Hidden Metaphysics - Logos and Logoi - Jay Dyer (Half)

[@Chrsi-o5o]

Professor Jay "unmute" Dyer opening up philosophy for the layman like myself is such a blessing. What a chad 🤙

[@DigitalLogos]

As a Catholic, this actually helped to clear up some personal problems I've had with Thomism that I wasn't quite able to articulate. The explanation of the one and the many and the Logos and logoi really help.

[@wowstefaniv]

After watching 3 times revelation struck and holy shit its as if all of the knowledge I have of the world fell into harmony. Thank you so much!

[@hugoschmitt1772]

Just this half though?

[@Emceeloki]

Jay, I am impressed with your grasp of philosophy as related to the history of Western thought. Highly educated people, many of whom earn a living using their minds seem to have abandoned some basic understanding of mythology as understood as an extension of the epistemic and ethical and metaphysical work you allude to here. Simply, they have embraced their own myths as absolutes even as they nominally adhere to a belief in post-modern relativism. It's stunning to me how widespread this phenomena is in secular left-wing academia and popular media. I often felt like I was going mad witnessing these compounded errors of worldview. Some Christian apologists and you helped me realize I wasn't losing it.

[@JayDyer]

thanks

[@jongmagee]

After watching this several times, the beginning words of the Gospel according to John make so much more sense: John 1 : 1-4 (NKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

[@lorrainehall8230]

Very educational talk Jay.

[@jongmagee]

@32:40 I thought about the passage in Matthew 25:40, NKJV And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ That's why everything points back to God.

[@jessecurle716]

One of your best

[@Nomansland77]

Keep up the good work Jay.

[@jrubi5552]

Ive got into this in the cosmic mystery and elsewhere thanks for the upload. Great topic!

[@stvbrsn]

A LaCoste shirt without buttons or collar? Who knew such a thing existed?

[@TolkienStudy]

This is really really good Jay, thank you, I agree a lot with your approach.

[@JayDyer]

thanks

[@ffolgosi]

Hi Jay. Do you have any material on the Frankfurt School and Moral Relativism?

[@JayDyer]

ffolgosi yep see my first red ice interview

[@nous6329]

Ohhh this sounds good . I am romanian ( new to ortodoxy ) but feels like a “Candy shop” for thought and mind . Like everything is getting So clear and So logical . Gonna study your entire channel since here none talks about this thinks , maybe rarely But specially normal day to day ortodox christians dont Even have an idea about the history of phylosophy ( is awfull ) , no reasoning , no debates , no arguments just opinions...

[@hempenasphalt1587]

Nous you seem to me to be right about day to day Orthodox Christians . Did you ever see that video which asked some Romanian villagers who wrote the Bible and one of them said “Eminescu?” Jay makes the theology sound so good but much of Orthodox practice just looks superstitious, nuts, and overlaid with magical and pagan influences. Priests dipping mummified feet to make holy water and the Orthodox faithful rushing to touch the stuff. I just don’t see how it has anything to do with what Jay talks about.

[@hautecouture2228]

You do realise there are saints who never went to school. There are many theologians with phd s who don’t even know God

[@aiziszizis2536]

@@hempenasphalt1587 Where did you see this?! There's no such thing! I'm Romanian and I have never ever heard about such practices!

[@curiolus]

Thanks Jay

[@stvbrsn]

Andreae Curiolus now that is one cool idea for an avatar image, I’m envious I didn’t think of it first! Cheers!

[@rodrigomendez8026]

Hi Jay, I'm subscribing to your channel. Very interesting lectures.

[@jamesgrosso4372]

How did you subscribe? Where do you pay?

[@carolebrunette]

Jay rocks ❤️❤️❤️

[@NJP9036]

Very useful video. Excellent definition on the apophatic, as mentioned in Lossky. I need more understanding of the “Hypostasis” of Christ. Thank you JD.

[@WarInHeaven]

Jay looking like a strapping young lad 😂

[@theodore8178]

Metaphysics was brought back with Frege Quine and Kripke and even formal ontologies in computer science and bio informatics. But with a preference for desert landscapes and intense skepticism. Carnap's hatred for metaphysics never died out. I think the disdain for metaphysics began with medieval nominalism. Liebniz pushed back hard but his monads were goofy as brilliant as he was.

[@rodrigomendez8026]

Hi Jay, I've watched some three videos of yours by today and am gonna watch some more tomorrow when I sort out the most relevant and interesting subjects. But suffice to say, I don't know if you argued this on here or on your video discussing the Continental tradition, you've raised the issue of causality and how empiricism cannot get to the point of causality or even the self. This is perfectly understandable, but the main issue: Aquinas failed on causality because his fundamental working presupposition was grounded upon Aristotelian empiricism, and sorry but Aristotelian empiricism is already questionable itself. "Nihil in intellectu quod non fuit prius in sensu" is a questionable assumption, particularly if we start with certain fundamental mathematical properties which are non empirically verifiable. In my view, the fact that Aristotle was a poor mathematician, even for his time, kinda tarnishes his doctrines in a way that Plato's doctrine are not. It is significant that in the milieu and universe of the Eastern Church, Aristotle never really became the fundamental pillar of truth as it did in the West, and I think it all stems from the fact that the West tried way too hard to ground their cosmology upon human all too human grounds.

[@tomasmalachite9386]

Hi, Jay. Sorry if you've brought this in a different video/article. My question is regarding the logical justification for God. As in: arriving at the conclusion of its existence through logical derivation, taking into consideration the seemingly impossible task of producing that conclusion merely through logic. It seems we can arrive at conjectures of intelligent design and metaphysical forces acting in the universe, but our lack of complete comprehension of these ideas will always impede us to logically attribute them to God, as it remains non-provable. I heard you talk about the possibility of a higher form of analysis from antiquity that has been lost or suppressed that takes on an analogous/symbolic shape. Do you think it is perhaps this lost tool that would allow us to reach the conclusion that there is indeed a God?

[@ghostrecon3214]

Indeed researcher Dr Joseph Farrell has written about this lost form of analysis, he quotes Bacon, Newton and Leibniz saying they believe it to have existed and it was likely suppressed. Farrell also talks about what he calls the Topological Metaphor, he suspects this may be what this form of analysis. It seems like there would have to be a convergence of analogy upon a fundamental truth, or THE fundamental truth, I suspect that it is much like the holographic principle, where every thing that IS or can be, is a blurry representation of the whole truth.

[@bbunnyscribe]

I'm a member of Jay's site and I can't find the second half to this talk anywhere, does it even exist?

[@JayDyer]

doublewink I added it. I’ll look to make sure

[@pulsiui4003]

Nice one 💓

[@CubicSugar]

Oooweee! I was just starting to worry about you, but here you are back with a shiny new hairstyle and everything. I don't know how it's gonna go over with Mr Trump when he comes a knockin, but I personally dig me some swoop. Also, I'm glad you feel better.

[@JayDyer]

thanks

[@FollowingNamePolicy]

Are cyborgs/androids/entirely artificial A.I.-powered entities generic, non-essential "(non)beings"? Are "merged" hybrid human/computational entities generic, non-essential, non-energetic non-beings? Is there a Westworld-based analysis in the works?

[@jim6547]

Thank you very much for this.

[@davidstrickland1412]

The absence of a well thought out metaphysics by Protestants doesn’t necessarily mean their beliefs aren’t justified, does it? From my understanding, Protestants usually focus on beliefs and knowledge derived directly from the Bible (sola scriptura).

[@RegalBeagle444]

Yet, Sola Scriptura itself is not directly derived from the Bible. It's a made up doctrine meant to destroy the witness of Tradition and The Church. If you take a really close look at the protestants, though many of them will have things right, you will realize a lot of their major dogma is not as explicit in the Bible as they say it is.

[@davidstrickland1412]

@@RegalBeagle444 as well as Orthodoxy, right?

[@omygod9062]

Peaky blinders hair do?

[@johnydubz]

What are you saying though 👂

[@jeffreypierce1440]

you got your ears lowered.

[@gnomegoblin]

26:46 😂

[@stuart2868]

27:20 - Your question about the unity between instantiated "forms", the dogness you mention couldn't it be just a collection of distinctive characteristics that sufficiently distinguishes a dog from other things? Like having 4 legs, acceptable proportions of legs, facial features etc... Maybe quantify the closeness of dna between animals and with a % +/- something is considered a dog. And in human experience, this is something we do subconciously. That we recognize these minute similarities that are difficult to articulate, but easy to visualize. We subjectively discern the differences based on past experiences and expectations. Meaning that these forms\universals are subjectively discerned, and are just constructs that we agree upon or something along those lines. Pretty much the bullshit you argue against. I don't see how the "minds eye" is necessary for something like this.

[@stuart2868]

Like a fox isn't a cat or dog, but carries similar characteristics of both, but not sufficiently enough for us to put it under the umbrella of dog or cat, therefore fox. And these distinctions are subjective, and therefore subject to change and manipulation. Normalcy bias etc.. could be an inherent flaw in this point of view. And this point of view probably lends itself to darwinianism and other false ideologies. I just don't understand how you could just dismiss this without explaining why. All you said was that it doesn't work and you need to identify a dog with your mind's eye.

[@JayDyer]

Stu art for the perception of essences. A collection of accidental qualities is not an essence

[@stuart2868]

Thanks for replying. is the existence of forms and essences debatable? I think you would have to first prove the existence of these things. Not sure if you did that in the vid or not Now my point is that maybe essences in the way u describe do not exist. What if an essence is sort of like a schema, whcih dictates the range of acceptable values per accidental. And the cumulative list of accidentals that are acceptable per the schema is what you call an essence.

[@Georgeos777]

dog is still a concept, its an formation like everything else, if certain things come together we give them names/concept but this doesnt make them to the concept as a reality, yes we see a certain order we can see but in fact there is no dog in the dog, hes empty of a self, the dog is minerals/sunlight,water,amino acids,fat, lust of his parents to procreate...its an never ending chain of cause and effect in matter in which everything which is is bind to because if you think deep enough about the bound of all things you will maybe sense everything there is, is on living entity appearing as seperate. If a person of our family gets a hit on the head and suddenly behaves in a complete different way we say and feel "its not peter anymore", we get confused by the behaviour, but this is ignorance because only our perception of reality didnt function well from the beginning, there never was a static thing called peter from the beginning but we cant see this, most people are changing so slowly that it apperas to us as a constant and only the body changes, but thats wrong, the mind, memory, everything changes "us" every second, things get lost, we learn new, we behave other, we gain knowledge, so not only the body, the whole being constantly changes but only because its bound to uncountable things that happen with,in and outside of it, the most things we not even recognize conciously. It really is one constant changing entity and this is all there is, nothing is seperate, nothing is independent, only appears to be in the human mind, which also is a part of neccesity for the survival process of the species but we should overcome this and know better.

[@teoj9618]

I AM that IAM Bill Cosby! :)

[@marktstocksdale2327]

The light of the rational soul that banishes ignorance...Maann I like that,wait till one of these liberals ask me why do I care lol sike I ain't casting no pearls

[@raymondmurillo]

Old school Jay intro was bad

[@moldyapple1789]

w r o n g