Neither of those concepts existed so im going to say neither

Masterful though brief overview. Was it Carl Schmitt who said that all political questions ultimately boil down to theological questions? I think that the Gillespie book is the most profound in exploring the theological metaphysical origins of the crisis of modernity, but the specifically Catholic literature on the theology of history offers vast insights into the spiritual roots of the crisis because it includes what some of your authors tend to overlook, the principalities and powers that impact powerfully on human affairs. And then there is Voegelin of course.

The first thing I committed to memory was the first serious thing I ever read as a young lad of 16 years. "Midway along the journey of our life I woke to find myself in a dark wood, for I had wandered off from the straight path." Canto I, Inferno After that it was Blake's Tiger Tiger and Donne's Death be Not Proud

Michael, acabo de ver e ouvi-lo sobre a crise da modernidade. Esta catastrofe nos vem acompanhando ha decadas e cada vez com maior gravidade. Admiro sua ousadia na critica a ela por seu abandono dos grandes valores e virtudes do mundo classico antigo, tendo em vista a forte oposicao do pensamento de esquerda em manter um patrulhamento sobre qualquer visao que nao seja em identificar a crise senao no capitalismo. Enfatisar como voce faz, recorrendo a Leo Strauss, Heidegger e Dugan (de quem nunca ouvi falar, mas vou pesquizar), filosofos ou pensadores negados pelo pensamento de esquerda e apontar na religiosidade ao inves da secularizacao um caminho de restauracao... me leva por associacao a Simone Weil... Tenho acompanhado uma serie dos mais variado videos sobre ela. Pergunto-me pois se o interesse que vem despertando nao corresponde ao mesmo levantado por voce? --- Acharia bem oportuno que voce considerasse essa discussao...

Great video. What many people get wrong about Plato, especially his critics, but even some of his supporters, is that they treat them as didactic lectures rather than the dialogues that they really are. Just because a character - even Socrates - says something in a dialogue, that doesn't mean that Plato even thought that view was correct, much less that he was trying to preach that view. The Dialogues take the form that they do because they are first and foremost an exploration of ideas, not an exposition of them. The Republic is more of a thought experiment than it is a manifesto on how to build the ideal society.

Comfort... Degeneration of human character...

millennium

I don't remember which Pope said it but he said Modernity is the synthesis of all heresies.

Love ❤️ your work brother!

Thank you Michael! What a wonderful overview! It packs a powerful punch in a concise 12mins! I really hope that someday I can afford to attend your School!!😊👍

Plato noted the should be tripartite in nature. So, one is never alone. We are at minimum in constant battle with these 3 forces to order our souls correctly. To say a human is alone, or only one part, is satanic. Why so? Because it denies the soul and its internal battles. Obfuscating the goal of order which is required for health. No offence, but our job as philosophers is not entertain multiple competing theories as all correct which they cannot be. It is to discover the truth.

👏🏼that was really good!

Not a certified hood classic like the Evola videos but prescient and timely as always Michael. Greatly appreciate your work and perspective.

Michael, I love your question, Is the West in postmodernity crisis, definitely yes and the world also in postmodernity crisis

Crisis in everthing yep its all manufactured chaos

Not sure if we can add him to the list, but I like the view of Viktor Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning. Paraphrasing Nietzsche, his thesis is 'if you can find your why, you figure out a how.' With the growing alienation that has come with modernity, crisis of meaning can be tied. Always love your insight

its really funny how you always try to insert strauss into the line plato to heigegger. he is not an instigator or someone who sets am agenda, but just an explainer (even a chosen one)...

There is another category between atheism and believing, that is knowing the gods exist.

Plato is saying that the ideal republic/polis can never be achieved but only exists in form. Lost in translation but know only few understand.

MM is crystal clear, as always

David Hume showed you can’t argue from an is to an ought. All the thinkers you discuss say society must have a political “ought” and that the “ought” is the primary issue. We face the breakdown of capitalism on its own contradictions with war (makes their rivals pay), austerity (make workers pay) and dictatorship (crush the threat of revolution). The sharpest contradiction is the division of the world into competing nation-states and the determination of US capital to maintain its hegemony over the world economy. All those political philosophers discussed her have nothing directly to say about this “is” because they the assume thought is primary. Heidegger’s frustrated collaboration with the Nazis show they aren’t above the crisis and their ideas express the needs of capitalism. Heidegger’s search for an “ought” led him to tell Der Spiegel in 1966 that “only a god can save us”. It never led him to have any regrets about his collaboration with the Nazis, quite the opposite as he said in the same interview "... I see the situation of man in the world of planetary technicity not as an inextricable and inescapable destiny, but I see the task of thought precisely in this, that within its own limits it helps man as such achieve a satisfactory relationship to the essence of technicity. National Socialism did indeed go in this direction. Those people, however, were far too poorly equipped for thought to arrive at a really explicit relationship to what is happening today and has been underway for the past 300 years." Recommended: "Only a God Can Save Us" | Martin Heidegger & Nazism kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYWodn2brr-Bl68

A difficult question! In part, it is a popular secularisation of morality and ethics, with a sort of flexible, loosely Christian morality that lacks a real authority to keep it reined in. Where the subjective element really came to prominence, I'm not sure, but it looks like it's being integrated into a popular, de facto "absolute", morality of its own. As another commenter said, though, it's hard to call this phenomenon truly secular. Another key element could simply be a lack of meaningful, extracurricular community involvement alá Bowling Alone, which left a void for some time that was only "remedied" by the internet. This is likely intertwined with the above. Because of that, if I had to guess when the worst of it arose or actualized, it would be in the post-war or interwar period. I'm not sure if one can really pinpoint it so soon, and I'm not sure if it's worth pinpointing more than it's worth simply discerning what you do and do not want in a society and being resolute in that stance. In time, the conditions that lead to the crisis of modernity may reveal themselves and one can adjust from the feedback from actions taken to better the situation.

There’s no crisis of modernity it’s a perfectly enveloping plan for preparing the coming of Antichristo by the four whores of Babylon. In keos he will be bring order and all the humans will love him.❤

The crisis is in fact not one of "modernity," but of all the various anti-modernity movements trying to destroy it from either inside or outside. Modernity would be fine if we let it be. But the Marxist/Socialists, the Fascists/Nazis and. especially today, the Post-Modernists and "cultural Marxists" have almost completely destroyed the incredible achievements of Modernity. Modernity needed to be tweaked and perfected, not combatted at every turn. But I guess we will never learn, as shown here on this channel.

The leftists went really hard at Dugin over his Tucker interview. They were calling him dishonest and incoherent e.t.c because he is a fascist who tailors his message to suit his audience which means that his project is political and not philosophical. kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5vXhIacbL6NjKM

Im gonna selectively breed you all

When i was a child, i rarley ever heard the old folks talk about frivolous wants and desires for themselves. They always seemed to have obligations that went beyond themselves. Modernity is the plague of the individual. There is no history of the past for the individual without a personal interpretation of it, there is no present for the individual without the furnishing of immediate wants and desires, and there is no future for the individual as it has only present motivations to furnish future wants and desires for itself. The individual is the most powerful force on the face of the planet, yet that power is meaningless when it is used solely for self-aggrandizement and pleasure as prescribed by the post modern individualist teachings. The modernist sees nothing more than the present and their own view of it as the most important point in human history.

Dugin, Strauss, Heidegger, are way in love with western, anti-western or fascist thought, to be independent from the West. Just like Nazis, Liberals, CCP, USA or Russia. However there is a culture which has survived the global colonisation of the Occidental mind, even if it been harsly attacked by discourse. It's the Orthodox Church through its Synod-in-Resistance. www.youtube.com/@spotsedu/videos

The drive of modernity, this elusive force to live a life of comfort and ease is an ancient one, and I'll call it the spirit of Babylon. Even further than that ancient centre, in the story of the Tower of Babel, where the drive to unify and centralize all human behavior, ended up in complete discord, when somehow one common language became completely undone, where the meaning of words changed and no one could understand each other. Reminds me of today's protests by the "Woke".

to answer your question...it's about power....the crisis of Modernity and the reaction to it...there is definitely a power grab part to it

There's a crisis alright...WW3 incoming.

Thanks again Michael! It would've been nice to throw Guenon on as well.

Understanding modernity through the lens of changing religiosity rather than secularization has been a helpful shift in my thinking. In fact, it's becoming harder for me to imagine a truly secular mindset, as if anyone can actually set aside or move "beyond" the elements of their personality that make man inherently religious. Thanks for another helpful overview. You're introducing me to connections between authors that are not frequently talked about. Very valuable videos.