Communism in American Universities Ep.1 (General Psychology)

-A shaky definition of Psychology
-Marginalization Aristotle
-Endorsement of Determinism over Free Will
-Endorsement of Evolution/Materialism
-Endorsement of Scientism and Scientific Method
-Distrust of our senses and intellect
For a better understanding of psychology, read Aristotle’s De Anima with St Thomas Aquinas commentary

[@R.C.R.]

You just explained how my kids left the Church. Thanks 🙏 l am praying for their return back to the faith🙏🕊️💚☘️

[@daveariz]

They will (in Jesus name). I stopped going to church when I was in college, but I’m back now and I’m raising my two kids in the same Christian foundation that my parents raised me. I believe that once you’re a child of God, you will always be a child of God…God will not forsake your kids

[@raymondmulholland8303]

I was directed to this from a friend, as I have studied the socialist infiltration of the United States and Christianity for some time now. While I found this is an excellent introduction to the problem we have, it is only an introduction. I see he has several more videos advancing this theme, so I won't call him "wrong." But some things did jump out at me here. I'll briefly address the two I think are most important. First of all, this indoctrination begins in pre-Kindergarden, not college. The glossing over of historical facts and inserting snuck premises with the goal of programming children to think like a communist without explicitly reciting socialist teachings is the standard way of education today. It is in all schools, public or private, it is in "off the shelf" learning materials from the USCCB library, it is the standard for how youth programs are run, and every other aspect of education found in our country. For those who may be upset I'm suggesting the Catholic Church is doing this, read "The Politics of Education" by Paulo Freire and then tell me you don't see his teaching outline in any of these things. Secondly, we, as Catholics, need to be careful we do not help our enemy by using his own tricks against him. Such an effort helps him. In the context of this video, speaking out against determinism and evolution is appropriate, as philosophy covers ALL forms of learning, while emphasizing these two aspects is a grave distortion of what philosophy is. Christianity recognizes a dualism of reality: body and soul, Jesus as both High Priest and Ultimate Sacrifice, etc. My favorite dualism is truth and purity. This last dualism is so important that even the Catholic Mass recognizes it, as it begins with the Liturgy of the Word (truth) and follows with the Liturgy of the Eucharist (purity). But for this video, the dualism is material and transcendental. Without a doubt, we live in a deterministic universe (material), otherwise science would not work. But we can only describe the universe with transcendental concepts (such as numbers, mathematics, words, etc.) The problem I have with determinism is that its supporters seem unable to explain their thoughts without using words such as "ought" or "should." These two words suggest that morality exists, and morality is a transcendental concept. Of course, the universe proves that we do not have unfettered free will, as the material hinders and even stops us. I want to communicate to many people (that's my will), but I have to use this computer to do so (that is how the material limits it). Likewise, evolution works very well within its own material limitations (species can be shown to change over eons), but it has been proven that evolution needs intelligent design to do anything radical. And my three favorite examples is the creation of the universe (the parameters for a stable universe to exist are for all practical purposes impossible to have happened by chance), the existence of life (life is self-motivating, determinism is not) and free will (unique to man, the ability to understand transcendental concepts). Determinism cannot explain these three concepts. And it's not just me, Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for the Creator" is all about how evolution is incapable of explaining everything about our existence (it appears to me that his favorite "intelligent design" example is the Cambrian Explosion, where too much variety took place within a period of time for evolution alone to have been the answer). God's creation of the universe is not much different than a parent raising a child: He lets it run around on its own accord except when He knows it necessary to make adjustments, and the health of the child necessitates both a certain amount of independence as well as a certain amount of correction, education and modifications. Finally, it is true that Sir Francis Bacon is unquestionably an important figure in the excesses that are going on today, but it was really Georg Wilhem Frierich Hegel that is the root of the problems today. Bacon was revolutionary in claiming that one should never make assumptions, but it was Hegel that made this idea the ultimate virtue. Bacon sought to build on the teachings of Aristotle (who himself challenged assumptions), Hegel sought to replace Aristotle (which is why Aristotle is downplayed in the Philosophy book). Bacon was a Christian who would not risk challenging God, Hegel made history a god to be dissected and understood. Bacon sought to challenge assumptions in order to better understand, Hegel sought to challenge assumptions to create what never existed before. Bacon ushered in all the benefits we have from scientific research today, Hegel ushered in Karl Marx (one of Hegel's star pupils, Bruno Bauer, taught Marx) and all the evils of socialism today.

[@mariekatherine5238]

College? It started in my school in sixth grade, middle school, 1971. By the time I entered college, I’d had so much Kant, Locke, Freud, relativism in everything, no absolute anything...I began reading St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, the Bible, English translation of St. Jerome, Vulgate... I got through university by learning how to write in circles, ambiguously so that my professors read into it what they wanted to believe. I got my pieces of paper and bid farewell to the nonsense. University was indeed useful in that I know 💩 when it’s presented to me!

[@bryanlahaise595]

So glad You pointed out, how this ties in with the Message of Fatima. Although, I knew a lot about this, I also knew, Our ALady came and warned us, that this was going to happen. God be with You Gene.

[@loulasher]

I saw the joining of Aristotle and fiction writers as elevating fiction writers, but for students unfamiliar with him and his importance it probably is tossing him aside. I think errors in maybe all the social science have roots in errors like nominalism. Maybe they want to skip over the real history of psychology (which seems to have developed greatly before the word psychology was used) because they like starting students in confusion and never really leaving. Is there a better book that spells out the real history and the real progress made in the field? I would think a lot can be written about the history of, and a very real foundation reestablished for, the field of psychology. The reproducibility crisis in the field, and how bad studies are accepted at face value, might be eliminated in a large part just by recentering the field on that real foundation. Maybe the biggest problem is the lack of legitimate purpose to the field, or lack of any real criteria in it, if it eliminates the idea that we and our minds are created by and ordered towards God. It might be like trying to have engineering without having the idea that a building should stand securely against strong winds or storms.