Confucius vs. Marx on Traditionalism vs. Revolutionism

[@BuricIvan]

Sometimes I cant believe how much free access to great content we have today! Thank you prof Kreeft, God bless you and Word on Fire Institute! 😊

[@stephen5804]

We have so many fools walking on earth with no sense of urgency or direction.

[@aaabbb-py5xd]

It's free because it's selling its narrative. And since the "free world" has shown me how professional it can be at using truth to carry lies, I'm guarded against any such celebration of "free stuff". Much like in the app world, the adage of "if it's free, you're the product" applies here, especially to an evangelical institution. After all, without you, they'd have not even the opportunity to dabble in financial corruption.

[@aaabbb-py5xd]

So this "esteemed" lecturer gave his game away: Confucious is more easily assimilated by the "free world", and a return to Confucious would help America win the "New Cold War" imposed on China. On the one hand, America does need to frame this "New Cold War" as a war of "values". Otherwise, the bullying of China is that much more apparent. On the other hand, it is rather difficult to claim, with a straight face, that "Communism has overtaken Confucious in China". The "crime" of China and the Chinese Communists is simply not one of practicing Communism, but one of practicing Capitalism well enough to have ruffled American plumage and ego. It is a sad wilful lie to invoke non-existent Communism as justification for this "New Cold War", one waged by America to maintain its stranglehold on the world. Knowing that he lacks actual charges to lob at China, Kreeft would of course reach for Mao as the "greatest mass murderer". Shall we grace such claims with a serious look? Oh that's right, I have but to invoke template christian apologetics and american apologetics to debunk his hope and dream and prayers that Mao be the "greatest mass murderer". This scheming liar of a philosopher in Kreeft has achieve nothing except add one more reason to fight the "free world". So do excuse the Chinese, or anyone in the world, as they move forward doing as the "free world" does and not as the "free world" says.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@aaabbb-py5xd "you're the product' applies here, especially to an evangelical institution" --- I'm curious if you apply the same reasoning when interacting with your children. Are your motives inherently sinister simply because your children lack the capacity or awareness to fully appreciate your motives toward them? Peace be with you.

[@aaabbb-py5xd]

@@hrabmv "there is nothing wrong with free content", said "Russian" "interference", or "Chinese" "interference", oh oops, there's also nothing wrong with logic so free that it becomes a one way street whenever convenient for you

[@stephen5804]

Mr. KREFFT is a gift from GOD. Totally underrated and not fully appreciated. He is walking SAINT AND FULL OF WISDOM.

[@BriceRobell]

This man is so brilliant; he has literally inspired me to go back to school for my masters in philosophy. I would love to have a conversation with him on the pitfalls of capitalism as well; we have seen a new form of tyranny with corporate greed. Only a few big tech companies have a monopoly on western thought; our consumer materialism has reached the sickening level of manipulating teens on their cellphones & selling their data for profit! (disturbing suicide statistics) . It also steeps over into the corruption of the food industry & big pharma as well. Chesterton & Merton had brilliant critiques of capitalism! Apparently Chesterton came up with a system called distributism I’m learning all about now! God bless you all, let’s keep learning people!! 🙏🏻

[@Joker22593]

They clearly don't have a monopoly on thought if you can still think so.

[@BriceRobell]

@@Joker22593 My friend, I think you’re taking that portion of my statement too literally. Of course, it is literally impossible to have an “actual” monopoly on thought in any given system-communist or capitalist; hence the importance of individuals and social critics pursuing the fullness of truth. This is why individual conscience and appeal to “the natural law” is of utmost importance. However, just because they (modern media platforms) don’t have a “literal” monopoly on thought, doesn’t mean they’re not trying to. Hence algorithms that manipulate and promote the ideologies they want us to see. Furthermore, it’s obvious from the people/ideas they have been caught censoring. Totalitarianism comes in many forms & it would be of our benefit to avoid simplistic answers. I would recommend Netflix documentary: “The social dilemma” for more info here. Thanks for the feedback, Joker! Stay up homie 🙏🏻

[@charlesfisher83]

He wrote a great textbook on logic

[@edcoldrock3849]

The pitfalls of capitalism are unchecked corporate greed & their buying of politicans via their lobbyists. That is CORPORATISM: communism for corporations, funded by the taxpayer bail outs, subsidies, etc. Both communism for people and communism for corporations are toxic, anti-free market, and anti-capitalism. WOKE/Marxists strawman capitalism by criticizing/attacking corporatism, as if they are one in the same. MAGA/hack GOPers faciliate corporatism by pretending to be for "free market capitalism", as if they are one in the same. Civil Libertarians are the only ones having an honest discussion about all this.

[@erlindafields8897]

Dr Kreeft one of the greatest mind of Philosopher that ever live!!!

[@Agaporis12]

Oh Kreeft, you can’t tease me like that! Quoting Chesterton left and right in a video about Marx and Confucius. Now you have to do a Chesterton one! But who can you compare him with? Nietzsche was his opposite number but you’ve already done Nietzsche. Who could it be? Shaw? I’m sure they’d both appreciate that. Same with H.G. Wells. Perhaps Tolstoy. But I feel as if you’ll pick someone more ancient. We’ll have to see.

[@charlesfisher83]

Rand

[@viscomfa]

The moment we devolve into a battle of will's, we loose our humanity. Thank you Dr. Kreef

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:22 🌍 Confucius lived in a time of change, emphasizing harmony and cooperation between past and future, while Marx focused on class conflict and revolutionary change. 02:14 🔀 Confucianism and Christianity share similar moral values, like the Golden Rule, while Marx's values are revolutionary and conflict-driven. 03:38 🔄 Confucius aimed to unite the past and future, while Marx rejected the past and advocated for radical change through revolution. 05:25 🇨🇳 China's political landscape blends Confucianism, capitalism, and communism; it faces challenges in reconciling its historical values with its political system. 09:05 🧪 Marx's philosophy presents logical and factual contradictions; he promoted class conflict but lacked trust in the proletariat. 12:29 🧒 Confucianism's success lies in its balanced, humble, and harmonious approach, emphasizing continuity and growth. 16:08 🔄 Confucius aimed to bridge generational gaps; Marxism sought to exploit them for revolutionary change. 19:31 🤝 Confucianism sees an interconnectedness between individual virtues and societal virtues, while Marx emphasizes societal determinism. 23:19 🌟 Confucius focuses on values rooted in the human heart, shared by many world religions; Marx lacks a universal moral foundation. 25:55 🌱 Confucian values emphasize benevolence, largeness of spirit, spiritual power, and propriety; they promote harmony and humility. 26:38 🎭 Confucius emphasized the importance of manners, combining ethics and aesthetics, seeing it as natural and habitual, like a work of art. 27:48 📜 The significance of proper names and language restoration for restoring harmony in life, as words define concepts and provide the foundation for a well-functioning society. 29:00 🎨 Confucius recognized the power of art in society, contrasting the value given to art in ancient Athens to the perception of artists as societal outsiders in modern Western societies. 30:10 ⚖️ Contrasting Marxism and Confucianism, Marxism's ideological art and aggression stand against Confucius' focus on peace, aesthetic harmony, and respect for names. 31:36 🚫 Marxism and fascism share a resemblance in their authoritarian nature despite their opposing political ideologies; both emphasize power over values. 32:06 💥 Marxism's power lies in practice and negative criticism rather than its theoretical framework; its reduction of everything to economics and materialism is a cornerstone. 33:15 ⚔️ Marx's philosophy targets not only capitalism but also the entire Western tradition, reflecting a strong desire for societal transformation. 35:31 🧠 Marx's epiphenomenalism argues that ideas are effects, not causes, of material events, but this premise contradicts our broader experiences. 38:05 🌀 The popularity of Marxism is linked to Nietzsche's concept of the will to power, favoring power over truth, and it's the attraction to power that fuels its influence. 39:45 🌐 The allure of Marxism and its promise of global change appeals to our desire for power and revolution, even if its philosophy is weak and historically destructive. 41:08 🔄 To counter the appeal of Marxism, embracing Confucius' platitudes, focusing on principles, repentance, and conversion can lead to genuine progress. Made with HARPA AI

[@eileenaustin7759]

Thanks for these key points. We are studying Socrate's Children in our Practical Evangelization Community in the WOFI....this is very helpful! Thanks again.

[@corycooper7179]

Another perfect example of God's Grace in our lives daily! Thanks so very much WOF !!!🙏

[@christophersnedeker]

20:14 Reminds me of something George Carlin said. To paraphrase "everyone complains about politicians, but they don't land here from another planet or pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American schools, American businesses and American families. This is the best we can do folks, garbage in, garbage out."

[@nanettefernandez2863]

Very insightful. Excellent presentation. We need these kinds of presentation & discussion, done in the schools, as early as high schools when our children are preparing to integrate into society.

[@miriba8608]

I purchased the books that go along with these talks for my kids for supplementing to school. It's up to us to arm our kids with nutritious food dor their brain to counter the garbage they get everywhere else.

[@taywil64A]

Another excellent explanation of the traditions and legacies of Confucius and Marx. This series has been one of WOF's best and is most educational and insightful.

[@JGaleazziS]

Though it is noticeable Dr.Krefts Biases it is appreciated that he is willing to speak about philosophies he may not agree with

[@valuedCustomer2929]

Everyone has biases. Dr. Kreeft's are based in his many decades of deeply studying these philosophers. He's easily in league with the most respected philosophy academics of our time

[@heroicacts5218]

Another amazing speech. Marx wins also because it is the skeptical solution. It is easier (and safer) to doubt than to trust.

[@RocketKirchner]

Marx attracts those who have not dealt with their own shadow and grievances .

[@syourke3]

Marx attracts those who are honest and intelligent enough to recognize how thoroughly unjust and cruel capitalism really is. Ever read his “Capital”. Didn’t think so. Well, read it before you comment on Marx. Capitalism is entirely driven by the lust for profit, and profits are made by exploiting wage labor. Capitalism is pure evil. Especially finance capitalism, based on putting people in debt and then charging them compound interest. China has risen as the greatest economy in the world since its Communist revolution in 1949. China has lifted a billion people out of poverty in a dongle generation. Meanwhile, bankers and corporations destroy the USA. This idiot doesn’t understand anything about Marxism at all.

[@reycfd7753]

Peter Kreeft is the Philosopher par excellence.

[@christophersnedeker]

I'm not a marxist but I agree with his assessment of capitalism though not his philosophy of revolution and his plan for the collectivist state.

[@williamcrawford7621]

Fascism has been brought up several times over the course of these lectured. Since we have now touched on Marx, perhaps we could next compare Giovanni Gentile to a philosopher who had a suitable corollary to his philosophy.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

For Berkeley, without thought, no being. Not being presupposed for thought, but thought is the presupposition of being. Not thinking based on being, but being based on thinking. There is no, so to speak, unthought being, but being is essentially thought, under penalty of its non-existence. We are already in perfect and complete idealism, which will attract the approval of Gentile, who, however, will compassionately set aside all the religious ideas of Berkeley, to assume only the idealistic juice. Gentile, who has behind him the Fichtian and Hegelian absorption of the thing a self in the Cartesian cogito, expresses an even more radical criticism of Berkeley. In fact, given that it is clear that perceiving is immaterial, the dangerous and seductive material world appears eliminated and only - at least, so it seems at first sight - the soul, the ideals, the pure thoughts and wills, the spirit, the angels and God. Except that, as the proverb says, the extremes touch. Whoever exaggerates in despising matter is precisely the one who immerses himself in it completely. And after Hegel Gentile will give the final touch: God does not create reality, but I create it and indeed I create myself with my act of thinking (autoctisi). Can one go further?

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

It is striking how the history of idealism joins that of Christian thought, which goes from Descartes to the present day, up to the modernism of the last century, to Maréchal, Rahner, Bontadini, and today's neo-modernism. Descartes himself was a practicing Catholic, he had studied at the famous Jesuit school of La Flèche and was convinced that he had rendered Catholicism a useful service in terms of a renewed foundation of the truth of knowledge. Already since the time of Descartes, his admirers arose convinced that his philosophy could serve Catholic theology. Suffice it to cite all the names of Malebranche and Card. de Bérulle. A Berkeley in England, together with many other Anglicans of his followers, fits into this current of thought convinced that not realism, considered close to materialism, but idealism renders the Christian faith the service and honor it deserves. The German idealists consider themselves interpreters, better than the Catholics, of the spiritualistic and interior instance of Christianity, misinterpreting, as Luther had done, the Augustinian spirituality, which they had contaminated with Ockhamism. Hegel explicitly declares his intent to give a philosophical foundation to his Lutheran faith. The astonishing thing is that Gentile, for all his brazen and sophistical polemic against realism, has the audacity to declare himself a Christian and even a Catholic. His conception of the Spirit as Act, Whole, one, unique, absolute, universal, concrete, immanent, subjective, Spirit which is I and which we are, Spirit which excludes spirits, which are nothing other than its determinations or its multiplications, what Spirit is it?

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

Here again, we see that behind the apparent acceptance of the mystery of the Incarnation, there is the Hegelian dialectic of synthesis as a concreteness resulting from the opposition of abstract theses and antitheses. Gentile confuses the relationship of man in general with God with the mystery of the Incarnation understood not as the unity of the person in the duality of natures but as the unity of concrete in the duality of two abstracts. Instead, the mystery of the Incarnation involves the duality of two substances in a single existence. Gentile, therefore, in addition to frustrating the two natures to confuse them in a false synthesis, anticipates the feel-good anthropology of Rahner, who also confuses the relationship of Christ's humanity with God, an evidently indissoluble relationship, with the relationship of other men with God in the present life, which men, being sinners, can break the union with God by sin. Certainly, the disciples and followers of idealist Catholics are not lacking; but what are the results? An increase in religious practice and believers? Of the conversions to Catholicism? An increase in religious and priestly vocations? An improvement or at least a maintenance of Christian customs? A greater prestige of the Church in society? It doesn't seem like it at all, unlike the times when realist scholastic philosophy enjoyed prestige.

[@Wakeup382]

Thank you Word On Fire for yet another blockbuster talks with one of our brightest minds. God bless you Fr Steve and Bishop Barron and team for putting all these talks. Putting this into the internet ethos is risky but it worked in the favor of bringing the internet up at least a notch or severa.

[@johnbalicoco1767]

Thank you Dr. Peter Kreft for another wonderful video. And I would like to suggest a lectures on the Astikas and Buddhism if it is possible. Once again thank you!

[@ChristianMessages-rx8sv]

Thank you Father for this talk! May God bless you.

[@NashSumar-fc2zd]

Thank you for your great job 👏 ❤ very refreshing…

[@johnkalbert2014]

Word on 🔥 Fire

[@theoneilovemost]

It's easy to confuse what is with 'what should be' especially when what is has worked out in your favor.

[@reginaclaire4680]

You sound like Kamala

[@theoneilovemost]

@reginaclaire4680 then she sounds like Tyrion Lannister, which is hilarious unless you're only counting the last 2 seasons.

[@HighKingTurgon]

Sincerity has nothing to do with wax, Dr. Kreeft. It's the same roots as semel and Ceres. "growing from one thing," as it were; that is, not duplex, or duplicitous.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

At the time of the Romans, it was customary to repair the ruined statues by putting wax in the cracks, so that the statues themselves could give the idea of perfection at least in the distance, despite this, however, despite being "defective", some works were so beautiful as not to be completely retouched, precisely for this reason, they were called "sine cera" statues and "proudly" showed their beauty and their integrity despite having some wrongdoings, this in order not to seem artificial.

[@HighKingTurgon]

@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp According to what contemporary account or archaeological finding? "Sincere" has nothing to do with wax. It is etymological fact. This wax thing gets repeated so much that Prof. Kreeft, an extraordinarily intelligent man, repeats it with a different origin than you, whom I will presume to be quite intelligent, providing a different origin than Dan Brown, an extraordinarily...wealthy...writer. When you have three different stories as to why "sincere" means "without wax," none of them is true. It means "simple" in its etymological heart.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

@@HighKingTurgon 2/4 (start quote) The Romans ordered batches of large amphorae for wines and oils from Greek potters and potters. It is known that the vases are waterproofed, or rather glazed, especially inside so that their contents do not ooze; the Greeks, somewhat Neapolitan, often adopted a trick: instead of the more expensive glazing, they used liquid wax which they poured into the container. Over time the trick was discovered, because even if very slowly, the liquid contained came out of the vase due to porosity [ta]. Then the Romans, now shrewd, when they placed orders for batches of vases from the Greeks, recommended that these be SINE CERA and that is [is] without wax. Virtually no makeup. Hence the word sincere which today stands [sic] to mean without deceit. (Alessandro Pecorari, Sincere wine, post on the site: win.perpaolopecorari.it site of 12/30/2005) Even the word sincere has an illuminating origin in its etymology, sine ceris = without wax. In ancient times, when a statue had defects, it could be fixed with wax, which masked and smoothed the corrupted marble. Instead, when it was perfect, and didn't need corrections, it was defined as sincere, without wax. (Alessio Atzeni, Art of awakening, Milan, Anima Edizioni, 2020, p. 190) As the etymology of the word itself says, he who is sincere is without wax (Cf. lat. sine cera). In fact, it is said that at the time of the ancient Romans, sugar did not exist and therefore honey was used to sweeten drinks. However, not all beekeepers were honest, and to get more honey to sell they often mixed it with beeswax, making it less pure and consequently less good. The word sincere, in fact, indicates a person "without wax" or a pure, authentic, non-counterfeit person who does not use tricks or cheat in his relationship with others. He is sincere in speaking the truth with charity, choosing the right occasions, and does not hurt the other. (Enrico Russo, The Eclipse of the Heart, Booksprint, 2018) (end quote) In reality, as indicated by the main dictionaries, the Latin adjective sincerus has a completely different etymology: it derives from the root *sem-/*sim- 'only one, unique' (from which also the Latin adverb semel 'once' and the adjective simplex 'simple') and from -cērus, corradical of the verb crēscere 'to become large, to increase' and therefore means 'of only one origin; all in one piece. In fact, in Latin, the first meaning of the adjective sincērus is 'pure, healthy, uncorrupted' and also 'pure, natural, simple, intact'; then by extension 'loyal, frank, honest', so much so that in Livy sincerā fide means 'in good faith'. The etymology reflects the first meaning of the word in Latin: sincerity is a virtue that primarily concerns the integrity of man regardless of the "social" and relational aspects. By extension then, whoever is sincere, i.e. pure and uncorrupted in heart, is automatically loyal and frank in his relationship with the other. The para etymology previously justifies the derivation from sine and cera through more or less imaginative historical reconstructions, which neglect the original and primary meaning of the word. In Italian the first literary occurrences of sincero are in the rhymes of Guido Orlandi, dating back to 1290-1304: "amore sincero - né piange né ride: in questo conduce spesso homo o fema, per raggio di segno prende e divide." sincere love - neither weeps nor laughs: in this he often leads homo or fema, by sign radius it takes and divides. (Guido Orlandi, The thread is broken by too much subtlety, in Valentina Pollidori (edited by), Le Rime di Giudo Orlandi, in “Studi di filologia italiana”, LIII, 1995, pp. 55-202, p. 126, vv .7-9) In this case, sincere love is true, pure love that has no substance, that is, it does not cry or laugh. Again in reference to love, we find the adjective in the poem by the same author, Reasoning about love, mi conviene laudar. The most interesting occurrences from a semantic point of view, however, are certainly in Dante's Paradise, the only song in which the adjective in question appears. The various meanings with which Dante uses sincere help us understand its meaning in its entirety and above all they are functional to understand in what sense the word was used in the Italian origins. E prima ch’io a ’l ovra fossi attento, una natura in Cristo esser, non più e, credea, e di tal fede era contento; ma ’l benedetto Agapito, che fue sommo pastore, a la fede sincera mi dirizzò con le parole sue. (Paradiso VI, vv.13-18) And before I was attentive to the ova, a nature in Christ to be, no longer and, credea, and with this faith he was content; but the blessed Agapetus, who was chief shepherd, to sincere faith he addressed me with his own words. (Paradise VI, vv.13-18)

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

@@HighKingTurgon 3/4 In canto VI we find ourselves in Mercury's Heaven and Dante meets the Spirits who did good in view of earthly glory. In these verses, it is Justinian who introduces himself and describes a profound conversion of him: before he took care of the legislative work (ovra), he believed that in Christ there was only one nature and this faith satisfied him; but the blessed Agapito, who was supreme pontiff, directed him with his words to authentic faith (sincere faith). True, sincere faith is founded on the dual nature of Christ (that of true God and true man), on which all Christianity hinges. In canto VII we find again the adjective sincere: Li angeli, frate, e ’l paese sincero nel qual tu se’, dir si posson creati, sì come sono, in loro esser intero; (Paradiso VII, vv. 130-132) The angels, brother, and the sincere country in which you are, they can be said to be created, yes as they are, in their entire being; (Paradise VII, vv. 130-132) This song, with a complex theological content, explains, through the words of Beatrice, why the redemption of humanity had to pass through the sacrifice of Christ. The specific passage precedes the answer to Dante's question on why the elements of nature are subject to transience and corruptibility: the angels, and the pure place (sincere country) in which Dante finds himself, can be considered created directly by God as well as they are, in their entire being, that is, in the fullness of their being. In this sincere case referring to the country, it means 'pure, uncorrupted' and designates the Heaven in which Dante and Beatrice are found. Furthermore, the sincere adjective rhymes with the words true and whole, which reinforces its semantics. Forse la mia parola par troppo osa, posponendo il piacer de li occhi belli, ne’ quai mirando mio disio ha posa; ma chi s’avvede che i vivi suggelli d’ogne bellezza più fanno più suso, e ch’io non m’era lì rivolto a quelli, escusar puommi di quel ch’io m’accuso per escusarmi, e vedermi dir vero: ché ’l piacer santo non è qui dischiuso, perché si fa, montando, più sincero. (Paradiso XIV, vv. 130-139) Perhaps my word seems too daring, postponing the pleasure of beautiful eyes, where looking at my desire has rest; but who sees that the living seals of all beauty the more they make the higher they become, and that I hadn't turned to them there, you can excuse me for what I accuse myself to excuse me, and see me tell the truth: since holy pleasure is not disclosed here, because it becomes, by mounting, more sincere. (Paradise XIV, vv. 130-139) Sincere, in this verse, refers to holy pleasure, i.e. the holy beauty of Beatrice's eyes, which become, as they ascend (mounting), purer, therefore more shining, i.e. closer to perfection. The sincerity of the woman's eyes is equivalent to purity, to the absence of earthly refractions and therefore of sins. As her eyes reflect the light of God, they become more and more pure and therefore incorrupt. The meaning is similar in canto XXVIII: Così l’ottavo e ’l nono; e chiascheduno più tardo si movea, secondo ch’era in numero distante più da l’uno; e quello avea la fiamma più sincera cui men distava la favilla pura, credo, però che più di lei s’invera. (Paradiso XXVIII, vv. 34-39) So the eighth and the ninth; and everyone later it moved, according to it was in number more distant from one; and that had the most sincere flame from which the pure spark was least distant, I believe, however, that more than she is true. (Paradise XXVIII, vv. 34-39)

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

@@HighKingTurgon 4/4 The eighth and ninth circles, and like them all the others, moved more slowly as they moved away from the center; just as whoever was closest to the center, in which there is the pure light of the spark, had the most refulgent (sincere) light (flame) because it is more penetrated by its truth (it becomes true). Again sincere refers to the purity and incorruptibility of the divine light, which is defined as a pure spark. Finally in canto XXXIII: Bernardo m’accennava, e sorridea, perch’io guardassi suso; ma io era già per me stesso tal qual ei volea: ché la mia vista, venendo sincera, e più e più intrava per lo raggio de l’alta luce che da sé è vera. (Paradiso XXXIII, vv. 49-54) Bernardo pointed to me, and smiled, for me to look up; but I was already for myself such as he wanted: because my sight, coming sincere, and more and more he glimpsed through the radius of the high light which is true by itself. (Paradise XXXIII, vv. 49-54) Bernardo nodded and smiled at Dante so that he would look up; but Dante was already predisposed to do alone as Bernardo wanted: in fact, his vision, becoming clearer (sincere), penetrated more and more into the ray of the high light which is true in itself. Here too, as in canto VII, sincere rhymes with vera, and not by chance: we are right in the last canto of Paradise when Dante comes to contemplate the mind of God, i.e. the supreme truth through which he comes to see the unity of 'Universe, understand the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Sincere sight in this case carries with it the meaning of truth but also of unity, purity, and knowledge. As we have seen through Dante's examples, the first meanings of sincere are 'pure', and 'incorrupt' and therefore concern an individual moral characteristic of man (which is also reflected in his sensitive perception, above all through sight), regardless of relationship with each other. The most widespread meaning today is instead the extensive one of 'who shuns any deception or falsehood in speaking or acting; frank, loyal, outspoken' (Dictionary "Devoto-Oli" 2022). This meaning is the most widespread in contemporary literature but finds evidence starting from (Ludovico) Ariosto, and then in (Gabriele) D'Annunzio: Se, dopo una lunga prova, a gran fatica / trovar si può chi ti sia amico vero: / ... / che dè far di Ruggier la bella amica / con quel Brunel non puro e non sincero, / ma tutto simulato e tutto finto, / come la maga l’avea dipinto (Ludovico Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, canto IV, vv. 9-16, dell’edizione a cura di Lanfranco Caretti, Milano-Napoli, Ricciardi, 1954, p. 2) Ah, cara amica, non sorridete! Ella era ingenua e sincera parlando così: ella aveva lasciato in realtà i suoi occhi su quel frammento di tela che l’Arte con un po’ di colore ha fatto centro d’un mistero indefinitamente gaudioso. (Gabriele D’Annunzio, Il fuoco, Milano, Mondadori, 2013, s.p. [edizione digitale a cura di Annamaria Andreoli e Niva Lorenzini]) If, after a long trial, with great difficulty / you can find who is your true friend: / ... / what to make Ruggier a beautiful friend / with that Brunel who is not pure and not sincere, / but all simulated and all fake , / as the sorceress had painted it (Ludovico Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, canto IV, lines 9-16, from the edition edited by Lanfranco Caretti, Milan-Naples, Ricciardi, 1954, p. 2) Ah, dear friend, don't smile! She was naive and sincere speaking like this: she had actually left her eyes on that fragment of canvas that Art, with a little color, has made the center of an indefinitely joyful mystery. (Gabriele D'Annunzio, Il fuoco, Milan, Mondadori, 2013, sp [digital edition edited by Annamaria Andreoli and Niva Lorenzini]) In conclusion, the sincere adjective has, as in Latin, the first meaning of 'grown in one piece', therefore 'pure, uncorrupted', as evidenced by the first attestations in the early literature. By extension, the word began to take on the meaning of 'truthful' and then of 'loyal, frank' especially in the relationship with the other. These extensive meanings are attested starting at least from Ariosto, until they become the most widespread and known today. The widely used para etymologies, which derive the word from sine cera, try to reconstruct the history of sincere starting from these extensive meanings, not taking into account the original semantics of the term. Perhaps, para etymology might seem more suggestive and captivating than scientifically proven etymology: but it is enough to read Dante to understand the depth and completeness of apparently simplistic semantics. So, you are therefore absolutely right, and I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to have been able to explore a fact that most of us, and I, in primis, are often led to underestimate, namely the truly critical requirement of texts. Thank you very much. God bless.

[@Rainstorm121]

Thank you Prof Kreeft. What is your reaction to Prof Richard Wolf, who always argue that Marxism's principle in economics have evolved into useful tool and that it is the potential candidate to solve the falling US capitalistic system?

[@johnmckeown4931]

I never cease to be at amazed at how Americans can always find other regimes other tyrants to point the finger at while being totally blind to the horrors they have inflicted on millions of people. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[@mikelopez8564]

@McKeown-“woke” virtue signalers like you can’t help telling others what to do/believe. Telling people to shut up if they don’t share your ideology is less effective than just supporting your position with facts. If you find the facts don’t support your beliefs, the appropriate response is to align yourself with reality. BTW, your Marxism is showing

[@andrewferg8737]

The professor seems to have identified the only sure and reliable foundation for rapprochement between today's most antagonistic of rivals, China and the US. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

[@selahahmedibnmalachi8164]

How can I get the transcript to this lecture emailed to me pls.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

1/7 Lection 7 is Confucius versus Marx on society . When the Jesuit missionaries Francis Xavier and Matteo Ricci became the first Europeans since Marco Polo to visit China in the 16th century they found a remarkably advanced culture there China was even then larger in its population than any of the nations of Europe or Christendom and also older than any in the west except Egypt and in many ways its civilization was more advanced. The foundation of its cultural identity was Confucianism, which was less a religion than a social morality with a vague religious veneer called the will of Heaven. And the Jesuits found its moral values strikingly similar to classical and Christian values, though not quite identical. It looked like a kind of second Aristotle. Aristotle was the most common sensical and reasonable of all Pagan philosophers and the most useful and easily assimilated by Christians like Saint Thomas Aquinas on the natural level, though not of course on the supernatural level. And the Jesuits hoped for a new synthesis and assimilation of Confucius, similar to what Aquinas had done with Aristotle. That did not happen, largely for political reasons on both sides the Jesuits recalled their missionaries from China and they were forcibly ejected from Japan. It's not so surprising that Confucius's morality is so similar to Christian morality, however you explain it. It is simply a fact that all the great religions of the world have a strikingly similar morality, although they also have strikingly dissimilar theologies. Christian theology centering on Christ is radically unique radically different from all other theologies, but Christian morality is not nearly that distinctive. For instance, a universal principle of Christian morality is the Golden Rule due unto others as you would have them do unto you or love your neighbor as you love yourself. And Confucius also has a universal principle which is often called the silver rule, it is not doing to your neighbor anything you would not have him do to you. It is the exact same principle stated negatively. The single most fundamental moral value for Confucianism is “Gen” which means benevolence or good will which is Saint Thomas Aquinas's definition of the most fundamental Christian value charity or agape, love. If the pre-Christian values and virtues of Confucianism are strikingly similar to Christian values and virtues, the post-Christian values of Karl Marx in contrast are even more strikingly opposite to Christian values. All the principles laws and suggestions and Confucius's very complex and detailed moral system are part of a single system somewhat like a solar system like planets orbiting a single sun which is harmony and cooperation and preserving natural order and peace. While Marx's most basic values are revolutionary and competitive and violent, this is especially true about their opposite attitudes towards the past. Confucius could be called a progressive conservative he began by respecting and learning from China's classics of the past from his tradition and then he applied it anew to the new needs of his changing present situation and to his culture's future. He joined the past to the future and healed the generation gap that was opening up in his day. Marx in contrast deliberately increased it. He saw all of human history as oppression and class conflict and all existing institutions as things to be hated rejected destroyed or forgotten. One of Marx's favorite quotations was the line the devil speaks then Goethe’s Faust, “everything that exists deserves to perish.” The contrast between Confucianism and communism is extremely relevant today for both China the world's largest nation and America its strongest opponent, for just as America is now involved in the most serious internal crisis in its history by increasingly criticizing its own founding and its own Founder's most fundamental values, so China is also now involved in the most serious crisis in its history since communism and its values has largely but not totally replaced Confucianism and its opposite values. Because of the spectacular military success of the greatest mass murderer in human history, Mao Zedong , yet even though China has an officially communist body it still may have a Confucian soul and its rulers are pragmatic enough to make compromises with both Confucianism and capitalism many conquerors have passed through China in the last two thousand years and each one has dribbled away like water off the back of a duck. Will the Confucian duck survive the Communist reign? No one knows the present is a time of testing of criticism of crisis and of crossroads for both Western and Eastern cultures, so comparing the philosophies of Confucius and Marx is not just an abstract academic exercise for us: it is about our society's future and identity also. Intellectuals throughout modern Western Civilization for the last century or two have always gravitated to the left as their default position, and the most total and radical definition of the left is Marxism or communism. The BBC once took a poll of a cross-section of all citizens in Great Britain and asked who is the greatest philosopher who ever lived, and the winner was Karl Marx! I don't think Marx would have won that poll in Russia or in any other nation that had actually tried Marxism and lived through it. This influence continues among intellectuals despite the fact that Marxism has been the most disastrous social experiment in human history it has been responsible for more murders of innocent human beings than any other philosophy in history and its economic predictions have been more totally refuted by history than any other. Orthodox Marxist economics has proved to be a disaster everywhere it has been tried, and nearly every historical prediction that Marx made has been refuted by actual events. For instance, communism has not succeeded in advanced industrial capitalist countries like Germany as Marx predicted but only and always in poor and backward countries and capitalism has not collapsed as Marx predicted, it has thrived and succeeded in mitigating poverty everywhere, even in China.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

2/7 Marx claimed that his philosophy was scientific as no other was. He claimed to make history a science for the first time in discovering the innermost law of its dynamism, the so-called dialectic of economic class conflict that drives all change, but science relies on facts on data and Marx not only ignored all the data both historical and economic that didn't fit into his system, but he also deliberately and knowingly used lies in propaganda. For instance, in “The Communist Manifesto” he said that the Manifesto was being issued after a worldwide meeting of Communist party members when there were at that time exactly two members in existence: himself and Engels, his co-writer. He was not only a liar but a hypocrite. He exalted the proletariat as the saviors of the human race, yet he himself despised the proletariat. He never listened to them. He had not a single proletarian friend and he would not allow them into his group. He also never set foot in a single one of the factories that he excoriated for their exploitation of workers and he would not listen to anyone who had actually had experience in working in factories. When confronted with the fact of the existence of peaceful and happy non-socialist societies of the past and the present, Marx always interpreted them as in fact oppressive and their citizens as simply stupid and in need of consciousness … in other words revolutionary propaganda. All non-communist happiness was by definition false happiness, all communist misery was really true happiness. Confucius would see here perhaps just a wee little bit of a need for what he called the “restoration of proper names.” Marx's philosophy is full of not only contradictions to facts but also logical self-contradictions. For instance, he exhorts the workers of the world to unite under communism to choose communism over capitalism but communism teaches that there is no such thing as free choice or free will since all historical change is totally determined. Another self-contradiction is that Marx's philosophy of human nature was as cynical and pessimistic and egotistic as that of Machiavelli. Yet he trusted that once the Communist Revolution succeeded the new rulers would simply give up their power and wither away out of their idealistic and altruistic love of mankind. Even Jesus could not make us all living saints and create heaven on earth: how would communism do that? But this utopian “Marxist Heaven” of course has actually appeared throughout the world wherever communism has taken over in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Castro's Cuba, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Kim il-Jung's North Korea, Maduros’ Venezuela: all places where there is so much peace and plenty and freedom and happiness that everybody wants to immigrate into these countries and nobody wants to emigrate. Right. If you believe that I have a timeshare in Florida I'd like to sell you! So, in terms of human happiness Marxism is the single least successful social and political philosophy in history, both historically and logically. And the one most definitively refuted both by logic and by the facts of history. Confucianism - on the other hand - has been the single most successful social and political system in human history. It has held together in relative harmony contentment and peace the world's largest nation for the longest time over two thousand years. And that did not come easily. Confucius lived during what is called China's period of warring States, a time of many internal civil wars. But once Confucius's reforms were instituted - long after his death - they lasted for over two thousand years longer than any other social system in human history. Let's explore the reasons for this contrast. What is the secret of success in Confucianism? Its basic text - to the analysis - does not seem to solve the puzzle but to exacerbate it for it is the dullest and most quotidian and pedestrian of all the world's religious scriptures. It is full of obvious platitudes. It sounds like the song from Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, “It's nice to be nice.” It sounds like, “What we learned in kindergarten?” It's not revolutionary, romantic, rebellious or mystical. It sounds stuffy and moralistic and legalistic to most of us, modern readers in the West. But could it be that perhaps we have forgotten our moral kindergarten? That those platitudes are the lessons we need the most and forget the easiest and are too proud to return to like humble little children? There was once another famous moral Teacher who said that: “Unless we became like little children we could not enter His kingdom.” And who predicted that: “The meek would inherit the earth.” …The contrast between the success of Confucianism and the disaster of Marxism (is an) empirical verification of that prophecy. Well, let's look at the contrast between the personalities of these two philosophers, for people make philosophies before philosophies make people! Confucius was humble, modest, gentle and open-minded. He was a great teacher: one of his traditional titles is simply “the first teacher.” He was full of respect for both the dead and the living; he had a gentle and ironic sense of humor, and he loved dialogue with ordinary people. Confucius was Socrates without the syllogisms. Marx was the exact opposite: arrogant, egotistic, totally lacking in humor. A bully, a closed-minded ideologue. And never opened to dialogue to listening or even tolerant of any disagreement. Habitually shouting: “I will annihilate you!” to anyone who disagreed with him. This difference in personality also corresponded to two different philosophies of human nature and of human history. For Confucius man is a natural growing thing , not an artifact or a construct of will and ideology. And human history is like the life of a living organism, a plant or an animal. All of Confucius's values are geared towards harmony. Harmony, between classes and between individuals, because society for him is organic not mechanical. The harmony and cooperation of its parts and its organs is what keeps any organism alive and its continuity with its past is essential for its growth.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

3/7 Plants roots are never as enemies, because a plant is an organism not a machine or a battlefield. But for Marx human history is essentially conflict oppression and struggle and it culminates in violent revolution and the utopian demand for radical change and the ripping up of all old roots. This hatred of the past and demand for a revolutionary and violent future has characterized both the Revolutionary left and the Revolutionary right of the modern West. Both communism and fascism. This difference in their philosophies of history reflects a difference in their philosophies of human nature. Confucius had the Aristotelian instinct to always seek a golden mean between extremes and therefore he equally criticized two one-sided philosophies of human nature that were around in his day as they are in ours. On the one side stood (optimists) who, like Rousseau, believed that man was by nature good, altruistic and trustable and that the feeling of universal love would solve all social problems. On the other side stood the so-called “realists” who, like Machiavelli and Hobbes, saw a man as inherently selfish and violent and saw a force and fear as the only effective way to improve his behavior. While Confucius embraced a golden mean between the optimists and the pessimists Marx was definitively in the school of Machiavelli and Hobbes but without their realism. In fact, he had the most romantic idealism and utopianism, like Rousseau. So, he had the worst of both worlds. Christ, by the way, was not a moralist(?) or a Rousseaunian, as Nietzsche mistakenly thought. He told us to be “harmless as doves but also wise as serpents.” He did indeed see mankind as potentially good far more than his contemporaries did, but he also saw them as corrupt and evil far more than his contemporaries did. His fiery forerunner and cousin and friend - John the Baptist, whom Jesus labeled the greatest of the prophets - was far from a( …) or a Rousseau and so was the man who overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple and attacked them with a whip of cords. The opposite social and political programs of Confucius and Marx were based on their opposite attitudes towards the past. Confucius was concerned to maintain continuity, Marx to eliminate it. Confucius began with trusting tradition, Marx with distrusting it. Confucius wanted to minimize the dangerous generation gap that was opening up between the old and the new in his Century the 6th Century BC. Marx wanted to increase it and to use it to foment the revolution. So, he supported all revolutions even non-Marxist ones because they destabilized the existing order all of which for Marx had to perish. The crisis Confucius faced this generation gap was happening all over the world at the same time as the whole human race was apparently entering its “teenage stage” of self-consciousness and self-doubt and questioning. The 6th Century BC is called the “axial period of History” because it was as if human consciousness was turning on its axis. The crisis produced new sages everywhere all of whom demanded more deliberate and internalized and sure versions of their traditions. The early Greek philosophers, the Hebrew prophets, the writers of the “Bhagavad-gita” in India, Buddha, Lao-Tsu, Confucius's work performed the same task as theirs to embrace the values of the past on the ancestors but in a new, more free, more individual, more rational, more conscious and more deliberate way. In other words to be both conservative and progressive. I think that one of the reasons Marxism was so attractive in our time is that Revolution and war and violence however evil they are and whatever evils they bring seem at least much more interesting than peace and harmony and cooperation and moderation and compromise. But this is an illusion. Peace is really much more interesting than war and life is more interesting than death and cooperation is more interesting than conflict. A conservative train that succeeds in staying on its traditional tracks and succeeds in taking people long distances to their desired end is really more remarkable and more interesting than a progressive and revolutionary train that goes off the tracks. Standing upright is more interesting than falling down, whether you fall forward or backward, whether to the right or to the left. Playing the right notes is more interesting than slamming your fist down angrily and at random on the keyboard. Another separation and dualism that Confucius overcomes is the one between individuals and society. Like Plato, he sees individual virtues and social virtues as identical. No double standard because society is made by and composed of individuals and individuals are formed by society. And this is true of society at all levels, beginning with the family and completed with the nation. And the individual is the source of the social for Confucius as it was for Plato, whereas in Marx it is the opposite. For him the individual is totally formed by the state rather than vice versa. The issue here is the identity of the first cause. For Marx it is the economic structure of a political system. For Confucius it is the human heart. Confucius taught if there is benevolence in the heart there will be harmony in the household, if there is harmony in the household there will be ordering the state, if there is order in the state there will be peace in the world. In Marx we see still another non-confusion conflict and contrast between the end and the means. For Marx the social and political end justifies means that are its opposite. Peace comes only through war. Equality comes only through class conflict. Life comes only through eliminating the enemy. Justice comes only through injustices. And equality comes only through an elite. George Orwell shows this irony with delicious and bitter wit in “Animal Farm” where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others and in which war is peace and freedom is slavery. For Marx ethics is simply the rationalization of the social and political power structure. It is appearance rather than reality like the icing on the cake or the veneer that masks the furniture. In ancient Rome wax was used to mask defects in the wood so good wood was advertised as without wax. The Latin for those two words is “sine” “cere” from which we get our word sincere (I corrected the etymology in a statement aforementioned above, Ed.) For Marx as for Sartre ethics is essentially insincere. He calls ethics and religion and philosophy the mere superstructure rather than the structure. The structure is always matter and the superstructure is mind. And thought is for Marx only an epi phenomenon that means an effect but not a cause. It simply passively reflects whatever has the power to make the laws. Of course, he makes an exception for his own thought! Relativism and subjectivism of thought is the same idea that was taught in Socrates - Day by the sophists like Trasymacus in the Republic and Callicles in the Gorgeous. For Marx since there are no universal and unchanging values, there can be nothing universal or common to both feudal values and capitalist values, or common to both capitalist values and communist values. He says that different economic systems produce radically different values because they produce radically different human natures different species, almost like Nietzsche's Super- man. Humanity in other words is malleable like clay. There is no such thing as a universal and unchanging moral value because there is no such thing as a universal and unchanging human nature.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

4/7 So, all the sages are wrong: Greek, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Confucius. There's nothing like a natural moral law. Now let's look at Confucius's version of the natural law. We instantly perceive its similarity to the Christian version. The five Great virtues of Confucius are all concepts that are richer than any single English word that can translate them. They are (….) and (…) all words of one syllable. The first and most fundamental value “Jen” is the fundamental person-to-person value in Confucianism, and it means essentially goodwill or benevolence which, is according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the essence of Christian charity or Agape which he defines as “the will to the good of the other.” It is not a feeling, since feelings cannot be commanded, or a specific deed, since deeds can be done by machines as well as by persons, but it is a general motivational principle of will that logically entails good deeds and forbids bad ones to everyone. It is summarized in what has been called Confucius's “silver rule” the negative core area of the golden rule: to love your neighbor as yourself or to do unto others what you want them to do unto you. Its primacy and universality is signified by the fact that the ideogram or written character for it is simply the combination of two and man. Confucius's second value(…) is the concretization of “Jinn” the Incarnation of “Jinn” in the saint. It means literally the large spirited person, the one who makes room in himself or others and their needs a hospitality of the heart, manifesting itself in a hospitality of the house and of the hand. It means habitually taking responsibility for others happiness. Paradoxically its largeness is a kind of smallness or humility for its opposite, the small spirited person, thinks of himself as large as the deserving important center of the world, who should be served rather than serving. It is the exact opposite of which we teach our children. In the words of the opening song of an animated children's TV show the most important person in the whole wide world is “you” As a Christian I label that “spiritual child abuse!” The third Confucian value (…) flows from the “Jun TSU” as sunlight flows from the sun. It means spiritual power or the power of moral example, a kind of spiritual gravity. A Christian example of it is the power of Christ's personality and words, for example in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the angry mob fell back at his simple and fearless admission of His identity or when the soldiers came back without Him to the Jewish authorities who had ordered them to arrest Him saying: “No man ever spoke like this man!” And he spoke with authority and not as the scribes. It is the old gentle spiritual notion of authority. It's not the typical misunderstanding of authority that confuses it with power, that says that might makes right rather it is the right that makes its own might! The fourth value “Lee” means propriety or finiteness(?) or appropriateness or good manners. It combines ethics and art or aesthetics, like the Greek word “kalon” which means “the noble” or “the beautiful and the good.” In the analects “Lee includes many apparently fussy rules for treating different people in situations in different ways, like the rules of a complex game like baseball or like the steps of a complex dance. We informal casual westerners usually feel this as stuffy and legalistic and artificial but Confucius felt it as exactly the opposite as natural and habitual a work of art like a dance or a song or a formal Victorian dinner. Miss Manners, who wrote the newspaper column about propriety, was not a philosopher but she was a good psychologist she knew how powerful an aid to morality good habits were. Aesthetic habits of social propriety are the seeds or the fertilizer or the food for good moral habits just as beautiful music is like fertilizer for good morality. Plato like Confucius saw this very clearly. Probably the single most important kind of “Lee” or rightness for Confucius is the rightness of names. He said that the very first step in restoring harmony in life is the restoration of proper names. The Greeks defined man by language. Man was the animal that has words. Knowledge and wisdom die if they cannot live in their proper houses which are the right words. Concepts that do not have words to live in have a very short life expectancy rate like homeless people who do not have houses to live in. The totalitarian dictators in Orwell's “1984” understood that principle very well. That's why they demand to control language to erase old politically Incorrect words and to invent new politically correct words. Does that sound dangerously familiar? You can't say it eventually you can't think it and if you can't think it you can't get it or do it or realize it! The fifth value “(…)” or the “Arts of Peace” are a corollary of “Lee.” Art was so important to the ancient Athenians that they rewarded those who wrote the best plays with free room and board for life in the town hall at the center of the town. That's how valuable they thought good art was to the good society. Modern Europeans and Americans instead expect their artists to be starving rebels on the outs of society both physically and spiritually. Our artists are almost never conservative. Confucius understood the power of art like the Scottish writer and politician Andrew Fletcher who wrote, “Let me write the songs of a nation and I care not who writes its laws.” Is that silly? Well ask yourself, who has the greater day or power over your hearts? Lawyers or musicians? Confucius knew nothing of “art for art's sake” or art for personal entertainment. Art was a social necessity because of its power, especially the art of music. Confucius was once so moved by a piece of music that he could not eat for three days. When is like “Lee” in that it trains the emotions as the raw material or seed bed for trained moral habits. In contrast Marxism and fascism both have always produced politically correct ideological art that is impersonal ugly uncreative and aggressive in this way as in many others Marxism and fascism are philosophical brothers under the skin, despite their vehement political opposition to each other. The art of both has been the art of war rather than the art of peace. In fact, Marxism is the opposite of all the Confucian virtues. It usually regards good manners and propriety - what Confucius called “Lee” - as decadence. It regards the personal altruism that Confucius called “gen” or benevolence as weakness. It's too materialistic to even comprehend the notion of spiritual power, what Confucius called (…), and it is too utilitarian to admire the ideal of the spiritually, large person, what Confucius called the “Chun TSU,” the person who's hospitable and humble who makes room in himself for others who is open to dialogue. What I've said about communism is also true of fascism.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

5/7 Both Marx - the hero of Communism - and Nietzsche - the hero of fascism - were spiritually small and shouting and bullying and threatening. They were examples of Machiavelli's philosophy that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Let's try to understand why this ugly philosophy seemed so attractive in the 20th century and still does to so many Western intellectuals. What is the spiritual horsepower that gives power to the engine of Marxism? Clearly its power is in practice rather than theory. And in practice its negative critical half its attack on not only capitalism but the whole Western tradition rather than its positive utopian alternative. Marx wrote in “Savage songs”: “I shall howl gigantic curses at mankind who are apes of a cold God and longed to hear Heavenly harmonies when the inflamed masses scream and self-consciousness is hanged on the Lamppost. “ Marx reduces everything to matter and everything material to economics to money and possession and power a means of production of material wealth.(…) 6/7 Marx like Nietzsche who criticized the will to truth derided the notion of honesty and humility before the truth. He classified his writings not as science but his propaganda. In his own words not an anatomic knife but a weapon. Its object is its enemy which it wants not to refute but to destroy. He famously dismissed all philosophies saying that the philosophers have only interpreted the world the thing is to change it like Bacon he put power not truth on the throne. His theoretical philosophy is summarized by the two words “dialectical materialism.” The dialectic was the structure of opposition that moved all of history, a kind of cultural warfare that prevented any establishment that occurred before communism conquered the world from being stable and peaceful. And his materialism like that of Hobbes was consistently applied to all areas and excluded all religion as the opiate of the people all gods and all notions of a spiritual soul and an afterlife. It also excluded free will, free choice and morality and substituted determinism a kind of predestination from below, from material forces and - among human beings - economic forces instead of Calvinism's predestination from above. Materialism is his philosophical weapon and he applies it to everything. He deduces its consequences logically but it is his premise rather than his conclusion. He does not prove it. It is a faith. One may justify calling it a religious faith. Materialism is in fact easily refutable it is self-contradictory. First of all, materialism is an “ism”, an idea the idea that there are no such things as ideas is self-contradictory. And therefore, Marx modifies this by admitting the existence of ideas but claiming that they are only effects and never causes That they are wholly determined by material events. This is called epiphenomenalism: the modification of materialism that admits that ideas and culture in general do appear as phenomena but claims that they do not cause any effects or make any difference in the real world. They are like the heat generated by the electricity that runs along a wire and turns on an appliance. The electricity does all the work and the heat does nothing but dissipate in the air. It is like the puff of smoke that comes out of the car's tailpipe they do nothing to move the car they are simply waste products they are like a fart of the brain. 36:15 I choose my words carefully marks deliberately insults all spiritual reality and this insulting philosophy should have an insulting name if we are to call things by their right names as Confucius says we should do. But if ideas cause nothing what could be caused by Marx's ideas are all he has? He doesn't have any soldiers or money or political power? Marx expects his ideas to cause a worldwide Revolution. But ideas according to his own idea can only be effects not causes. Effects of what? Of economics? The economic class of the thinker! Which for Marx was not the proletariat but the bourgeoisie, his favorite curse word. There is a very strong argument from analogy against materialism: it is an argument from all the rest of our experience. In all cases whenever we find an idea that we believe is caused by strictly material factors which possess no reason or consciousness we always dismiss that idea as worthless. For instance, suppose someone believes that a large black dog wants to kill him. And when we ask: “Why?” We get no reasons but only irrational causes. He was bitten by a large black dog when he was a baby so we rightly discount his belief. Or when someone claims to have a mystical experience of God in heaven and it is found that a bit of bone is pressing on the frontal lobe of his brain while he is having this mystical experience, we rightly dismiss his claim to have seen God and Heaven. If materialism and determinism are true and I can't help how my tongue happens to wag there is no reason to believe what I say. We do not read a book caused by an explosion in a Print Factory. All this makes for a great puzzle: why then is Marxism so politically powerful, if it is so philosophically weak? Why did it control half the world for a while? Why is a modified form of it still the default position of so many Western intellectuals? The reason cannot be either logical or historical on the one hand. As we've seen the logical basis for Marx's basic premise of materialism is weak at best and self-contradictory at worst and it is humanly insulting. It reduces us to apes with better computers in our heads. And its practical historical consequences are incomparably bad. No other philosophy has ever been responsible for nearly as much human oppression and misery as this one, which claims to save us from the oppression and misery that constitutes all of human history according to Marx. So, what makes Marxism so popular? The only answer that makes sense to me is Nietzsche’s. It is Nietzsche rather than Marx who shows us the psychology behind Marxism's attractiveness. It is the will to power which Nietzsche saw as the single most fundamental moving force behind history and human life. When we are forced to choose between truth and power we're strongly tempted to choose power. The sick and suffering want anesthetics not philosophy, they want drugs not sermons. Bacon had defined the new summon of modern culture as man's conquest of nature and Machiavelli had given us practical rules for the conquest of men and Marx gives us the propaganda for his movement to conquer the world. “Come jump aboard the Juggernaut that is destined to conquer the world cut down all hierarchies bring down all your superiors let your envy and force absolute equality, substitute the pronoun we for the pronoun I which is the image of God and do what Jesus could not do, become the Savior of the world, the real world the only world, the one that is now oppressing you!”

[@Ykpaina988]

This was was fire 🔥

[@jorgebatres6003]

Bravo

[@criskalogiros8181]

As Dr. Peter quoted: "The progressive and revolutionary train" seems not to be the idea as to which marxism wants for a society to progress, rather it is the means on how to overcome a system. Many revolutions happened for a good reason, throughout history. If we observe the kind of lifes we live today, seems more of an unstable train going really fast, in the name of Growth and false Prosperity, and happens to derail pretty often. Individuality, mass consumption, profit no matter the cost.. GDP is more important than the quality of life. All we produce is inequality, always been like this. Whose to blame, the system or us? I'm optimistic towards the opinion that under any system, people will find a way to corrupt. See back in history, only 'war' and death, ownership and power. Opportunistic people that would do everything for a 'better' life. If that's not egoism then what is. But there were some 'Great' people, only a few. So, is it that only a few in the billions lived so far were Great and the rest of us stupid? It seems to me that way.

[@annmariefinnigan3096]

Excellently expounded 👍

[@christophersnedeker]

7:00 I wouldn't go that far, the revolutions did happen just not in the way he predicted.

[@shnooble100]

Was naively expecting an honest conversation about Marx but it’s just rampant anti communism and illiteracy on Marx.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@hglundahl]

1:51 Japan wasn't Confucian anyway. The Christianised or Westernised version of Confucianism does exist. It's called Enlightenment. Or perhaps one could say Enlightenment is to Confucianism what Sorbonne Averroism is to Aristotle.

[@jbm990]

Paradoxes save the world everytime!.... Or at least are fantastical opportunities to reframe the world's view and to get a curious spirit for the search of the truth that appears in each paradox.

[@michaelleppan9960]

Thank you for the talk. (The volume of the running water in the background really needs to be lowered more)

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

Hegelian ethics takes up the Fichtian ethics of the ego that posits itself, therefore the ego as action, how to do, how to produce. The ego as Will, as Schopenhauer would later say. It is an extreme development of voluntarism that began with Ockham, which passes through Luther, and gives way to idealism so that praxistic voluntarism will become a characteristic of German idealism. However, it continues with Marx, who certainly overturns the Hegelian hierarchy of being, "putting on his head what Hegel had put on his feet", that is, if Hegel had placed the idea above the real and the spirit beyond matter, Marx does the opposite operation: the primacy of reality over the idea and of matter over the spirit; so that, if Marx recovers realism against idealism, this recovery is not total, because for Marx reality resolves itself into the matter. Spirit, for him, is a superstructure of matter. In the Aristotelian language, we would say that it is an accident of the substance. With all this Marx does not completely abandon the Hegelian primacy of the spirit, because his materialism is not like the vulgar empiricist and sensational one of the materialists like Lamettrie, d'Holbac, Spencer, Büchner or Moleschott, but, as is known, it is a materialism «dialectic», as Dr Kreeft wonderfully summarizes, splendid as ever, for which man produces himself and has power over matter, society, and nature for a logical necessity based on contradiction. In the Marxist reversal of the Hegelian dialectic, whoever gets involved is of course God, who is no longer the spirit who becomes nature, but in Marx it is reason and science that allows man to remove the alienation of human nature (Gattungswesen) as the principle of the dialectical mechanism, returning man to himself, through social struggle and revolution, so that Marx does nothing but highlight the atheism implicit in Hegelian theism, for which man does not he is a creature of God, but, as already in Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, man is the Cartesian I, made explicit as I am absolute. So if I am self-sufficient, if I am founded on myself, if I am right to myself, if I exist by myself, what need is there of a God who created me, the world, and other men? Certainly, for Marx, my empirical self at death is destined to dissolve into nothingness. But as a social being, as a person-relationship, I survive in the historical memory of posterity as a fighter in the class struggle for the liberation of man from the oppression of man by man. Thus, Marx prepares the Nietzschean atheism of man's self-liberation, with the difference that while for Marx it is a question of liberating the oppressed from the oppressors and of establishing equality, and while for Marx it is a question of liberating all humanity, capitalists understood, Nietzsche does not have this universal vision of human nature at all, but with a Gnostic and elitist attitude, he addresses his appeals only to what he calls the race of masters, the superman's elite, whose morality is that of the dominion of the strong on the weak and antagonism not for the liberation of the oppressed, but for domination over the weak. Instead, Marx has a clear, albeit erroneous, perception of the universality of human nature (Gattungswsen). Nietzsche has a biological, non-spiritual conception of man's life and interests: to look after the earth and not the sky, the hereafter and not the beyond, the body and not the spirit, physical and non-physical pleasures to those of the spirit, not the good of one's neighbor but one's own good. Superman strives to increase more and more his power, which is physical and not spiritual power, he lives according to the Darwinian law of natural selection, and he expands the scope of his power more and more in space. His action implements the cycle of eternal return: life-death without end. Transvalues all values: true becomes false and false becomes true. Practice "amor Fati," enjoy your own suffering and that of others. Nietzschean relationism consists in the relation of the will to itself in view of the maximum power, wanting the same death as willed by Fate. (my translation, Fr.G.Cavalcoli,OP)

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

1/3 The critique of Feuerbach and then of Marx is already entirely present in the young Hegel and the young Schelling (1795/96): "The treasures alienated in heaven must be reappropriated on earth". Hegel follows suit. In this position there is already all of Feuerbach and his atheistic and Promethean titanism, there is the idea of man who rebels against God. This "titanism" is certainly an important factor of the cultural horizon to which Hegel belongs. The figure of Prometheus, in fact, is the crucial myth of the European philosophical nineteenth century. We find Prometheus in Marx's dedication in his degree thesis on Epicurus. Marx defines Prometheus as "the first saint and martyr of the philosophical calendar", and we find him then - as I have already written in a previous comment of this magnificent philosophical series - in the first edition of Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy", on whose cover, precisely , a chained Prometheus is depicted being devoured by the eagle of Zeus. The entire philosophical nineteenth century conceals within itself something of the spirit of Titanism and finds its incarnation in Aeschylus' drama: Prometheus is the titan who fights against the gods. But while in Aeschylus this titan was truly an over_man, a semi-divinity, humans had no relation to Prometheus. In the third part of the trilogy - which has not survived - the Titan reconciled with Zeus, in modern tragedy instead tragicism prevails, i.e. there is no reconciliation, but the struggle to the end. The pantheism of becoming taken to its extreme consequences. As already mentioned, the whole spirit of nineteenth-century literature and aesthetics is moved by this idea of a Prometheus who is Nietzsche's Antichrist. The fight against the father is the underlying reason for this revolt, for this man in revolt Camus speaks of, for this deaf rebellion in which 'neither God nor master!' is the underlying reason. There is no longer a father God. If God exists, he is a master and man can only rebel: God is only the limit of my freedom. This position goes from Goethe to Sartre in a direct line and explains those demonic aspects present in French and English literature: Shelley also writes his Prometheus. Byron is clearly Promethean. Prometheism is the underlying reason for this rebellion against Christianity. These authors - whom Dr. Kreeft places as an antithesis to the "realist" ones, or at least non-skeptics and non-relativists, and therefore sets the history of philosophy in a history of currents, rather than of authors - fully participate in this titanism: one must wrestle with the divinity, strip the divinity of its prerogatives and restore them to man. The underlying category is reappropriation. "They are our property, we must take them back", because man is divine and man has been humiliated by God. The idea of original sin is the typical idea of man's humiliation, while, instead, divinity must be restored to man.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

2/3 This rebellious spirit (before being "revolutionary" is "rebellious": that's how I would replace the term of the title of this video by Dr.Kreeft) is really around 1795/96 that matures. The idea of rebellion is present above all in Fichte's thought. But who had been to inaugurate this rebellious climate? The "Sturm und Drang", i.e. German pre-romanticism. And who are the main authors of pre-romanticism? Schiller certainly and the other is Goethe. When Hegel goes to Frankfurt, he resumes contact with Hölderlin. Holderlin is the key point of the matter. Hölderlin converts him from Kantianism to Spinozism. Hölderlin - in addition to having matured his poetics and also writes novels and a tragedy, until madness overwhelms him around 1802/03 - is in fact the German Leopardi. He had approached Goethe, but above all Friedrich Schiller, also a tragedian and composer of essays on aesthetics. Schiller's work that greatly influenced these young people - Hölderlin in the first place, but then also Hegel - are the "Letters on the aesthetic education of man", composed between 1794 and 1795. What is the basic idea of this 'Opera? The idea is that the Kantian dualism between reason and sensitivity would be intolerable, so much so that Kant will be called by Hölderlin the Dracon of Germany, the new Moses. Kant becomes a puritanical author in the eyes of these young people. This reason, which claims to quell the passions by dominating and repressing them, appears to be antiquated. We can compare this to the 60s, the sexual revolution, the woke and gender movement, transhumanism and posthumanism, their critique of the puritanical morality of the old, of tradition. Young people feed on the neoclassical ideal, but the aesthetics of neoclassicism is an aesthetics of harmony and does not admit radical dualisms, anthropological ruptures. Therefore, the ideal of harmony that the neoclassicist Schiller feels very strongly leads him to imagine an aesthetic solution of the contrast between sensitivity and reason, between the universal and the particular, between body and spirit. This in Schiller also has a very strongly political implication. Schiller looks back on the worst moment of the French Revolution - in '93 the gallows and the guillotine in France were operating at full capacity. When Schiller criticizes Kant, he is actually criticizing the Jacobins who, in their revolutionary moralism, have only been able to cut off heads. The draconian path of moralism is therefore not viable in Schiller's eyes, but it is necessary to change and transform peoples through a "reformist" path, and this path can only pass through the aesthetic education of peoples, through an "aesthetic pedagogy". This idea will have a very strong correspondence in Hölderlin and also in other friends, such as Schelling himself. Shelling, Hegel and Hoderlin were part of an ideal community and had made a pact - we understand it from the correspondence, from some cryptic sentences that they exchange even after years; it included, in addition to the three of them, Isaac Von Sinclair and at least three other people; in short, it was a cenacle, a circle whose motto was: "Reason and freedom", "The kingdom of God come among us" together with "The invisible Church" (by Kant) and "Never make peace with dogma". It was a sort of heterodox community, which was then very common in both the German and French milieu. In some cases these communities had a Masonic face. Their program speaks of a "mythology of reason"; that is, it is expressly said that it is necessary to approach the people and the intellectuals. If you want to reform a people, you have to bring the classes together, the ruling upper class and the dominated lower class. To do this, however, simply reason is not enough - and this is the limit of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, even if this is not explicitly said, but it is understood. So it is necessary that reason takes on an aesthetic, sensitive form. This idea of the "mythology of reason" which should be the tool with which to educate the people to freedom and to overcome traditional religion - to overcome one religion another is needed, this is the idea - continues in Hegel until 1803. But the idea of the new religion in Germany was an idea that certainly did not belong only to the three friends, but in those years, between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, all the main progressive intellectuals in Germany, the Enlightenment , talk about a new religion. This is why the German Enlightenment is different from the French one: the German Enlightenment does not simply want to eliminate Christianity, it wants to replace it with a new religion. It is Lessing's ideal.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

3/3 Lessing is the best-known philosopher of the Aufklärung, of the German Enlightenment, the best known and most read together with Kant, a real reference author. When Hegel publishes the "Phenomenology of the Spirit" a friend will write him a letter expressly saying: "With this work, you have given us the new gospel that Lessing had hoped for"! In conclusion, one cannot understand anything of nineteenth-century philosophical thought if, as Augusto Del Noce said, from one of whose disciples I draw this analysis, one does not introduce the problem of atheism.

[@matthewstokes1608]

Excellent!

[@christophersnedeker]

30:22 Communist music is absolutely beautiful what are you talking about?

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

Music, until the advent of the Beethoven revolution, has always been the sound symbol of power. Of a power (civil, religious, military, economic) or of several powers inlaid together. In the 9th century, for example, in the middle of the Carolingian era, Christian singing relied on writing and became the main instrument of the political unification of the Holy Roman Empire. At the time of the trobadours, in Occitania in the year 1000, poetry for music was instead the voice of the castle, i.e. the center of absolute government of the territory. In the fifteenth century, the "high chapel", established by all the dominant lordships, was the sonorous banner that the prince waved outside the palace, to show all his power. A century later the four basilica chapels established by the Church of Rome, but also the legendary Concerto Palatino of the Basilica of S. Petronio, in Bologna, are the measure of the omnipresence of religious power that penetrates all the ganglia of civil life. And the examples go on: the first opera for music in Western history, i.e. Euridice by Jacopo Peri, performed in 1600 on the occasion of the marriage between Henry IV and Maria de' Medici, is the demonstration of the power exercised by Florentine finance over the politics of the king of France. While the opening of the first paid opera house, in Venice, in 1637, is the consequence of the new economic power acquired by the Venetian commercial bourgeoisie. Rare, very rare are the cases in which "cultured" music, at least until the beginning of the nineteenth century, assumes an antagonistic role with respect to power. An example above all is represented by the Roman de Fauvel, a chivalric poem set to music by Philippe de Vitry at the beginning of the fourteenth century, which is the first form of satire exercised against a sovereign: Philip IV the Fair is accused of squeezing the French nobility to feed state finances. Of course, everything changes when in the modern era the three most illustrious exponents of Viennese classicism, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, preceded in London by Handel, abandon one after the other the relationship of dependence with their respective princes, "masters" and patrons, and acquire a new social identity, that of the "free" musician, who measures himself and clashes with an abstract and invisible power: the market. An obviously conflicting relationship in Beethoven, however, takes on a new and radical connotation. In fact, music becomes a vehicle of thought and therefore acquires a potentially "revolutionary" function. The twentieth century inaugurates a new paradigm, that of the direct relationship of the composer with the political power and with his ideologies, without mediation and without protection. The Third Reich in Germany, the fascist regime in Italy, and the Stalinist dictatorship in the Soviet Union impose rules, conditions, and censorship on musicians.

[@lucasjustinien6416]

Is this guy a god? Each sentence is a life-changing wisdom. Thank you!

[@Qzou7702]

Can’t believe this is actually an academic channel where the presenter uses his words and picking up evidence so arbitrarily…

[@BestIsntEasy]

🤣 I must presently leave a just minute market 1:45 🧦🐀🔌🐍 💃🐙💃

[@salihtaysi]

Avicienna vs Aquinas 👍🏼👍🏼

[@miriba8608]

Speechless by Michael knowles paired with this talk would be great food for though and maybe eye opening to the current culture war. We need to bring back calling put the vices and virtues. There is a good book by Alejandro Ortega called Voces and Virtues rhat can help us identify these today.

[@bobs2809]

His stament of fact about China being a unified country for 2000 years seems incorrect.

[@johnkalbert2014]

അദ്‌ഭുതപ്പെടേണ്ടാ, പിശാചുപോലും പ്രഭാപൂര്‍ണനായ ദൈവദൂതനായി വേഷം കെട്ടാറുണ്ടല്ലോ. 2 കോറിന്തോസ്‌ 11 : 14

[@yadidlechem2357]

Great episode, however without Judaism there wouldn’t be a Christianity and since Jesus was a Jew and a rabbi we can with certainty claim the that Christian morality came from Judaism and the Hebrew tradition. Just an observation.

[@rerguti14]

Delicious as usual 🤤

[@beautyrules6920]

Pagan law, human rule.

[@christophersnedeker]

I think this series strawmans the opposition a bit.

[@richardwaltz7878]

As a Christian I renounce most of Marxism as much as you do, but I don't get the feeling you actually engage with Marx' thought fairly or at all actually. I rather get the feeling you just simply read a few conservative secondary sources on him and then based all your assumptions on standard conservative Twitter arguments. Please let us as Christians show in which ways Marx actually does not fit into a Christian or any sensible belief system instead of cowardly relying on the typical Cold War phrases, which tempt us into saying stupid sentences such as "no system but communism has been responsible for more deaths". (As a German: Have you heard about the Nazis and the Holocaust?) I would go even further: It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me how some Christians (especially Catholics) start defending the very egocentrical Individualism we usually (rightly so) criticise, jump in front of some of the most horrendous tyrants comparable to Pilate and defend perverse property regimes just to be anti-Marx. You can be anti-communist, anti-capitalist and anti-fascist at the same time.... by BEING CHRISTIAN. If you truly have faith in the Lord and the eternal orders that He clearly gave us in the New Testament on how society should look, you would not quiver and snear at Marx, you would composedly and unwaveringly examine his arguments and let them and his followers shatter on you and your unshakable faith.

[@minorityvoice9253]

Awesome speech but the only philosophy that can save is Christian philosophy.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

I agree. Protestants, due to the pessimism that accompanies them, have not developed a Christian thought in the philosophical field. Likewise, having been forbidden to make images, they did not elaborate works of art of a religious nature. The Orthodox have a positive concept of grace but have not integrated it with the resources of philosophy, science, and technology. For this reason, for the Catholic Church, it has given rise to Christian philosophy, and bioethics, and a social doctrine of the Church. The Orthodox remained more on the liturgical and religious level. For other reasons, even Protestants do not have bioethics and a social doctrine. Philosophy alone is incapable of equipping man to become a friend and confidant of God. For this reason, Saint Thomas writes from the beginning of the Summa Theologica: “It was necessary for man's salvation that, in addition to the philosophical disciplines of rational investigation, there was another doctrine proceeding from divine revelation. First of all because man is ordained to God as to an end which surpasses the capacity of reason, according to the saying of Isaiah: "Eye has not seen, except you, O God, what you have prepared for those who love you " (Is 64,3). Now it is necessary that men know this end of theirs in advance, so that they direct their intentions and their actions towards it. So that for man's salvation it was necessary that through divine revelation he should be made to know things superior to human reason. Indeed, even with regard to what about God can be investigated with reason, it was necessary for man to be taught by divine revelation, because a rational knowledge of God would only have been possible on the part of a few, after a long time and with mixture of many errors; yet on the knowledge of these truths depends on all of man's salvation, which is placed in God. In order to provide for the salvation of men in a more convenient and more specific way, it was, therefore, necessary that in respect of divine things, they should be instructed by divine revelation. Hence, the need, in addition to the philosophical disciplines, which are obtained through rational investigation, of a doctrine received through divine revelation" (Summa Theologica, I, 1, 1).

[@nathanngumi8467]

Word.

[@emperor_268BC]

You almost totally discarded Marxism perspective, but tell me if he is so incompetent and formulate Communist Manifesto with just single help, how he revolutionize and somewhat champion the capitalism in many states by 1940s ? According to this he shouldn't be arrogant and close-minded, i though so.

[@christophersnedeker]

7:25 Hasn't collapsed *yet*.

[@dmonarredmonarre3076]

He was still to easy on Marxism. My goodness it’s barely a start.

[@rossanderson5243]

Marxism appeals to the ego. As the ego seeks perfection the contradiction comes when jealousy is aroused. Jealousy is the fear of not being perfect. Jealousy is possessive, competitive and has the quality of searching for detail. The ego which feels has been treated unfairly has self pity or as I call it ego pity.

[@chrisAN3681]

​@@TheGreatEric02Cry

[@siminnouri9306]

Why you deceiving the history

[@vp4744]

TLDR: Skip this video. "Marx's most basic values are ... violent." Actually that's Marx diagnosis, not his values. Calling it Marx's values is fundamentally a dishonest exposition of Marx. This old man made similar errors about Plato in other videos. What Plato, Aristotle, Marx, and other western philosophers said is if you do X, expect Y. They are not recommending those Xs, but warning of consequences. They are diagnosing the human condition. Plato offers the ideal to measure against. We still have to decide, make choices. Hobbes, Machiavelli, Descartes, Kant, and the rest gave other consequences in more detail. They use analogies just like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, but to illustrate their point. Mistaking those illustrations for their own personal values is a gross misunderstanding. In this old man's long teaching career, I shudder to think how many students were misled.

[@christophersnedeker]

Venezuela is not nor has ever been a marxist state. They were social democracy like Norway.

[@chissstardestroyer]

Marxism *is* most assuredly a religion; but it is one that nobody should *EVER* want to obey any tennant of... tis simply the religious "creed" of Hell itself- especially when you factor in a line by "Koba"/Stalin at Yalta where he stressed that the devil is, and I quote the translation "a good communist". While truer words were never said by a liar, and truer words were never said *period* than that alarming case; it is unwise to listen to a liar as a definitive source; so we compare notes and consider the agendas- herein gives any sane man serious chills: socialism's secretary general was spot on in that regard, and alarmingly truthful; the agendas and views spill out perfectly well indeed. So Marx really was the devil's ambassador then.

[@Nyte-Owl]

I guess capitalism had "succeeded" in South America, Africa, and Central Asia. Your analysis is conveniently selective. Capitalism has not been the roaring success you've claimed it to be. And the story of communism/socialism is more nuanced than how you've simplistically conveyed it. Anyway, less dogma more critical thinking.

[@fraserpaterson4046]

Oh look! Guys! He’s used the words “it’s more nuanced”. I guess that means he doesn’t have to actually make an argument.

[@coolservantjesusswag2936]

The problem with this post is Capitalism is brutally honest on what will happen. You will have many at the bottom, few at the top and those in the middle but the bottom can potentially and has got to the top. Socialism claims to be this idealistic system but it usually leads to totalitarianism and communism. Socialism may work in small communities but not in nation with hundreds of thousands because one person will always want to become a dictator. We have seen this time and time again. I don’t know any dictator that hides under the guise of socialism that admits these potential problems will be there like capitalist admit there will be financial disparity.

[@coolservantjesusswag2936]

@pablobarroso2063Liberalism and marxism aren’t mutually exclusive. Matter of fact, they usually co-exist together. I don’t get where you think liberalism and marxism are exclusive to one another.

[@coolservantjesusswag2936]

@pablobarroso2063China is terribly corrupt. You seem biased on uneducated on this topic.

[@brianmelancon1464]

Name one successful communist society that didn't result in the death of millions

[@walterramirezt]

You really tried to antagonize Marx here, although his philosophy is closer to Christ than the straw man that you presented

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

Sorry i don't really see how. Could you care to expand.

[@chickeningay]

this guy is like 60 how does he stand up for 40 minutes straight

[@Qzou7702]

In today’s technology, they could easily make multiple 5mins videos separately and clip them together

[@whatwherethere]

Listen to some of his other videos that they were okay but this one's just a waste of time.

[@zzzlump4027]

This is very biased and a lot of interpretations and scapegoating Marx for governments errors 🙄

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

So, do you think Marx's ideas are valid but have not been implemented properly or that he's being unfair and that communist regimes have actually been successful in improving people's lives? Honest question.

[@zzzlump4027]

@@Carlos-ln8fd neither I don’t think any place has used Marx’s ideas as what they were a criticism of capitalism and where the need for profit was destroying and exploiting people. Marx did not see the way technology would be in the future so his ideas did not age well but the root of his criticism still goes unanswered how can we stop the exploitation capitalism requires for the goal of profit.

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

@@TheGreatEric02 do you really think he's dismissing Marx's valid critiques of capitalism? To me it's more like he's accusing him of propagating many harmful ideas and being hypocritical but that doesn't mean that he didn't make some good points. Like we can all agree that exploitating workers is bad without being Marxists in the same way we can say charity is good without being Christians. Jesus was not the only person who said charity was good and it's perfectly valid to criticize his teachings or his character without being guilty of dismissing his good qualities.

[@aninjathtpwndu]

I liked your metaphysics and ethics videos but your politics are cartoons, drowned to death in every baby boomer propaganda and judeophilic cliche

[@christophersnedeker]

He's not a nazi I don't know what to tell you.

[@aninjathtpwndu]

@@christophersnedeker It's the worldview of a cartoon, its either ignorant or dishonest

[@unholy.latin.republic]

Why is Kreeft shilling for Jews so much in this...

[@christophersnedeker]

He's not a nazi I don't know what to tell you.

[@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp]

I can only quote an essay, by The Spectator, about Marx and his antisemitism: "When I lived in the Soviet Union in my early twenties, I developed a personal hostility to socialism. I saw the misery it had visited on that society - the political, spiritual and economic harm. I understood at first-hand how the secret police corrupted personal and public life, how state propaganda denied freedom of thought and how the regime hid the slaughter and imprisonment of millions of its own people. I came to the conclusion that whichever totalitarian power had survived World War II - Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union - they would probably have looked much the same by the time of their demise. I never understood why Westerners did not - or could not - see the closeness of Left and Right extremes and the similarities between their fellow travelers. So when I hear people like Labor’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell praising Marx - he has said: “I’m honest with people. I’m a Marxist” - it concerns me. In the UK we see politics as being linear; if you are hard Left, you are the opposite of hard Right. In fact, both share many traits: acceptance of their political violence, denial of individual liberty and indulging in conspiracy theories. Perhaps most critically, many of them at their heart share a resentment and even hatred of capitalism and Jews - or both. Perhaps McDonnell doesn’t realize it, but Karl Marx’s conspiratorial view of the world is at the rotten root of both hard Left and Right. Marx helped provide the intellectual base for both the Holocaust of the Jews and the Holodimir - mass starvation - of the Ukrainians. Between them, these acts claimed the lives of more than ten million people. In his 1843 essay, The Jewish Question, Marx, whose father converted from Judaism to Protestantism, equated emancipation from capitalism and Judaism as being one and the same. “Money is the jealous god of Israel” Marx wrote. “The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world.” He jumbled together hostility to private property and capitalism, and his personal hatred of Jews as self-interested, rootless and enablers of secret control, updating miserable medieval tropes for the modern world. Once society succeeded in the preconditions of Capital, “the Jew will have become impossible [Marx’s italics],” perhaps the most profound example of bastardized pseudo-science in modern political history. Marx ends with a final, rhetorical flourish. “The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism [again Marx’s italics].” In other words, the destruction of capitalism and Judaism are one and the same in the creation of a purer society. Only when one ceases to exist will the other be liberated from its false consciousness. In denouncing Judaism and capitalism, Marx helped lay the intellectual foundations for the ethnically-based genocide of the National Socialists in Germany and the economically-based genocide in the USSR, although it should be said that the Soviets conducted ethnic genocides too. As well as the organized famine of the Ukrainians - arguably both economic and ethnic - this includes the mass expulsions of ethnic groups ranging from Lithuanians to Chechens in the 1940s. A second holocaust of the Jews, this time in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, was scrapped only with Stalin’s death. Marx’s Anti-Semitism in The Jewish Question, in his private letters and in other works such as The Russian Loan, have been largely ignored by supporters. Occasionally, Left writers admit structural problems with anti-Semitism (the hard Right has long since embraced it) but mask it with pious mitigations over the Left’s campaigning record on ‘good causes’. The final, malign achievement of Marx was to update medieval anti-Semitism concepts for the modern era. In Europe from the late 19th century through to the mid 20th century, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism swirled in unholy alliance. Marx wasn’t the only one responsible, but his rancid writings help explain why the hard Left and the hard Right swim in the same moral and intellectual cesspit."

[@CuriousPhilosopurr]

Gives me so many… too many ideas when you start putting two very influential people together…😂😂😂 We like comparing ideas, but I prefer taking an idea and add logical reasoning to it or subtract by it. That way, that idea either expands, becomes more solid, becomes both bigger and stronger, or becomes something new.👩🏻‍🔬🔗⛓️➕♟️♥️

[@Wakeup382]

Thank you Word On Fire for yet another blockbuster talks with one of our brightest minds. God bless you Fr Steve and Bishop Barron and team for putting all these talks. Putting this into the internet ethos is risky but it worked in the favor of bringing the internet up at least a notch or severa.