospel to me is God putting his shekinah life that Adam lost back into us. I do like your perfect synopsis verse. That the one God IS the one mediator.
@WhiteStoneName 8 ай бұрын
1:22:00 apophatic vs cataphatic leaning. I think leaning into the cataphatic or immanentizing side of the coin is what I call radical incarnationalism, funnily enough. Christ the only existent one.
@WhiteStoneName 8 ай бұрын
1:20:55 idk if there is or can be a *meaningful* apophatic jump beyond the logos. That’s the nonexistent god of the philosophers.
@WhiteStoneName 8 ай бұрын
1:18:15 and absolutely transcendent God is irrelevant and I would say…not real. In the most fundamental sense.
@chezispero3533 8 ай бұрын
1:23:12 it's also a person in Judaism. The Tzadik (the righteous one) The "book" showcases that relationship.
@gpxavier 8 ай бұрын
Interesting! Can you say a bit more about this?
@chezispero3533 8 ай бұрын
Enjoying this.