Speaker 1: U h as I look through your village, high plunder
Speaker 1: and pillage, taking all the booty for my pagan trove.
Speaker 2: Ah wow, lobbers off the bloody lobbying knights, A major
Speaker 2: wizard and a witch made lobbing knights, lombers off the
Speaker 2: round table.
Speaker 3: I was gonna sing a whole song, but I can't
Speaker 3: use them. Shot up charge that work.
Speaker 4: LARPing knights, lords of the round Table, LARPing knights, pagans
Speaker 4: made of him metal LARPing knights, k n I g
Speaker 4: t h S not n I g t h s
Speaker 4: LARPing knights, Pagans of the round cha or Swords from oblivion,
Speaker 4: Swords of magical powers that glow, Swords that strike your soul.
Speaker 1: Alright, the song is right.
Speaker 3: I do have an idea metal, You're gonna take all
Speaker 3: the pages. I want to sing a song if I
Speaker 3: can get it right. Man, is it still playing? I
Speaker 3: can't tell anyway. Welcome LARPers of the round t p
Speaker 3: bu hair metal knights, a wizard of Maige and a
Speaker 3: winch mage to LARPing knights. Let's take down some paganism dot.
Speaker 3: It would be really funny, but I can't figure out
Speaker 3: how to listen to the song as I say, all right,
Speaker 3: let me say if I can play the song at
Speaker 3: the same time, but that it won't be funny because
Speaker 3: I don't have them dumb wig on. Let's see, let
Speaker 3: me play the metal song.
Speaker 1: Alright.
Speaker 3: Pause.
Speaker 5: That LARPing nights.
Speaker 4: Him out alone.
Speaker 3: The round table LARPing nights a a wire wizard and
Speaker 3: a witch Maige too. I just made up a new character,
Speaker 3: a Wench made. She's a fagan medieval.
Speaker 5: Thought, the witch mage who gonna steal on me?
Speaker 6: Wench maides for meself. Bring it on, Christian.
Speaker 7: Cook Christian cooks cowering and fear from the swords, Christian
Speaker 7: cooks full of temptation, Christian.
Speaker 1: Cooks, Christian feel the edge of my plead. I run
Speaker 1: through your village and I pillage poor Christian cook. You
Speaker 1: feel like Donald Duck as I slice through your bones.
Speaker 1: I eat your flesh cannibalism on an altar of stones yaw.
Speaker 3: That was a pretty good rhyme. I was some good
Speaker 3: freestyle right there, Wizard, warrior and woodsmage.
Speaker 1: As we pillage through your village, give me more hit points.
Speaker 1: Merrow gives me hit points. Dropping reiselts fair law, dude,
Speaker 1: did you ever notice a sword is an inverted cross?
Speaker 1: That is so hair metal.
Speaker 5: Pagan wizards and warriors gather around my staff.
Speaker 3: Uh, I wanna get flagged anyway.
Speaker 6: Welcome, Gay of Thrones, the Gay of Thrones, young liege,
Speaker 6: then over young and learn the Pagan ways.
Speaker 3: Uh anyway, welcome. No, I'm not gonna clean my countertop.
Speaker 3: Clean your mouth out, you wash your mouth out. You
Speaker 3: heard techno, It's not techno. It's a fart song. I
Speaker 3: was gonna use it in one of the dumb videos.
Speaker 3: See see damn son. We'll pack rise up all right?
Speaker 3: That wig grows my nose crazy. What are we doing?
Speaker 3: We're doing Aristotle. We're gonna talk about this debate as
Speaker 3: we fool around. Super chats are welcome. We're gonna cover
Speaker 3: Aristotle in some pretty good depth here, and the pagan
Speaker 3: challenge from our opponent last night. And I'm really sorry.
Speaker 2: That our.
Speaker 3: Discord connection was so shitty last night. We're not ready yet.
Speaker 3: We're just gonna We're gonna let people roll in because
Speaker 3: I'm a little early. I know, I'm always late. Today,
Speaker 3: I'm a little early. Pop lock and bang it pop,
Speaker 3: lock inhead bang It Pop, lock inhead Bang it pop,
Speaker 3: lockinghead bang it.
Speaker 1: Gother around, got around my stiff sword, young Liege, For
Speaker 1: tonight we raid the Christian village in honor of four
Speaker 1: time and God of all made up God's fourteen, young
Speaker 1: Leege Benova, I have manly things to teach you of
Speaker 1: the ancient ways.
Speaker 4: Wizards and lawyers, wenches, mages and wench mates to wizards
Speaker 4: and lawyers.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm feeling the vibe. Now I'm getting it. I'm
Speaker 3: getting rhythm. Wizards and warriors, titties and wench mages to.
Speaker 1: Wizards of warriors, titties and wench mage titties and wench
Speaker 1: mage titties and wench maids, wizzardsand warriors, teaching all the
Speaker 1: young lieges all of the mysteries Rendova and run the mysteries.
Speaker 3: Ghouls and goblins one hundred and six. Come on, now,
Speaker 3: where is their buddy.
Speaker 8: Let's get this, Let's get this party started, young lees. Dude,
Speaker 8: that's a great rapper name.
Speaker 1: Winch made.
Speaker 3: All right, there we go, Wizards and knes and she yachts.
Speaker 8: Don't believe in thum. Boy's got a short, but it's
Speaker 8: gonna take you to school. Call me olden one Kenobi
Speaker 8: the Steve Brewle of Thule, feeding all my pagans gruel
Speaker 8: while all them christ cuts drew, Ain't it cool?
Speaker 3: Woa tan.
Speaker 9: Whoa tan? Oh damn oh damn mhm h bog Lord
Speaker 9: Dave living in a cave. Charles Martel.
Speaker 8: Pagan as Hell, Franco Marrabingian Heathen Core, Holy Vehemists.
Speaker 3: H went rhymes with barg whoa tan damn.
Speaker 10: A sigh true or peek at you a sad true
Speaker 10: or a peek at you wolden damn son, wold damn son. H.
Speaker 10: All right, we're almost.
Speaker 3: There, got a couple more minutes before it actually starts.
Speaker 3: Y'all want to hear that metal song again? Okay, everybody
Speaker 3: likes this metal song.
Speaker 4: Okay, h.
Speaker 1: Free, ain't nothing but a hole where my demons at?
Speaker 3: What my demons at?
Speaker 1: Yeah, bend over, Christian cook, I have something to teach
Speaker 1: you there, h.
Speaker 3: H h.
Speaker 1: Christian you taste like soy?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, all right, that's enough of that nus, all right,
Speaker 3: that's just some royalty free Viking pagan medal. Hendrick's gonna
Speaker 3: come after me after this. He's gonna try to kill me.
Speaker 3: Gotta there's gonna be a fat law from Hendrick and
Speaker 3: ah ah an army, A tribe of the whole tribe
Speaker 3: is gonna come after me, come cut my head off
Speaker 3: with a with an axe. Would They ain't even gonna
Speaker 3: ask a question, just gonna ax my head. Let's see,
Speaker 3: thank you, super chats rolling in. We're gonna get started
Speaker 3: if you if you missed the first ten minutes of
Speaker 3: complete nonsense. I really should have put that into more
Speaker 3: of a planned musical presentation because it could have been
Speaker 3: pretty funny. It's okay, all right, let's talk about last night.
Speaker 3: It's really lengthy debate. It was good. I wish that
Speaker 3: the sound had been.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: The sound was fine. It was that the Internet was
Speaker 3: glitching in and out, so we didn't really have a
Speaker 3: presentation that makes a whole lot of sense. After the
Speaker 3: second hour mark, after hour two is when it really
Speaker 3: starts going downhill. You can kind of make out the
Speaker 3: majority of the arguments. I was asking people today what
Speaker 3: they thought, and they felt like it was you know,
Speaker 3: I still came out on top. I don't think there's
Speaker 3: any doubt about that. But whether or not you can
Speaker 3: really make out the arguments I'm making because every time
Speaker 3: I set a sentence the last part of the sentence
Speaker 3: was cut off because Discord was acting weird. So any
Speaker 3: debate that I do is posted at the website. It's
Speaker 3: posted on all my social media. So if you follow
Speaker 3: my website or any of the social media as you
Speaker 3: will see last night's debate posted. So yes, I'll add
Speaker 3: it to the description. Unless Joe the Boomer has made
Speaker 3: the debate behind a paywall, I don't know if he's
Speaker 3: done that or not.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: So, but because a lot of people couldn't even hear
Speaker 3: the debate, it's why we're doing this. So and hopefully
Speaker 3: this won't take too long because I'm not going to
Speaker 3: rehash the entire thing. It was so kind of arduous
Speaker 3: and a lot of circular stuff and a lot of
Speaker 3: rehashing the same argument multiple times over. It was it was,
Speaker 3: It was worth it, but it was very draining. So
Speaker 3: if we think about the Aristotelian perspective we want, and
Speaker 3: he was roughly you know, Aristotelian. Yeah, the audio on
Speaker 3: Discord was pathetic, dude. I mean, from now on, we'll
Speaker 3: have to do this on my channel because I'm not
Speaker 3: gonna waste three hour debate with a bunch of audio nonsense,
Speaker 3: and then if he wants to have it on his channel,
Speaker 3: he can put it up. Yeah, I cut out every
Speaker 3: five seconds after two hours, it was it was pitiful,
Speaker 3: all right. So what was what we're gonna see in
Speaker 3: this is the similarity between the pagan conception the Aristotelian conception.
Speaker 3: And ironically, when I listened to the previous discussions that
Speaker 3: Tweetefon had had on that Daily Brat, they had discussed
Speaker 3: all of the similarities between Aristotle and the Tonus that
Speaker 3: we're on there, And Yeah, that's kind of the thrust
Speaker 3: of the argument I've been making for a long time,
Speaker 3: isn't it. So what I did was I kind of
Speaker 3: just listed all of these ideas, and I only got
Speaker 3: to about half of them in the debate because it
Speaker 3: ended up being so wordy in circular. But what we
Speaker 3: want to keep in mind is there some basic principles
Speaker 3: that are going to be true in most of the
Speaker 3: Pagan the most of the philosophic and most of the
Speaker 3: Far Eastern worldviews. Now I believe that this is still
Speaker 3: true for Islam and even arguably Judaism, but we're going
Speaker 3: to set aside the monotheistic views for the time being,
Speaker 3: and we want to focus on again the Pagan conceptions,
Speaker 3: the Platonic, Neoplatonic, Aristotilian, the Greek conceptions, and the Far
Speaker 3: Eastern conceptions, because basically they're all monistic, and I think
Speaker 3: when you have a system that's monistic, you're gonna be
Speaker 3: in the same dilemmas. And this is why we can
Speaker 3: use arguments like critiquing absolute deviind simplicity, yes, and synergy distinction.
Speaker 3: Those arguments are still applicable to these other religions as well.
Speaker 3: Now that's a little more abtuse, perhaps, and there are
Speaker 3: simpler ways to critique those worldviews as well. Man, it's
Speaker 3: goning hot up in here, dancing and playing metal and
Speaker 3: both demons or something. They turn the air condition and
Speaker 3: I'll be right back. And so yeah, the furry demons
Speaker 3: were the furry demons that run Discord Ward messing with
Speaker 3: my audio chat Alison. I got his my notes on
Speaker 3: his worldview two. Okay, So basically, yeah, and this is
Speaker 3: gonna be a half and half talk. Now, there is
Speaker 3: an old talk that I did for subscribers, which is
Speaker 3: a pretty lengthy discussion of Aristotle. We'll be touching on
Speaker 3: some of that material, but the majority of this material
Speaker 3: is new and it's specific to this guy in the
Speaker 3: worldview that he presented because it's kind of piecemeal, very
Speaker 3: similar to Boggle or Dave and his approach. And you know,
Speaker 3: most of the people that are in these perspectives, that's
Speaker 3: what's going on. It's a piecemeal thing that they're kind
Speaker 3: of just putting together. Now, they don't see that as problematic,
Speaker 3: but I think it is pretty evident that the root
Speaker 3: of all this, as we'll see connected to the position
Speaker 3: of monism, is that these positions end up still still relativistic.
Speaker 3: That's the pattern that we tend to see in these
Speaker 3: pagan guys again, over and over and over, the positions
Speaker 3: become cafeteri stall subjective things that some guys just kind
Speaker 3: of piecing together. And ironically, again, if we set a
Speaker 3: sight of Satru and the different pagan movements, if we
Speaker 3: think about other religious movements in our last century, when
Speaker 3: we think about all the people, for example, that studied
Speaker 3: under Crowley, what did they do, not all of them,
Speaker 3: but many of them, Well, they went out and started
Speaker 3: their own religion. Right, So what did Gerald Gardner do?
Speaker 3: He creates Wika and he creates it as a blend
Speaker 3: of Druidism and all this jibber jaba that he learned
Speaker 3: from Crowley and all this kind of stuff. Other guys,
Speaker 3: oh Ron Hubbard, he goes through the ranks of the
Speaker 3: Crowley school, goes out starts his own cult. A lot
Speaker 3: of these guys have this pattern. Now, I'm not saying
Speaker 3: that all the pagan guys are the equivalent of Joe Gardner, Croleier,
Speaker 3: l Roon Hubbard. I'm just making the association, the connection
Speaker 3: of the fact that these are people who just kind
Speaker 3: of try to piece it together. And he says, well, yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm a reconstructionist. In other words, I'm reconstructing what the
Speaker 3: ancient rights must be. And what we tend to see
Speaker 3: is that this is a fool's enterprise. I remember when
Speaker 3: I was looking into Orthodoxy initially, and I was really
Speaker 3: trying to grapple with all the criticisms of neoplatonism. This
Speaker 3: is neoplatonism, you're neoplatonic. And what about the similarities between
Speaker 3: Augustine's doctrine of the philioque and Plotinus's discussion of the
Speaker 3: Diad and the triad, and how the third principle between
Speaker 3: the two is love.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: And yes, Augustin absolutely got that from from Platonis. It's
Speaker 3: in the Eneids. I think it's in ned five off
Speaker 3: the top of my head. Now, initially this is kind
Speaker 3: of applausible. You start to think, well, yeah, there's a
Speaker 3: lot of similarities there, right, and it's kind of it's
Speaker 3: it's beyond the zeitgeist tier of stuff, but it's it's
Speaker 3: in that vein of stuff.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So you're a little more it's more academic than the
Speaker 3: basic bitche zeitgeist crap, zeitgeist crap. And so you're wondering,
Speaker 3: how do we distinguish neoplatonism from what Dionysius talks about
Speaker 3: in the Divine Names? How do we distinguish neoplatonism from
Speaker 3: the Trinity in the way that the Cappadocians formulate it,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: And what you eventually come to realize if you go
Speaker 3: down I think hopefully the right path, the path that
Speaker 3: I think is right, is that there's not really a
Speaker 3: neoplatonic system. Okay, this is an assumption that's often made
Speaker 3: aid on the part of scholars. But then when you
Speaker 3: realize that at the end of the nineteenth century scholars
Speaker 3: we're kind of arguing this Christianity's neo platonism, that they
Speaker 3: don't believe that anymore. That's kind of been ditched in scholarship.
Speaker 3: It's older scholarship that was trying to make that argument
Speaker 3: about Christianity being neoplatonic. But you see that, for example,
Speaker 3: reflected in Nietzsche's day where he says it's just another
Speaker 3: version of Platonism. And certainly many of the Christians over
Speaker 3: the years, especially in the West, have been absolutely platonic,
Speaker 3: especially a lot of the Calvinists and the Thomas, no
Speaker 3: doubt about that. But what you realize is that between
Speaker 3: Iamblicus and between Platinis Neoplatonism is two completely different approaches.
Speaker 3: Is it me mentally recognizing these things or is it
Speaker 3: a bunch of ritual magic leading to theurgy? You see,
Speaker 3: which one is the real neoplatonism and so all, And
Speaker 3: it's the same thing in the rights of the constructed
Speaker 3: made up religions of paganism or any other cult. It's
Speaker 3: completely subjective.
Speaker 1: It is not.
Speaker 3: Historically authenticated, and just because something's old doesn't mean it's true,
Speaker 3: even if you could reconstruct it.
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 3: Doesn't mean it's true. I mean, for example, if the
Speaker 3: Rosetta Stone was the means by which hieroglyphics were deciphered,
Speaker 3: then the gobbledegook of masonry and their egyptology before the
Speaker 3: Rosetta Stone probably is wrong in a lot of areas,
Speaker 3: don't you think? Yeah, exactly. So what you start to realize,
Speaker 3: and this is what I realized, when you get to
Speaker 3: a certain point in the researching, maybe like esoteric guys hermeticists,
Speaker 3: and you realize, oh wait a minute, like Manley P.
Speaker 3: Hall's big book, he's just doing He's just piecing together
Speaker 3: things from comparative religion, and they're just looking for similarities.
Speaker 3: And I'm not saying you can't find similarities. But what
Speaker 3: I'm saying is that a lot of these cult leaders
Speaker 3: they're just making it up, dude. They're making it up
Speaker 3: as they go. They're starting their own shit, right, They're
Speaker 3: not really passing down mysteries. There might be some truths
Speaker 3: and mysteries contained and what they're constructing, but they're not
Speaker 3: the part of some lineage of the true Druidic tradition.
Speaker 3: Get that out of here, bullshit, Because there's a lot
Speaker 3: more about the anti world that we don't know than
Speaker 3: we do know. Now, that doesn't mean that there's absolutely
Speaker 3: no traditions that are passed down. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that the resurgence of paganism I don't believe.
Speaker 3: And this is we're gonna see this now all over.
Speaker 3: This is what all these people are gonna They're gonna
Speaker 3: go into it just like sheep. They're being primed for
Speaker 3: this because of the collapse of Evangelicalism, the collapse of
Speaker 3: Roman Catholicism. They're all just piling into neopaganism. But let's
Speaker 3: talk about whether or not logic and reason and philosophy
Speaker 3: can actually coincide with paganism and all this stuff, because
Speaker 3: I don't think it can. I think actually we'll find
Speaker 3: that they are self refuting and inconsistent. So let's look
Speaker 3: at the basic outline of what the dude last night
Speaker 3: said Twitter. And I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent him.
Speaker 3: If I misstate him, I'm sure we'll have a future
Speaker 3: interaction he can correct me. But what I understood him
Speaker 3: to be saying is that he starts with this metaphysical
Speaker 3: assumption that that we It's not exactly clear where he started. Then,
Speaker 3: That's why I kept pressing him on this, because he says, well,
Speaker 3: we look out at the world and we see that
Speaker 3: there was at one time a one. There was a hyperussia,
Speaker 3: beyond being, super existence, a monad emmonism, some kind of
Speaker 3: great unity, and then it split into the diad. Okay,
Speaker 3: this is what all the ancient Greeks taught. Basically both
Speaker 3: I agree in Plato the diad then is the beginning
Speaker 3: of multiplicity, and then the Dad kind of splits into
Speaker 3: all of the particulars of our experience that we see
Speaker 3: out there in the world, all the hylomorphic matter form
Speaker 3: instantiations or particulars out there. Now, let me see if
Speaker 3: he said anything else. Theology, then he says, is understanding
Speaker 3: the gods and the principles behind things. There is the good,
Speaker 3: and there is what ought to be. And these are
Speaker 3: derived from reasoning about these principles, which he said were
Speaker 3: independent but present in this world, and ultimately they derive
Speaker 3: from the one in the monad world in the perfect unity.
Speaker 3: But also somehow there were there are many unmoved movers.
Speaker 3: So the I'm looking at my notes on his view,
Speaker 3: the lesser humans have a lesser morality. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: what he meant by that, but and so this is
Speaker 3: what he's derived from reading seventh century BC to third
Speaker 3: century BC Greek and Confucian philosophy. Okay, so it's kind
Speaker 3: of a little bit of Aristotol and a little bit
Speaker 3: of the far easier stuff and a little bit of Plato.
Speaker 3: Because he said he believes in divine idea or ideas.
Speaker 3: There's no mind for these ideas, so that doesn't even
Speaker 3: make any sense. But he says there's ideas that are
Speaker 3: independent of material form and existence, and he says we
Speaker 3: need to look to Permenides. So go back to the
Speaker 3: Presocratics and the Ionians and look to Parmenides. Permendes taught
Speaker 3: us that everything that is will always be. And again,
Speaker 3: the logical conclusion of that is that change is illusory.
Speaker 3: I mean, if the here and the now is eternal
Speaker 3: and it's always just going to be happening again and
Speaker 3: again and again, then it doesn't it stand the reason
Speaker 3: that the alterations in time and space that we experience
Speaker 3: that they are illusory, because it means that every single
Speaker 3: point in time is eternal. So this is really just
Speaker 3: a deifying of the here and the now right. This
Speaker 3: is all The monistic systems can either be dualistic and
Speaker 3: nonsensical or monistic and nonsensical. They can collapse either way.
Speaker 3: This is always true of any monistic system, he says.
Speaker 3: He says his system is monism. It's always one. The
Speaker 3: fundamental unifying aspect of all reality, the fundamental structure of
Speaker 3: all reality, or the ultimate reality is just one all
Speaker 3: things that are are. So he starts his system off
Speaker 3: with this statement, everything is or isn't. Isn't doesn't make sense,
Speaker 3: So therefore everything is okay, this is number one. This
Speaker 3: is not a coherent starting point like he thinks. He
Speaker 3: thinks a starting point is theory neutral, that he can
Speaker 3: just start with this reasoned out assumption of what existence
Speaker 3: and being and all things are. No, you can't. I'm
Speaker 3: not saying you can never have a starting point. I'm
Speaker 3: pointing out that that is not the neutral starting point
Speaker 3: that you think it is. And so that was a
Speaker 3: about forty minutes of stressing that point, and I don't
Speaker 3: think that he ever grasped it, or if he did,
Speaker 3: I don't know. Then when we started against this discussed
Speaker 3: time and change, and then when we moved into the
Speaker 3: last part of the debate where my audio was cutting
Speaker 3: out pretty heavy, and I was asking him how he
Speaker 3: came to these conclusions and how he had episomic certainty
Speaker 3: about all these claims. How did he go from these
Speaker 3: general instantiations to universals, from the particular to the universal,
Speaker 3: which is again a big problem in the Arisitilian system.
Speaker 3: I don't think we got a coherent answer. I think
Speaker 3: what we got was him saying, well, I experienced it.
Speaker 3: Let me just go back to my individual personal experience
Speaker 3: and I look out and I see change. So change
Speaker 3: is real, but it's not ultimate. The debate is everything
Speaker 3: I do is on my website and my social media.
Speaker 3: So it debate was last night. It'll be linked in
Speaker 3: the thing. If Joe the Boomer hasn't made it, it
Speaker 3: was on the Daily Prap, if Joe the Boomer hasn't
Speaker 3: made it behind a paywall. So all right, So let's
Speaker 3: start with these things that he's laid out, and let's
Speaker 3: take them now again. Monastic systems. And this is why
Speaker 3: I kept hammering this home and he didn't get it,
Speaker 3: and he didn't answer it. Any fundamental critique from the
Speaker 3: time of the Presocratics and the Ionians up through Plato,
Speaker 3: and it still applies to Aersol too, even though Ersol
Speaker 3: tried to solve this problem in Plato, and it's applicable
Speaker 3: to all the far Eastern monastic views. Is the fact
Speaker 3: that in this realm of the ideal, in this realm
Speaker 3: of the one and of the monad, if everything is
Speaker 3: perfectly simple and unified, then it shares no similarity or
Speaker 3: likeness to this realm. Okay, but if we think about Plato,
Speaker 3: for example, Plato wanted the world that we inhabit to
Speaker 3: be a kind of a rough phantasm mirror of that realm.
Speaker 3: Right the ideas in that realm are reflected into this
Speaker 3: realm in pale ways. So all the chairs that you
Speaker 3: see are pale lesser being and stantiations of the ultimate
Speaker 3: chairness that exists in the realm of the ideas. Now
Speaker 3: there's a problem right off from the outset. If the
Speaker 3: one is absolutely simple, then there aren't multiple different forms
Speaker 3: within it. And again this is what I critiqued intomism
Speaker 3: to classical theists, because it's true because they adopt absolute
Speaker 3: demond simplicity, and they adopt the actus purest view. Now
Speaker 3: there can't be multiple ideas and a real distinction in
Speaker 3: an absolute unity of this nature of this kind. But
Speaker 3: if you're going to say that all the things that
Speaker 3: exist in this realm are grounded in the ideas in
Speaker 3: that realm, in the monad out there, in the One,
Speaker 3: in the great Unity, in the great Beyond, whatever, wherever
Speaker 3: you locate, it doesn't matter, then you need there to
Speaker 3: be multiple different things, because if there's not, then what
Speaker 3: you end up having to say is that, in fact,
Speaker 3: distinctions themselves are all also illusory. Because if there's not
Speaker 3: a form of a chair and a form of a
Speaker 3: man in the one, because that's where you've said it's located,
Speaker 3: that's where it's in. The ideas are in the form.
Speaker 3: By the way, how do ideas subsist in an impersonal,
Speaker 3: abstract realm doesn't make any sense because the word idea,
Speaker 3: the whole conception of idea, is itself analogous to his
Speaker 3: mind having ideas, so it's retarded from the outset. But
Speaker 3: setting that aside, if there's not a separate form of man,
Speaker 3: in a separate form of chair in the Great One,
Speaker 3: then it can't be the ground of your epistemic certitude
Speaker 3: in this world. This is the fundamental problem of all
Speaker 3: monistic systems because they try to relate that world to
Speaker 3: this world, and it doesn't work because this world is
Speaker 3: in perpetual flux and change and is constituted by many, many,
Speaker 3: many different distinct things. There are many particulars everywhere in
Speaker 3: this world, many many, many distinctions. And what we see
Speaker 3: is that when we try to ground it in this
Speaker 3: abstract nonsense thing, what happens is that all again dissolves.
Speaker 3: What seemed like it might be a coherent basis right, basically,
Speaker 3: what Plato says, in fact does not work. It completely dissolves.
Speaker 3: Now I'm not just making Aristotle's third man argument. That's
Speaker 3: not what I'm saying. Don't misunderstand me. This is not
Speaker 3: basic bitch stuff. We're beyond that. What I'm saying is
Speaker 3: that there's an even better critique, and ultimately it applies
Speaker 3: to Aristotle too, because Aristotle doesn't actually ever get from
Speaker 3: the particulars to the universal. It doesn't make any sense
Speaker 3: to say, well, there's universals, but they're just in every particular.
Speaker 3: And that's why later down the road, the empiricist philosophers
Speaker 3: who followed that train of thought out consistently rejected universals
Speaker 3: and became nominalists. They said, yeah, exactly, if we're going
Speaker 3: to start with empirical sense data, guess what we don't
Speaker 3: ever actually empirically sense a universe. We since this event,
Speaker 3: this event, this event, this event, or this collection of matter,
Speaker 3: this collection of matter, this collection of matter. That's not
Speaker 3: getting you to a universal if you believe in empiricism
Speaker 3: and the Aristotilian system, although it is a realist system,
Speaker 3: it is certainly more empirical than the a priori speculative
Speaker 3: platonic view. But it doesn't matter because he grounded his essences,
Speaker 3: his ideas, his forms, the divine idea or the ideas
Speaker 3: as he called them, which have an independent existence. He
Speaker 3: grounded them as I understood in relationship to the unmoved
Speaker 3: movers which exist in the realm of I guess lower
Speaker 3: degree particularity. And he said, ahha, that's a good question.
Speaker 3: When I asked him, is there one unmoved mover or
Speaker 3: fifty five? Because Aristotol contradict himself, and he admitted, Arisotle
Speaker 3: contradicts and says both at one and one in metaphysics
Speaker 3: that there are fifty five movers, and also in the
Speaker 3: on the celestial heavens, he speaks of one unmoved mover. Well,
Speaker 3: this is a problem with the one in the many, okay,
Speaker 3: and you can't solve it by saying that there's a
Speaker 3: fifty five different unmoved movers. Oh wait, there's only one
Speaker 3: unmoved mover. So he didn't really give an answer to that.
Speaker 3: He kind of spoke early on in the debate about
Speaker 3: the different principles that are unmoved movers, and then later
Speaker 3: in the when I really honed in on that, he said, oh, well, no,
Speaker 3: there's just one unmoved mover. So that was a pretty
Speaker 3: devastating blow, I would say to his to his argument,
Speaker 3: and it really illustrates the higher level critique and principle
Speaker 3: that I was making about the one in the many.
Speaker 3: You're always gonna have a dialectic in your system between
Speaker 3: one and many when you start with this absolutely simple, impersonal, unknown,
Speaker 3: unknowable monad and super essential oneness, right, which is, by
Speaker 3: the way, hyper ussia, beyond being a pyrone, beyond being
Speaker 3: wholly other. If it's wholly other and wholly beyond being
Speaker 3: in your view, then it doesn't relate to the many particularities.
Speaker 3: It doesn't act as a platonic grounding for the many, many,
Speaker 3: many particularities and particulars that we experience in this world.
Speaker 3: And then of course I made moving beyond that, the
Speaker 3: point about any of those systems, whether it's the Presocratics,
Speaker 3: the Ionians, whether it's Plato, or whether it's far Eastern thought,
Speaker 3: is that if you follow that through, then it leads
Speaker 3: to the logical conclusion that in this world. And he
Speaker 3: even appealed to Parmenides, and I said, well, if you
Speaker 3: have a legitimate defense of parmenities, I'm willing to hear it.
Speaker 3: But he just said no, I mean, I agree with promenities,
Speaker 3: but you're just giving a basic bitch critique of permenities. Okay,
Speaker 3: I said, so defend permenities then, because if everything that
Speaker 3: exists is pure permanence, truly speaking, and the world that
Speaker 3: we experience is flux and change, doesn't it stand to
Speaker 3: reason that the world of flux and change isn't really real.
Speaker 3: So the far Eastern philosophies, Buddhism, hindu whatever that follow
Speaker 3: through with that line of reasoning and ultimately come to
Speaker 3: the conclusion that oh wait a minute, yes, this world
Speaker 3: is like a giant demiurge tricking me, and he even
Speaker 3: brought that up. He even said, well, how do you
Speaker 3: know it's not an evil demon tricking you? Right, the
Speaker 3: Descartes critique, And I said, well, first of all, that's
Speaker 3: really easy to refute, because if that view is true,
Speaker 3: then it's completely destructive to all rationality and logic and
Speaker 3: argumentation period. And so therefore it's not true because it's
Speaker 3: so fundamentally destructive to the possibility of reasoning. What how
Speaker 3: could that be? Well, let me give you an example.
Speaker 3: If it is true that everything that I learn in
Speaker 3: this realm, in this world is ultimately illusory, and if
Speaker 3: it's true that there's no change ultimately, then I didn't
Speaker 3: really progress from a state of not knowing that truth
Speaker 3: to knowing that truth. And when I did possess from
Speaker 3: a state of being of not knowing that truth to
Speaker 3: then knowing this supposed great truth, then isn't that also
Speaker 3: part of the great illusion? Why? Yes, it is.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 3: This sillipsistic, gnostic nonsense view is immediately self destructive, just
Speaker 3: as self destructive and stupid as relativism. And I'm sure
Speaker 3: that our friend, tweeted, fond would not be a relativist.
Speaker 3: He would critique that surely. And then from there we
Speaker 3: understand that guess what these pagan views, the gnostic view,
Speaker 3: the ancient far Eastern view, and the presocratic Platonic view,
Speaker 3: Why they're all really similar, aren't they. So while all
Speaker 3: of this apologetic discussion and debate sounds really obtuse and
Speaker 3: it's really abstract, it's really really simple because the founding
Speaker 3: points where these systems try to start building are very similar,
Speaker 3: and they're almost always the same, and it always starts
Speaker 3: with the individual's reasoning and rationality, constructing something that ultimately
Speaker 3: ends up in subjectivism or pure relativism every time, and
Speaker 3: so ultimately, now it doesn't matter whether it's the atheist,
Speaker 3: whether it's the complete rank materialist, or whether it's the
Speaker 3: dude in your college class who's like man, and like,
Speaker 3: what if we're in a simulation, it's the same thing
Speaker 3: Plato's demiurge a gnosticism. This world is a trick. Got
Speaker 3: to flee it, flee the body. Same doctrine for Eastern religions.
Speaker 3: You got to like meditate yourself out of existence, destroy
Speaker 3: your ego man to become one with usness. Same basic argument.
Speaker 3: Now he didn't say that he's like I don't believe
Speaker 3: this Hindu style stuff of you know, trying to destroy
Speaker 3: your ego whatever. But it doesn't matter because at root
Speaker 3: all these positions are monistic, and then they have the
Speaker 3: problem of relating that world to this world, which becomes
Speaker 3: a problem of dualism. The perfect ideal world to this world,
Speaker 3: how does it relate? And we all know Plato's answer
Speaker 3: to this question, which is retarded and laughable. Well, I guess,
Speaker 3: at one time in our in our pre existent eternal lives,
Speaker 3: in our ur before we reincarnate stages back, we were
Speaker 3: in the ideal realm, and so that's how we were
Speaker 3: just remembering what was in that perfect realm. That's a
Speaker 3: retarded ad hoc answer, and Aerosol is correct to say, no,
Speaker 3: that's a retarded adholc answer. But guess what. Aristotle's smushing
Speaker 3: of the ideas of the forms, of the essences, of
Speaker 3: the of the universals into the particulars doesn't work either.
Speaker 3: So Aristotle's right to critique Plato and his answer is
Speaker 3: also retarded. So what Aristotle does? Guess what? Here's let
Speaker 3: me blow your mind. Remember that all the arguments about
Speaker 3: absolute divine simplicity. Well, guess what hilomorphism. It just takes
Speaker 3: all the problems of absolute divine simplicity that we critique
Speaker 3: in the theology and it applies them to particular objects.
Speaker 3: It's smushing the accidents as not really what constitutes the object.
Speaker 3: It's just smushing the universals into the particulars. And holomorphism
Speaker 3: ends up with absolute simplicity for objects.
Speaker 1: Boo. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And holomorphism doesn't work for the human body, obviously. It's
Speaker 3: one percent contradictory to our Christology and to our anthropology. Obviously.
Speaker 3: Now let's get more precise about Aristotle, because he's so
Speaker 3: lauded and praised by all these people. And by the way,
Speaker 3: the Thomas today on Twitter, and the Augustinians and the Romanchallics,
Speaker 3: they just got Saint John Damascus this book that includes
Speaker 3: the philosophical chapters, and they're like, haha, he talks about
Speaker 3: Aristotle and substance and accidents. We got Jay, we got him.
Speaker 1: Bro.
Speaker 3: I've been lecturing on that book for three years. Where
Speaker 3: you been. I knew years ago that's what's in that book.
Speaker 3: And the reason I did that lecture three or four
Speaker 3: years ago is because he doesn't use Aristotle in the
Speaker 3: same way as Thomas, because in defense of the end
Speaker 3: of the Orthodox Faith, he teaches the essence inergistinction from
Speaker 3: books one through three, and multiple times over, Aquinas rejects
Speaker 3: the essence centergus thinction. This is not even in debate.
Speaker 3: Catch up, dudes, it's time to catch up. Any basic
Speaker 3: Tomistic work will tell you that Thomas Aquinas rejects the
Speaker 3: essence energy distinction. Thomas teaches Actus purists. That means there's
Speaker 3: no essence energy distinction. It's not hard to figure out.
Speaker 3: You can confuse yourself and get lost in all this stuff,
Speaker 3: but it's not hard to figure out if Thomists and
Speaker 3: Roman Catholicism accept or reject the essence entergy distinction. It's
Speaker 3: not hard to figure that out. And so guess what.
Speaker 1: We have.
Speaker 3: Plenty of uses for Aristotle. We have plenty of uses
Speaker 3: for logic. Do you see me here debating all of
Speaker 3: these atheists and utilizing logic. If I didn't think Aristotle
Speaker 3: said true things, I wouldn't be utilizing a transcedental argument,
Speaker 3: which he uses in the metaphysics. When Saint John Damascus
Speaker 3: goes through the philosophical chapters and cites Aristotle, he uses
Speaker 3: a transcendental argument against the soface. He uses that from Aristotle.
Speaker 3: I've been here for years, citing Saint John Damascus's use
Speaker 3: of the transcendental argument from Aristotle. Bro, catch up, dude,
Speaker 3: that wasn't it. That's not a gotcha moment. They don't
Speaker 3: understand that the gotcha moments are actually just making them
Speaker 3: look goofy, because I've already covered all this for years. Anyway,
Speaker 3: these are young guys. These are guys who are like
Speaker 3: twenty one. They don't they don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 3: All right, So let's get into Aristotle because again, what
Speaker 3: we want to stress here is that Plato and Aristotle
Speaker 3: are wrong in a very fundamental way, and Plato Aristotle
Speaker 3: are right in insightful ways. Does that make sense? Can
Speaker 3: we grasp that? So, first of all, what we want
Speaker 3: to understand when we can trast this, We're going to
Speaker 3: look more in depth at the Aristotilian view as an
Speaker 3: example here, because again with this guy, it's a very
Speaker 3: good bridge between the Tomists and the Pagans, because this
Speaker 3: guy was interested in Aristotle very heavily, or a good
Speaker 3: bit of ariostol. He liked a lot of aerosol, and
Speaker 3: Aristotle is the bridge between Hellenism and you know, tomistic
Speaker 3: Rome Catholicism in a big way. And I'm very aware
Speaker 3: that Aquinas cites Augustine, and he cites Dionysius and the
Speaker 3: divine names many many, many, many many times in Assumer.
Speaker 3: In fact, I believe he cites Dionysius more than he
Speaker 3: cites Ariostol. I'm aware of all that. But regardless, it
Speaker 3: doesn't really matter. It's not what we're here to talk about.
Speaker 3: Let's critique the Aristotilian perspective, because what we want to
Speaker 3: see is that Aristotle's system fundamentally is not at all Christian.
Speaker 3: And if the fact that there's similar terms, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: If I say unmoved mover, I say, I believe that
Speaker 3: the world was started by a first cause an unmoved mover,
Speaker 3: And you get all excited and you start jumping around,
Speaker 3: Oh bro, you believe the same thing we do. We
Speaker 3: just differ on who it is. And then I say, yeah,
Speaker 3: the unmoved mover was Satan. Doesn't that really illustrate the
Speaker 3: absurdity of just because he speaks of the unmoved mover
Speaker 3: as if, as if I could, in apologetics join with
Speaker 3: a Joeah's witness and join with an arian, and join
Speaker 3: with a scientology proponent, and join with whoever else. It
Speaker 3: doesn't matter Islam. Oh we're all going to argue for
Speaker 3: the same common God. No, we don't have the same
Speaker 3: common God, because we have the training God, and that's
Speaker 3: the only god that's ever existed, not a generic theism
Speaker 3: that all the religon Jens know about. All right. So
Speaker 3: position A that we want to talk about, this problematic
Speaker 3: and contrasts is once again because this position that Arisola
Speaker 3: would outline fundamentally can't interpret nature correctly. So one reason
Speaker 3: we can't do natural theology, and why in our theology
Speaker 3: it's more properly called natural revelation, is because you can't
Speaker 3: properly interpret the external world, the natural world as it
Speaker 3: is now, without the doctrine of the fall, because if
Speaker 3: you do try to do that, you will come to
Speaker 3: the conclusion, you will reason to the faulty conclusion as
Speaker 3: the Deists and the Enlightenment guys did that. Whoever constructed
Speaker 3: this world, if I just look at at the natural world,
Speaker 3: is a psychopath, because that psychopath has made death and
Speaker 3: life just as important in the natural world. Yes, natural
Speaker 3: theology leads to to atheism, because the God of natural
Speaker 3: theology is the god of natural rights in the natural world,
Speaker 3: who naturally has put death into practice to feed on life,
Speaker 3: and life feeds on death. Right when a body decomposes,
Speaker 3: outcome the microbes and the whatever that feed on the
Speaker 3: death and the decay. Now that's not the natural state
Speaker 3: of things. That's not natural. It's natural in a limited sense,
Speaker 3: but that's not the way God intended the world to be,
Speaker 3: because this world is fallen, and the decay and death
Speaker 3: and destruction that are in the world, any form of death,
Speaker 3: is a result of Adam's fall. Romans eight makes us
Speaker 3: abundantly clear. So again, as I did in the philosoph
Speaker 3: traditional philosophy and metaphysics lectures already covered this. We covered
Speaker 3: why natural theology doesn't work. They don't get it, they
Speaker 3: can't grasp it. They can't understand that you can interpret
Speaker 3: the natural world without the fall. But the doctrine of
Speaker 3: the fall is presupposing the doctrine of creation, and the
Speaker 3: doctrine of creation and the fall presupposed revelation Genesis. So
Speaker 3: you can't properly interpret the external world without supernatural revelation
Speaker 3: contained in Genesis and by Extension and the rest of
Speaker 3: the scriptures. This is why, as Father Stanneloy says in
Speaker 3: Volume one or Orthodox Dogmatics, for us, there is no
Speaker 3: natural theology. There's natural revelation. So you could see why
Speaker 3: Aristota looks out at the world and he says, well,
Speaker 3: death is just a natural process. The Seventh Actumenical Council
Speaker 3: condemns those who call death a natural process. Right, because
Speaker 3: the Seventh Ecumenical Council accepts the Trollo synod decrees and
Speaker 3: the Canons of Trollo accept the earlier canons that speak
Speaker 3: of condemning anybody who says that death is a natural
Speaker 3: process and that death would have happened had not Adam sinned.
Speaker 3: You have to believe. This is why theistic evolution is
Speaker 3: impossible in any Christian system, Orthodoxy especially obviously that's the
Speaker 3: only one that's truly Christian. You can't believe in theistic
Speaker 3: evolution because it denies that the canons of Trollo, which
Speaker 3: are accepted at and I see it too. I've cited
Speaker 3: this hundreds of times. I get tired of citing this
Speaker 3: and every time, and now that I do this, somebody
Speaker 3: gonna say, where is that? Where is that again. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna have to put it on my Twitter again. Pay attention.
Speaker 3: So death is unnatural. This is fundamental to Orthodox theology.
Speaker 3: That's why in the Harrowing of Hades Icon, Christ is
Speaker 3: destroying death. And you say, well, is it spiritual death
Speaker 3: or physical death? It's both because they're both intertwined. Because
Speaker 3: man is a whole. He's a holistic being, body, soul,
Speaker 3: and spirit. And so when we speak of death, it's
Speaker 3: the It is intermittently linked. It is linked in the
Speaker 3: body and in the spirit and into all creation. That's
Speaker 3: why when Adam sends as the steward and covenant head
Speaker 3: of the of the cosmos of creation, when he sinned,
Speaker 3: it affected the entire world, the entire universe. It introduced
Speaker 3: decay and destruction into the entire universe. And that's why
Speaker 3: we can't look out at the world as it is
Speaker 3: now and reason back to a creator. If you listen
Speaker 3: to Neildagrass Tyson, if you go listen to the talks
Speaker 3: that I did on the Cornelius Hunter book about Darwin's God,
Speaker 3: I talk about this in depth, and I explain how
Speaker 3: Neildagrass Tyson is right when he says, if you think
Speaker 3: that the world out there teaches you natural theology, then
Speaker 3: to me, it seems like it teaches a psychopath god,
Speaker 3: because the psychopath god necessitates predator and pray relations for
Speaker 3: life to exist and subsisting to continue. But guess what,
Speaker 3: that's not the natural state of things. We live in
Speaker 3: an unnatural state of things because of the fall. So
Speaker 3: nature and being natural is a very vague and loose term.
Speaker 3: It's a theory laden term. It doesn't come to us
Speaker 3: with uninterpreted brute meaning. It's not a brute fact. We
Speaker 3: don't know what nature means apart from the rest of
Speaker 3: some philosophical or theological system. So this is another easy
Speaker 3: point to contrast Christianity from Arisitilianism or any of the paganisms,
Speaker 3: is that we're the only position that teaches creation x nilo.
Speaker 3: We're the only position that's going to interpret the world
Speaker 3: in a certain way, ultimately the correct way, but in
Speaker 3: a certain way where we see death as an enemy,
Speaker 3: and where as a result, death and sin are intimate,
Speaker 3: are intimately connected, and thus man's problem is moral. This
Speaker 3: sets us off against all the other positions because all
Speaker 3: those far eastern monistic positions they start with man's problem
Speaker 3: being metaphysics. They don't start with a sin in the
Speaker 3: garden that's moral that leads to metaphysical problems and ontological
Speaker 3: decay in the universe. They start with a metaphysical problem
Speaker 3: of the one, and somehow movements changed things and it
Speaker 3: split the one, and then that diad split into a
Speaker 3: triad that split into the multiplicity and infinity. Fractal nonsense, right,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying fractals aren't true, but that scheme is
Speaker 3: immediately contrasted with our redemptive scheme. In our scheme, creation
Speaker 3: is good. It's done x nelo out of nothing. It's
Speaker 3: not a pre existent matter that God forms into something.
Speaker 3: It's not co eternal with God. History thus is linear
Speaker 3: beginning middle end. This, by the way, is a presubsitional
Speaker 3: category for understanding all of experience beginning middle end. No
Speaker 3: human being experiences the world in reverse. No human being
Speaker 3: experiences reality from the middle to the beginning to the end. No,
Speaker 3: it's We are constituted as beings to experience everything in
Speaker 3: our lives beginning, middle and end. And so you could
Speaker 3: argue that this means of experiencing the world itself is
Speaker 3: one of the transcendental categories. In fact, I think I
Speaker 3: think Kant himself even argues that that's a transcendental precondition
Speaker 3: for understanding anyway. Regardless, the point being is that our
Speaker 3: view of history is then linear, not cyclical. The world
Speaker 3: comes to be at a specific point in time. It
Speaker 3: wasn't eternal, it's not a part of God, it's not
Speaker 3: an emanation. God freely created. This is why we can't
Speaker 3: believe in absolute divine simplicity, because that would mean that
Speaker 3: the action of creating is also co eternal with God's essence.
Speaker 3: And thus creating was always eternally an action of God.
Speaker 3: God eternally created, and then the creation ultimately becomes eternal.
Speaker 3: It takes on one of the properties of divinity, takes
Speaker 3: on an eternal, uncreated state. But creation is not uncreated.
Speaker 3: That doesn't make any sense. So so creation has to
Speaker 3: be freely done. This is the whole point of the
Speaker 3: Fluorosky essay on Athenasius and Athanasius's arguments with the Arians.
Speaker 3: You have to make a distinction between God's nature and
Speaker 3: God's will and counsel, and so ultimately, Father Fluorowsky demonstrates
Speaker 3: without any shadow of a doubt, the Sant athenacious against
Speaker 3: the Arians, is arguing the essence s energy distinction. That's
Speaker 3: the whole point. If he's not, then his whole argument
Speaker 3: with the Arians falls apart. So we see a system
Speaker 3: then where creation begins. It's ex nilo. It's not out
Speaker 3: of God or part of God. It's from nothing. And
Speaker 3: that doesn't mean that there was nothing and then God
Speaker 3: and creation came into existence. No, it means that God,
Speaker 3: forevery for all eternity was there, and he would have
Speaker 3: been there had he not created. But when he created,
Speaker 3: he created into nothing. We say, just to spec fi
Speaker 3: and to set off against these pagan and eternal return,
Speaker 3: eternal recurrence type systems, cyclical systems. And again, cyclical history
Speaker 3: relativizes history. It makes change within history meaningless. And because
Speaker 3: change within and development within history is meaningless, what we
Speaker 3: get is the next dialectic that I contrasted in the
Speaker 3: debate is that of stasis and change. Now, this dialectic
Speaker 3: is interesting because it's overlooked when we critique absolute divine
Speaker 3: simplicity and when we understand what Origin taught. So again
Speaker 3: we go back to Genesis. What Origin is teaching a
Speaker 3: similar doctrine to Plato and the Platonists a pagan gnostic doctrine.
Speaker 3: He doesn't believe in creation. The Confession of Saint Sophronius
Speaker 3: accepted that the Sixth Council extensively condemns Origin for his
Speaker 3: rejection of Eden and the doctrine creation, and he allegorizes it,
Speaker 3: just like all the Darwinists and the theistic evolutions do.
Speaker 3: They allegorize Genesis. They allegorized Eden. They said wasn't real,
Speaker 3: it was just some mythical, allegorical thing. Well, you're condemned
Speaker 3: by the Six Council for saying what Origin says, because
Speaker 3: actually the Six Council is very explicit in the Confession
Speaker 3: of Saint Sophronius about the errors of origin. It's not
Speaker 3: a general condemnation of origins of Pocketstasus, It's a very
Speaker 3: specific condemnation of origins doctrine of allegorization of Genesis and Eden.
Speaker 3: That's a heavy pill for a lot of these normy
Speaker 3: docs to swallow, and they won't swallow it. They will
Speaker 3: choose anything but what Genesis says. Any give me anything
Speaker 3: but what scripture actually says anything about that? What did
Speaker 3: we see here? The pride of man, the pride of
Speaker 3: man of just not submitting to the scriptures. Whether it's
Speaker 3: the Pagans or whether it's the normy docs, all of them.
Speaker 3: It's just human pride and autonomy and not wanting to
Speaker 3: submit to what scripture says and what all the church
Speaker 3: fathers taught. And you say, well, yeah, but I found
Speaker 3: a church father who didn't believe. And it doesn't matter
Speaker 3: because by the Sex Council it's already settled. You can't
Speaker 3: pick out one church father who got something wrong and
Speaker 3: say well, I don't have to accept that, because right
Speaker 3: now you can't do that, and everybody knows you can't
Speaker 3: do that. If you could do that, the whole system
Speaker 3: would be chaos, nonsense, it would all collapse, It wouldn't
Speaker 3: make any sense. Everybody could just it would be like Protestants,
Speaker 3: like everybody could just pick out which saint that they
Speaker 3: want to fallow. So nature can't be interpreted without understanding
Speaker 3: the doction of creation in the fall. And since we
Speaker 3: see change in nature, we have a problem of relating
Speaker 3: this unchanging, eternal, timeless, a temporal realm of impersonal whatever essence,
Speaker 3: to this realm of change and flux. So this is
Speaker 3: a dialectic between being and becoming, and the Church Fathers
Speaker 3: encounter and debate the dialectic between being and becoming, and
Speaker 3: it's specifically encountered in the encounter with Origin. And this
Speaker 3: actually it's Saint max when he corrects Origin. It's Saint
Speaker 3: Maximus that fixes a lot of this, because this originistic
Speaker 3: error kept floating around and it kept popping back up.
Speaker 3: And if you read Saint Maximus, he's very explicit about
Speaker 3: how to correct and condemn this. And what he says
Speaker 3: is that in actually Saint Gregor a Nissa had already
Speaker 3: done some some groundbreaking work in this arena, and he
Speaker 3: points out that the problem with man and man's fall
Speaker 3: wasn't being in a perfect state of unity and willing
Speaker 3: in some way to look to some other created good
Speaker 3: or some other thing to turn its gaze, its perfect
Speaker 3: intellectual gaze away from the One. Okay, And in the
Speaker 3: in the originistic scheme, the pre eternal, pre existent souls
Speaker 3: fell because they wield something other than the One and
Speaker 3: the good, and so then they fell into being in
Speaker 3: a created state, and they fell into bodies. This is
Speaker 3: totally heretical, totally gnostic, totally platonic garbage, garbage nonsense, anybody
Speaker 3: trying to resurrect Origin is either a fool or demonic,
Speaker 3: all right, so you can't there's no you can't import
Speaker 3: any of this into orthox Christianity. It's nonsense when you
Speaker 3: really understand the Origin is scheme. So the fall then
Speaker 3: for Origin is that. And then what happens in redemption
Speaker 3: is that the mind, the intellect you know, makes its
Speaker 3: way back through the created images, is very platonic to
Speaker 3: the one, right, and then when you get back to
Speaker 3: the one, Origin says, if we have free will, it
Speaker 3: stands to reason that you can always choose between good
Speaker 3: and evil. So as a dialectical definition of free will
Speaker 3: meaning either the choice between good or evil, and since
Speaker 3: everybody believes that you do retain free will in the afterlife,
Speaker 3: you could see Origin's reasoning process here. He says, well,
Speaker 3: then in the in the afterlife, if you have free will,
Speaker 3: then you have to be able to will something other
Speaker 3: than the super supreme essence the monat And if you
Speaker 3: can will something other than the super supreme essence monad
Speaker 3: in the afterlife, in the next life in eternity, then
Speaker 3: you can fall again. So he has a weird mix
Speaker 3: of absolute divide simplicity, but also stressing free will. But again,
Speaker 3: if you understand that, then you understand that it's actually
Speaker 3: the Roman Catholics and the Tomus that are inconsistent because
Speaker 3: in the Beatific Vision doctrine they want to say that
Speaker 3: the will is forever focused on the essence of God
Speaker 3: and seeing all things in the essence of God. But
Speaker 3: the essence of God is one. It's absolutely simple, and
Speaker 3: there aren't really many things in it, so there aren't
Speaker 3: really different things to will. And every church father agrees
Speaker 3: that free will involves an actual choice. So if there's
Speaker 3: only one thing in the afterlife and there's not a
Speaker 3: real distinction between things, because you're all, everything is being
Speaker 3: seen and known through the essence of God, which is
Speaker 3: total blasphemy. You guys, are blasphemous, then again we're at
Speaker 3: the problem of absolute divine simplicity, where there's not real
Speaker 3: distinctions in the one. And I brought this point up
Speaker 3: to Classist and I brought it up in the first
Speaker 3: time being on the Daily brap to the Thomas, and
Speaker 3: I tried to stress this point because this is why
Speaker 3: the Atific Vision doctrine is just platonism. Now in our view,
Speaker 3: Saint Maximus has a great chapter in the If you
Speaker 3: read the Selected Writings version of Saint Maximus, there's a
Speaker 3: chapter where he talks about seeing God in the afterlife.
Speaker 3: There's also a one of the theological orations of Gregory Nazianzus,
Speaker 3: he talks about seeing God. So we have a problem
Speaker 3: of seeing God because, as you know, we say that
Speaker 3: we already see God in this life and then it
Speaker 3: becomes the fullness of that in the afterlife. But what
Speaker 3: these fathers are very clear about is that we're not
Speaker 3: seeing the essence of God. The seeing of God is
Speaker 3: seeing directly the energies of God. So there you go.
Speaker 3: That's the solution. Also the forms of things, if you
Speaker 3: want to call him that, the essences of the universals,
Speaker 3: if you read ambiguous set of Saint Maximus, they're uncreated energies.
Speaker 3: They're not the essence of God. This is where we
Speaker 3: differ from the Roman Catholics. They're not exemplars in the
Speaker 3: essence of God.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: So, as we're moving through the Pagan system's come back
Speaker 3: to this. The dialectic between stasis and change, between being
Speaker 3: and becoming is present in all the systems, just like
Speaker 3: the dialectic of the one and the many. Just like
Speaker 3: the dialectic of monism and dualism, there's also a dialectic
Speaker 3: between being and becoming. And these guys laugh and they
Speaker 3: make fun of talking about dialectics. They are you not
Speaker 3: aware how prominent this is in the Church Fathers. How
Speaker 3: constantly they're talking about the heretics being caught up in dialectics.
Speaker 3: It's in all of them. Athanasius rebukes the Arians for it,
Speaker 3: Basil rebukes the Eunomians for it. Nissa rebukes the Eunomians
Speaker 3: for it. Saint Maximus rebukes the Monothelites for it. Nestorius
Speaker 3: gets rebuked for it. Because they're obsessed with either or
Speaker 3: dialect So in our review, and if you read Father
Speaker 3: Steine Eelloyd, if you read Orthodox Dogmatics Volume one, then
Speaker 3: you know that he has an awesome chapter on not
Speaker 3: just the problems of absolute simplicity, but the problems of
Speaker 3: the dialectic between stasis and change. That's why for us,
Speaker 3: the afterlife is different. There's not just stasis. There's real
Speaker 3: change in the afterlife because we're not playing this bro.
Speaker 3: And there's an extensive section where Father steinyeloin and Volume
Speaker 3: one just completely annihilates this stupid argument. Now, that's going
Speaker 3: to be true for Origanism, and it's also true for
Speaker 3: all the paganisms, because are you are starting to see
Speaker 3: how a lot of these systems are because they start
Speaker 3: with the same errors and problems. So nature can't be
Speaker 3: interpreted without creation. The fall, death becomes natural history becomes
Speaker 3: cyclical and meaningless and illusory. Ultimately, I would argue, if
Speaker 3: you're consistent in this system, perfection in this scheme is
Speaker 3: perfect unity. Why is perfect unity somehow perfection? All these
Speaker 3: dumb philosophic systems, all the systems based on chain of being,
Speaker 3: they all have this assumption that perfection is somehow a
Speaker 3: perfect unity or monad. Well, that kind of introduces a gradation,
Speaker 3: and the Trinity, doesn't it, Yes, it does. But Basil says,
Speaker 3: God is not more one than he is three, and
Speaker 3: he's not more three than he is one. So there's
Speaker 3: the perfect balance of the one the many in the
Speaker 3: Trinity according to the Eastern Fathers. So we don't want
Speaker 3: any of this gradations of being, We don't want any
Speaker 3: gradations of nonsense.
Speaker 5: In God.
Speaker 3: There is perfect unity. In perfect change is not a
Speaker 3: lesser onto logical status. Somebody saying, why don't you do
Speaker 3: a talk on why death isn't natural? I already did one.
Speaker 3: It's in the natural theology talk. No Greeks ever taught creation.
Speaker 3: No Greeks taught creation x neilo. No Greeks teach or
Speaker 3: taught or ancient philosophers taught that man's problem is primarily moral.
Speaker 3: If they taught that man's problem is a lack of
Speaker 3: facts in education, no, that's not man's problem. Do you
Speaker 3: see that at each point our system doesn't work with
Speaker 3: the Greeks. Now, the Greeks might have read Isaiah, they
Speaker 3: might have read Moses. We don't know. Many church fathers
Speaker 3: thought maybe they did. Doesn't really matter. The point being
Speaker 3: is that ours is the true system, and whatever truth
Speaker 3: they have is from us, dude, not the other way around. Now,
Speaker 3: if they say something true and they didn't learn it
Speaker 3: from our system, it's still from us, because it's from
Speaker 3: the logos that they have, from the logos of God.
Speaker 3: All right. So the next as we move up then
Speaker 3: to history. History for us is not a historical and
Speaker 3: meaningless and a prison to escape from the God of
Speaker 3: Creation stepped into history. History is meaningful if you go
Speaker 3: listen to the talk I did on Genesis versus atheists
Speaker 3: and Pagans, I talk about this. If you listen to
Speaker 3: the talk I did about Aaron Aus's anti Gnostic work
Speaker 3: against heresies. If you go listen to my against Gnoscissism talk,
Speaker 3: I outline like ten things that set us off against
Speaker 3: the world religions and against the Pagans and the Gnostics.
Speaker 3: So the zeitgy shit doesn't work, dude, because literally we
Speaker 3: havemultiple distinctives that no other religions have. And just saying that, well,
Speaker 3: there's another religion that has a similar idea of the
Speaker 3: God's birthing a world out of sexual intercourse. That's not creation.
Speaker 3: We don't teach that, and that's not similar. Well, there's
Speaker 3: a there's a kind of weird triad in some religion.
Speaker 3: I heard one time. The Vedic texts have a try
Speaker 3: that triad is nothing like what we teach. What we
Speaker 3: teach is nothing like a triad in Plato, it's not
Speaker 3: anything like it. As Basil says, the one is he
Speaker 3: not it?
Speaker 1: All? Right?
Speaker 3: Next we see that again, this dialectic of perfection being
Speaker 3: unity is a philosophic assumption that is not there's no
Speaker 3: self evident truth to that it's not self evident that
Speaker 3: unity is somehow some higher ontolage go better state on
Speaker 3: what basis. But as you see, with all these guys
Speaker 3: who are especially Aristitilian, they've never thought to question paradigms
Speaker 3: and presuppositions. They don't know what I mean. You would
Speaker 3: think Aristotilians might know about what a transcendental argument is,
Speaker 3: given the fact that the metaphysics makes a transtal argument,
Speaker 3: but they don't actually know about presubpositional thought and questioning presubositions.
Speaker 3: And that's why they never win these debates, and they
Speaker 3: never will unless they start learning what I talk about.
Speaker 3: So we see the assumptions of neutrality, the assumptions of
Speaker 3: the idea that well, we all know what existence is, right,
Speaker 3: so I can start by talking about everything exists, right,
Speaker 3: everything that is exists? Oh do we really now? In
Speaker 3: my worldview? Everything that exists in this world is created
Speaker 3: in your worldview? It's not so existence itself is completely
Speaker 3: different from your view to mind, they're not unifical terms
Speaker 3: just because it's the same vowels coming out of our mouths.
Speaker 3: It's vastly different existence in Aristotle, not the same thing
Speaker 3: is what it means in Christian theology. For us, all
Speaker 3: that exists is made by God. And what is Paul
Speaker 3: say and Colossians. It's held in being. It subsists in
Speaker 3: the logos. It's not pre existing eternal matter. It's not
Speaker 3: premia material. It's created matter, created forms that have their
Speaker 3: meaning and their grounding in the logi, the logo, the
Speaker 3: logi in the logos. Why is that? Because everything that
Speaker 3: exists in the world is triadic from the Father, through
Speaker 3: the Son and the Spirit. Everything the world was created
Speaker 3: that way, redemption happened that way. That's basal dictum. So
Speaker 3: being and existence are not self evident terms that don't
Speaker 3: come theory laden. They're not neutral terms that are self interpreted.
Speaker 3: They are theory laden terms and claims, he says being,
Speaker 3: I say, what do you mean created? Uncreated? They're not
Speaker 3: unifical terms. But every attempt to approach these goofy philosophical
Speaker 3: systems and import too much of them makes this mistake.
Speaker 3: I need to do a talk just on this and
Speaker 3: hammer at home. I'm going to call it Jerusalem versus Athens.
Speaker 3: So no Greeks taught creation, No Greeks taught that creation
Speaker 3: was a free act by a personal God. No Greeks
Speaker 3: taught that God is personal for them. It's ultimate reality
Speaker 3: is impersonal. Now, once any has made this concession that
Speaker 3: ultimate reality is impersonal, they've already lost a debate. It's
Speaker 3: over because it means that chaos ultimately is what rules
Speaker 3: and reigns. And you could say, well, it's not. Chaos
Speaker 3: is a bunch of abstract principles. A bunch of abstract
Speaker 3: principles can't string together all the different abstract principles to
Speaker 3: be coherent. How does law? How does the law of
Speaker 3: logic relate to the principle of love in the world?
Speaker 3: How does the How do those two different things relate
Speaker 3: to the concept of a soul or a self? How
Speaker 3: do those three things relate to the concept of past, present,
Speaker 3: and future? They don't. They're just abstract categories that are
Speaker 3: placeholders in the system that don't really have any real
Speaker 3: relation to one another, unless we just assume that they do.
Speaker 3: But if there's an all knowing, provident God who's omniscience,
Speaker 3: then he's the one who strings all these things together
Speaker 3: and holds them in being, as Paul says, and makes
Speaker 3: sense of all these different categories and gives us the
Speaker 3: possibility for them all relating in a meaningful way. The
Speaker 3: divine mind is needed then in this system to hold
Speaker 3: these categories together and to make sense of them. Now,
Speaker 3: as we move on to a little more difficult concepts
Speaker 3: in this Now, by the way, we've come all the
Speaker 3: way up from the beginning of creation to man and
Speaker 3: the incarnation, let's talk about the end of history as well,
Speaker 3: because the coming of Christ's and history and the resurrection,
Speaker 3: that's the definitive signaling of the meaning of all history, past, president,
Speaker 3: and future. So it's an aschatologe. When Christ is resurrected
Speaker 3: is an eschaological event. I'm not saying there's not an
Speaker 3: end of the world. There is, but we are now
Speaker 3: living in the Church age, the Messianic age, right, and
Speaker 3: that same covenant has been open to the Gentiles. Point being,
Speaker 3: the body is good, you know all these dumb Greek systems.
Speaker 3: The body is not good. Now, Aristotle trusts to temper this, right.
Speaker 3: Aristotle doesn't have a problem with the body, so he
Speaker 3: departs from Plato's gnostic nonsense. He says, they know the
Speaker 3: body is not that bad, right, There's not eternal life
Speaker 3: in the body. You just kind of die, and then
Speaker 3: your monad soul seeds. They go off into another being
Speaker 3: that forms again, you know, maybe something cyclical. Right, we
Speaker 3: don't exactly know how this works, but you know, you
Speaker 3: go back into nature and then nature forms another kid
Speaker 3: down the road. So there's no eternal life in this system,
Speaker 3: and there's not a god in this system that actually
Speaker 3: relates to the world. The God of Aristotle is thought,
Speaker 3: thinking itself. Now pause for a minute. Thought thinking itself, self, referential,
Speaker 3: abstract thought is the ultimate good in God here. Well,
Speaker 3: that sounds a lot like Greek philosophy, doesn't it. So
Speaker 3: Aristotle's God is just the personified Greek It's just the
Speaker 3: ultimate idea of Greek philosophy. What's the highest possible goal? Well,
Speaker 3: it's like thinking, man, well, what could be higher than
Speaker 3: thinking thought thinking itself? Which is total nonsense. So anyway,
Speaker 3: so again, it's a god who's not related to you.
Speaker 3: He's unknowable. He doesn't have any direct interaction in this world.
Speaker 3: He's either a one unmoved mover or fifty five unmoved movers.
Speaker 3: What similarity is? Does that bear to Exodus three fourteen
Speaker 3: I am that I am none? Is it true that
Speaker 3: God is the first cause in an unmove mover. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but it's true because Christianity is true and that God
Speaker 3: is personal, not an impersonal abstract force. Now, why do
Speaker 3: all these pagans do this? I'm gonna get you here's
Speaker 3: the real secret to this. That's because, guess what, you're
Speaker 3: not accountable to a number. You're not accountable to gravity.
Speaker 3: You don't have to give an account of your life
Speaker 3: to gravity, to the number seven. So that's why they
Speaker 3: love abstract principles. But if there's a personal God, you've
Speaker 3: got to give an account to your life, and you
Speaker 3: have duties and obligations and so forth, and there's a
Speaker 3: moral law that you have to follow to take commandments matter.
Speaker 3: In other words, it would require repentance, it would require
Speaker 3: a change of mind, metanoia, and a change of worldview.
Speaker 3: In this view, although it makes a big hubub about Tilos,
Speaker 3: there's actually not an overriding Tulos. There's tilos in objects.
Speaker 3: The acorn becomes the tree right in Aristotle in the
Speaker 3: four causes. But actually, in reality that's just from the
Speaker 3: human vantage point. Do we know that an acorn really
Speaker 3: possesses tilos in the overall universal scheme of things? No,
Speaker 3: we don't. So really, tilos is a purely subjective human
Speaker 3: advantage point category for things. It's not a thing actually
Speaker 3: in things, because there's not an overriding Telos to the universe. Now,
Speaker 3: later on the you know, like Thomas, they will try
Speaker 3: to take the telos argument and make it into a
Speaker 3: teleogical argument for all of reality. If I mean, if
Speaker 3: you understand, you could make an an a transcendental tilos argument.
Speaker 3: A transcendental form of the teleological argument would be valid.
Speaker 3: But the problem with just making a bare teleological argument
Speaker 3: assumes that tilos is a self evident, neutral, uninterpreted term,
Speaker 3: just like we saw earlier with being in existence, And
Speaker 3: it's not.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 3: Remember when I started quizzing, if you heard the debate,
Speaker 3: I started asking him, now, wait a minute, so tell
Speaker 3: me how you got to this conclusion on your self
Speaker 3: evident maxims? Which ones did you kind of build up on?
Speaker 3: Where does it start? And how do you start building
Speaker 3: this system? And what does he do? He appeals to
Speaker 3: things that he thinks he thought were just obvious and
Speaker 3: self evident. Oh, but they are not. And that's the key.
Speaker 3: So when you start talking about oh well, I look
Speaker 3: out at the world and I start reasoning about the
Speaker 3: world no reason, and you look out at the world
Speaker 3: so experience sense data, and then you start talking about
Speaker 3: how the hylomorphisms out there.
Speaker 9: In the world.
Speaker 3: Oh wait a minute, now you're bringing in new terms
Speaker 3: and ideas that you thought were just self evident and obvious.
Speaker 3: But these are actually other ideas that are not yet
Speaker 3: vindicated or justified. So then he starts bringing in I'm
Speaker 3: trying to remember the other things he started repealing to.
Speaker 3: He appealed to all these Oh, he says, well, it's
Speaker 3: just part of being a human. Really human. You think
Speaker 3: that's a neutral term that doesn't come as in a
Speaker 3: theory laden way. Human doesn't come to us as part
Speaker 3: of a worldview. It's a self evident term and idea. No,
Speaker 3: what does human mean to me? It's completely different than
Speaker 3: what it means to the Aristilian. To him, it's just
Speaker 3: a vegetative form that comes from natural processes and then
Speaker 3: disintegrates into dirt. For us, human means made in the
Speaker 3: image of God, a nature restored by the incarnation and
Speaker 3: destined to live in all eternity with God. So completely
Speaker 3: different ideas about what human means. So human is not
Speaker 3: self evident and that's the root of this problem here
Speaker 3: of all of these systems that are classical foundationalists, is
Speaker 3: that they all assume neutrality, and they assume that ideas, concepts,
Speaker 3: terms are theory neutral and system neutral and don't require interpretation.
Speaker 3: They're interpretively neutral. They're not none of them are. Can't
Speaker 3: you see that again? Nature, it's not self evident to
Speaker 3: everybody what nature is, because it's going to be dependent
Speaker 3: on the rest of my worldview what nature means. So
Speaker 3: he immediately starts on the spill of all of these
Speaker 3: different categories and concepts and very abuse metaphysical baggage things
Speaker 3: that he acts like, we're just well, it's obviously we
Speaker 3: know what existence is, right, it's the things that exist
Speaker 3: what No, it's not obvious, right, And so what happens
Speaker 3: if he had been more schooled in philosophy in the
Speaker 3: history of philosophy, he would realize that actually, as philosophy developed,
Speaker 3: people begin to question those assumptions. Now I'm not saying
Speaker 3: that Hume and these different enlightened characters are ultimately correct,
Speaker 3: but they are ultimately correct to on the basis of
Speaker 3: classical foundationalism start to question assumptions and start to ask, hey,
Speaker 3: wait a minute, do we really know if existence is
Speaker 3: a neutral term? It seems to kind of go along
Speaker 3: with a bunch of other baggage and your philosophy. Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 3: of course it does. This is why you can't appeal
Speaker 3: to some kind of generic being argument for God. You
Speaker 3: can't appeal to some generic Tilos concept, because Tilos is
Speaker 3: only possible if the God that we believe in exists.
Speaker 3: That's why this apologetic is better. It's a much stronger
Speaker 3: argument than the weak SOI tomist arguments, the five ways
Speaker 3: of SOI. Those arguments are weak because they assume neutrality.
Speaker 3: They assume that beliefs and terms aren't theory laden. But
Speaker 3: guess what they are. So being, human, nature, all these
Speaker 3: things he thinks he's a apeealing to that are self evident. No,
Speaker 3: they're not. And I absolutely nailed him on that in
Speaker 3: the debate. In fact, he wasn't ready for that. He was,
Speaker 3: all right, let's see being as not unifical, existence, human
Speaker 3: These terms are not self evident, he says, change in motion. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: So it doesn't make sense to say, oh, I remember telos,
Speaker 3: that's what we're talking about. So telos isn't theory neutral. Well,
Speaker 3: it just means purpose. Yeah, purpose is not theory neutral obviously,
Speaker 3: And this is a key criticism of Aerosol himself. We're
Speaker 3: not talking about this guy, but let's look at Aerosol himself.
Speaker 3: If change and motion are eternal, well, actually, this is
Speaker 3: a good critique of the unmoved mover first cause argument.
Speaker 3: So if you reason back to why there has to
Speaker 3: be a first cause, no, there doesn't. And Aristotle's first
Speaker 3: cause is not the same thing as the Christian ex nilo,
Speaker 3: So really it doesn't work because of change in motion
Speaker 3: are eternal, then there is no beginning. Aristol didn't think
Speaker 3: that the world had a beginning. It's eternal matter that's
Speaker 3: formed into the forms that are here presently. And so,
Speaker 3: in other words, you can't utilize Aristotle's for causes because
Speaker 3: in Aristotle's system, when you reason back to the unmoved mover,
Speaker 3: there's no efficient cause. So Aristotol's ugmentation is awful for apologetics,
Speaker 3: it's terrible. There's no efficient cause in the beginning on
Speaker 3: the part of the unmove mover. Now why do we
Speaker 3: say that, because again, what are the four causes material?
Speaker 3: And this would be like matter premia, materia, the substance,
Speaker 3: the stuffiness, right, the formal cause, all right, this is
Speaker 3: what impresses the form that an object has. So we've
Speaker 3: got the clay, we stamp it with the rectangle square.
Speaker 3: It's a brick. It becomes a brick, all right, that's
Speaker 3: formal cause. The efficient cause is me doing it. The
Speaker 3: final cause is the telos. Now, the unmoved mover isn't
Speaker 3: really an efficient cause. I know that the Thomas want
Speaker 3: to make him that, but he's not really because there's
Speaker 3: not a beginning in this system, because it's not creation
Speaker 3: x neilo. It's eternal matter being formed into something that
Speaker 3: doesn't make any sense, eternal matter being given form. That's
Speaker 3: a change in things. If there's a change in things,
Speaker 3: then there's not a beginning. There's not a beginning because
Speaker 3: it's eternal. You see, eternal matter is changed. It's nonsense.
Speaker 3: There you go. And this is because, of course, in
Speaker 3: Aristotle he wanted to deal with change and identity over change.
Speaker 3: That's a central problem in Aristotle. So there's not really
Speaker 3: an unmoved mover who can function as the efficient cause
Speaker 3: of things at the beginning of time. And there's no
Speaker 3: reason to assume by reasoning back through a chain of
Speaker 3: causes that there had to be one andover. Maybe there's
Speaker 3: fifty five unmoved movers see and Aristotle contradicts himself on
Speaker 3: that point. So why anybody would want to try to
Speaker 3: co opt this argument? It's beyond me. It's dumb. There's
Speaker 3: not really Telos in the world because there's not a
Speaker 3: singular divine mind that providentially orders and regulates and relates
Speaker 3: all things to each other. Therefore, Telos cannot be applicable
Speaker 3: to the universe as a whole. It's a subjective human
Speaker 3: predicate of phenomena in their experience. For example, is ninety
Speaker 3: degrees a property in the object? For Aristotle he has
Speaker 3: to say yes because of islomorphism, because of objects being
Speaker 3: basically simple unity, ninety degrees is actually in that object? No,
Speaker 3: come on. And then when we think about more abstract
Speaker 3: mathematical things like Mandelbrot sets. Oh wait, now, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: where are they? Remember we wanted to squish everything in
Speaker 3: Plato's ideal realm into the here and the now, into
Speaker 3: the objects. Where is a Mandelbrot set out there in
Speaker 3: the world nowhere? So that doesn't work. And actually, in
Speaker 3: one of my grad classes I had. I had two
Speaker 3: grad Aristotle professors who were high high level dudes, doctor
Speaker 3: Robinson and doctor Goggins, And under doctor Goggins, I did
Speaker 3: a paper and he specialized in a lot of these
Speaker 3: ancient mathematicians theories on number and so really high levels
Speaker 3: specialist dudes debate this problem in Aristotle in relationship to
Speaker 3: number because how do numbers actually only exist in particulars? Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: It doesn't make any sense because they don't, because this
Speaker 3: is wrong. How are numbers only in particulars? Are Mandel
Speaker 3: brought sets only in some particular out in the world
Speaker 3: that's retarded? Ninety degrees is not just in your head,
Speaker 3: and it's not just an angle on an object, and
Speaker 3: it's not just a word. There's nothing in your brain
Speaker 3: that cars corresponds to ninety degrees when you're speaking, I'm
Speaker 3: not talking about ninety eight degrees the band No Boy banter.
Speaker 3: It's about ninety degrees on the edge of an object.
Speaker 3: So at this point, if we look at numbers in
Speaker 3: relationship to aerosol, we're back at Plato. And again this
Speaker 3: is a problem because for Aristotle we're just kind of
Speaker 3: locating universals and abstractions in the particulars he thought that
Speaker 3: would solve the issue doesn't. Another reason this doesn't work
Speaker 3: for us is again because of this starting point of
Speaker 3: it being classical foundationalism and ultimately appealing to since experience.
Speaker 3: And that's why I asked this guy, how'd you come
Speaker 3: to the system? Oh, I read Parmenides and Aristotle and
Speaker 3: Confucius or whoever. So he, by his since experience, read
Speaker 3: these books, and then he reasoned to these things about
Speaker 3: all this metaphysical stuff that he thought was self evident.
Speaker 3: None of it's self evident. We've shown that very clearly here.
Speaker 3: And so at this point the system I think that
Speaker 3: he was presenting was just completely dysynthicate, degrading and breaking down.
Speaker 3: And I don't think he was even catching the arguments
Speaker 3: and the force of the arguments. The next problem that
Speaker 3: we could see in Aristotle is ethics. Me and this guy,
Speaker 3: we didn't get to the ethical arm of debate. But
Speaker 3: I would have made the same type of argument if
Speaker 3: he had gone with the golden mean. The golden mean
Speaker 3: can't be a basis for ethics because the golden mean
Speaker 3: assumes that you have a basis to know what is
Speaker 3: in between two extremes, saying you demonea or golden mean
Speaker 3: it doesn't work. How do you know what the middle is?
Speaker 3: If you don't know what the extremes are, obviously come on.
Speaker 3: So it's subjective, it's relativistic. The Arisitilian God is ultimately deistic,
Speaker 3: so he's not an efficient cause the Arisitylian God is unknowable.
Speaker 3: You don't have a relationship with him because he's thought
Speaker 3: thinking itself. He's not related to you. And thus none
Speaker 3: of this works for intelligent design because the God in
Speaker 3: this system is unknowable, deistic, not related to this world,
Speaker 3: and he doesn't actually design this world. How dumb to
Speaker 3: try to call opt this for intelligent design? If by
Speaker 3: intelligent design you mean not the orthodox douction of creation.
Speaker 3: Maybe the one in the many argument we got to.
Speaker 3: I argue that the trinity is the only way to
Speaker 3: balance the one and the many. The trying God solves
Speaker 3: this problem of the one and the many. And he said, well,
Speaker 3: how can something be one and many at once? I said, well,
Speaker 3: have you seen numbers? Numbers are one and many at once,
Speaker 3: and there's nothing about a number that's more one than
Speaker 3: it is many or more many than it is one.
Speaker 3: A number can constitute a unity and a multiplicity at
Speaker 3: the exact same time, in perfect balance. And that's an image,
Speaker 3: an analogy to the trendy. It's not exactly the same
Speaker 3: as the trinity. Nothing is. But it's an analogy. So
Speaker 3: Tilos didn't work. It's a human Oh, that's right. Tilos is,
Speaker 3: by the way, in Aristotle, an analogy on the basis
Speaker 3: of human architects. Right. So if you have artificial objects
Speaker 3: in Aristotol, which would be like if you created a tool, right,
Speaker 3: it has a purpose. And so you've taken matter, you've
Speaker 3: stamped it with the form of a brick, and it
Speaker 3: becomes a tool to build the house, and you build
Speaker 3: the house out of the bricks, and so the brick
Speaker 3: thus has purpose. Okay, But in aristotle system, the world
Speaker 3: as a whole doesn't have that purpose because it's not
Speaker 3: created from the mind of a god who is providential,
Speaker 3: who directly relates to this world. No, he doesn't believe that.
Speaker 3: So Telos does not work on a universal scale. Highlomorphism
Speaker 3: is absolute simplicity applied to objects in the world. It
Speaker 3: thus breaks down. It doesn't work as an epistemic system
Speaker 3: because our epistemology. I got into this with a little
Speaker 3: bit with the classical theist when we reason about objects
Speaker 3: and we try to make sense of things in the
Speaker 3: world in the Ariscitilian scheme and in the platonics are
Speaker 3: in the atomistic scheme to a degree, you have the
Speaker 3: idea that I abstract from the particular objects the phantasm
Speaker 3: in my passive intellect, and then from that I somehow
Speaker 3: know or have access to a universal. Doesn't work because
Speaker 3: no matter how many particulars you add up, you're not
Speaker 3: ever obtaining to universal, because the universals aren't just five, ten,
Speaker 3: twenty particulars added up together. And the empiricists were right
Speaker 3: to critique this because this system starts with empirical data
Speaker 3: and tries to reason up to universals. Not possible on
Speaker 3: this scheme. And you could say, well, yeah, but what
Speaker 3: about in the tomistic scheme, where the universals and the
Speaker 3: forms and the ideas of things are in the essence
Speaker 3: of God. Yeah, exactly, But what you're abstracting isn't the
Speaker 3: essence of God. And in this world you never have
Speaker 3: thats to the essence of God. You only have access
Speaker 3: to created likenesses, created analogies and analogy and or created effects,
Speaker 3: never to the actual essence of God. So it doesn't
Speaker 3: work to ground knowledge in the divine ideas in the
Speaker 3: essence of God. It's self refuting because of absolute don't
Speaker 3: suppose to say, Okay, I think I've hit I think
Speaker 3: I've hit all the problems in Aristotle and how it
Speaker 3: applies to dudes made up pagan system. Okay, So I
Speaker 3: think that's pretty much most of what I wanted to
Speaker 3: get to. There's more areas in Aristotle that we could critique.
Speaker 3: My old notes, I've got problems we already touched on.
Speaker 3: The problems of a bunch of different trees. Don't get
Speaker 3: you in the general form of a tree. Where do
Speaker 3: you ever get the general idea? You don't Heilomorphism is
Speaker 3: absolute simplicity applied to objects. The ethics are not really
Speaker 3: ethics because we don't know what the golden mean actually is.
Speaker 3: It's just assumed, and then we don't I don't care
Speaker 3: about Aristotle's polus. We're not gonna go into that. So
Speaker 3: so these are the problems that really sort of blatant
Speaker 3: problems in Aristotle. And although his system didn't have every
Speaker 3: aspect of Aristotle. It is good and so relevant to
Speaker 3: to critique and point it out. So that's the critique
Speaker 3: of Aristotle. In hour two of this for subscribers, today's analysis,
Speaker 3: I'm going to continue with a fuller critique of Aristotle
Speaker 3: from my notes that are pretty extensive. And what we're
Speaker 3: gonna do is go back once again and we're gonna
Speaker 3: look at the Presocratics and the Ionians, and we're gonna
Speaker 3: trace this up through Aristotle, and we're gonna talk again
Speaker 3: about how similar this is to the far Eastern conceptions
Speaker 3: of monism and so forth. And I'm going to try
Speaker 3: to make it, you know, as accessible as possible for
Speaker 3: the subscribers, so it's not too ab tuo s. But
Speaker 3: since this is public, I wanted to address all the
Speaker 3: different possible objections that are out there. So our two
Speaker 3: will again be a revisiting for subscribers, a revisiting of Presocratics, Ionians, Promenides,
Speaker 3: and Aristotle and how it can trasts with our worldview.
Speaker 3: So if you want access to that, go to Jay's
Speaker 3: analysis and you can subscribe at the subscription button there
Speaker 3: for the members content. You get access to all the
Speaker 3: great archives and interviews over the years countless talks. Now
Speaker 3: there's a vast archive there of awesome stuff. All the
Speaker 3: globalism book series, Tragi and Hope, the Plato talks, all
Speaker 3: of the Republic, all the Bible talks. I mean, just
Speaker 3: a treasure trove of literal, graduate level stuff in multiple
Speaker 3: subjects for four months, sixty dollars a year. All these
Speaker 3: people bitching about me. Do you understand the gifts that
Speaker 3: I'm giving you here. I'm not bragging about myself. It's
Speaker 3: all a gift from God. But you guys could be
Speaker 3: could be making use of this stuff. I just cover
Speaker 3: these subjects. I covered the books of the big the
Speaker 3: big boys. All right, let's get down here to the
Speaker 3: super chats. And if you're ready for super chat, to
Speaker 3: sens some super chants my super chants. Well, it's just
Speaker 3: super chats. So the gods, even in the in the
Speaker 3: most philosophic forms, these systems of the gods and we
Speaker 3: was vikings. It boils down to these very simple problems
Speaker 3: of monism, of dualism, of dialectical tensions, one of the
Speaker 3: many these same critiques. That's the point here. These same
Speaker 3: criticus are applicable to the Pagans, to the Gnostics, to
Speaker 3: the atheists, to the materialists, to the far Eastern mystics
Speaker 3: for Eastern religions, and to the goofballs in philosophy one
Speaker 3: oh one who think that the matrix simulation theory, it's
Speaker 3: all the same argument Rose, It's all the same nonsense.
Speaker 3: Hesser mentioned a right Ai Howard five bucks. Hesser mentioned
Speaker 3: Carnival the other night. Any analysis on that show in
Speaker 3: the future very gnostics shown. Dee, I've heard about it,
Speaker 3: and I have to get to it. I haven't thought
Speaker 3: about it, though, I'd have to get to that. My
Speaker 3: mind is getting tired, so I'm having a hard time talking.
Speaker 3: And yes, I'm gonna put the debate. Let me just
Speaker 3: put it in there now, since people keep assing minute.
Speaker 3: And part of the reason I did this recap was
Speaker 3: again because the Discord audio kept cutting out after hour
Speaker 3: two when I was making my really nuclear arguments, my
Speaker 3: really based arguments, when it was getting pure fire. Is when,
Speaker 3: of course Discord started messing up. So let me go
Speaker 3: to Daily Prap and let me pull up. It looks
Speaker 3: like it's still there. Somebody said they couldn't access it. No,
Speaker 3: it's still there. So I'm adding that to the I
Speaker 3: think most of it you can hear. I haven't gone
Speaker 3: back and listened to all of it, but people were
Speaker 3: saying that it's pretty rough. You can kind of make
Speaker 3: out now that you know what I'm saying here, and
Speaker 3: now that you've heard this, now you know the what
Speaker 3: I'm getting at in my arguments, and you'll be able
Speaker 3: if you want to go back and listen to the
Speaker 3: debate with understanding what I was trying to say, even
Speaker 3: though every time I would talk it would get cut off.
Speaker 3: Now you could you could probably decipher through this Rosetta
Speaker 3: stone what the heck I was trying to argue. So
Speaker 3: I put it in there, and then I'll put the debate.
Speaker 3: Here's the debate in the chat if you want it
Speaker 3: that way. Anthony Cavallo ten dollars gibbs for my Warrior
Speaker 3: King and she Yat. Thank you, Anthony. We appreciate that.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I'll put I'll put I'll check out Carnival
Speaker 3: by the way, AI, I end to put that on
Speaker 3: the list, and I'll check that out see if it's
Speaker 3: worthy of analysis down the road or something. John sand
Speaker 3: for ten bucks, Vulcan Prayer, Penguin, tell Lescope, Heart Punch,
Speaker 3: Hang ten okay, Wizard five New Zealand's five in Zi's
Speaker 3: you have an excellent taste in wigs well, thank you,
Speaker 3: of course I do. What would you expect, Wizard in
Speaker 3: Zis you have excellent taste and wigs well, thank you
Speaker 3: for the extra in zis as a burner. By the way, this,
Speaker 3: do you see how much of this is applicable to
Speaker 3: tumism of what we talked about tonight spec. Seven eighty
Speaker 3: two four nine, watching from sixteen minutes behind, can you
Speaker 3: expand on how monism makes change illusory? You may have
Speaker 3: already covered it, Yeah, Because again I think if you're consistent,
Speaker 3: if everything is truly one, if the real reality that
Speaker 3: exists is one, right, this is Plato, many other religions
Speaker 3: and philosophies, then when we look at this world that's
Speaker 3: not just one, that's many things, and there's change, the
Speaker 3: tendency is to say or to try to explain change
Speaker 3: and distinction as illusory. It starts by saying, well, if
Speaker 3: everything is ultimately one, and then the problems that we have.
Speaker 3: Man's problem is distinction is being many, is interacting with
Speaker 3: other men. We all need to realize we're all one man.
Speaker 3: So the assumption being that the problem of the world
Speaker 3: of mankind is metaphysical, and that problem is that being
Speaker 3: in a realm of particularity, of distinctions, of differences is
Speaker 3: a lesser state of being somehow from this primitive, primordial,
Speaker 3: pre eminent one, this pre eminent Unity, this Great Monad,
Speaker 3: this realm is typically seen then as lesser uh, a
Speaker 3: prison place, a creation of an evil demiurge blah blah
Speaker 3: blah blah blah, a simulation, a matrix, dude, whoa. And
Speaker 3: so therefore, typically, if that's the case, then what is
Speaker 3: this world. Well, it's like a dream state. It's like
Speaker 3: an illusion. And if it's a dream state illusion, then
Speaker 3: you gotta wake up. You gotta get woke from Bra,
Speaker 3: get woke from this dream state.
Speaker 1: Bra.
Speaker 3: If you gotta get woke from the matrix, then the
Speaker 3: matrix isn't real, or at least not the really real,
Speaker 3: like the perfect Monad.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: This underpins alchemy and her meticism. This underpins bappha met
Speaker 3: because the original Great Monad, the Great Unity, is genderless
Speaker 3: and sexless. I'm not kidding. The occultists believe that, and
Speaker 3: so they actually, many of them actually believed that the
Speaker 3: erasing of the genders is now chemical working. That's why
Speaker 3: the Bapphamet symbol has both male and female organs. It's
Speaker 3: both and and neither. So the great primordial unity was
Speaker 3: not male or female. Again, contrasted with Genesis. And guess what,
Speaker 3: even some of the Eastern fathers got that wrong. Gregory
Speaker 3: of Nissa got that wrong. And Saint Maximus corrects Saint
Speaker 3: Gregory Nissa on that point. So even Saint Gregor Nissa,
Speaker 3: for all of his amazing insights and argumentation, he didn't
Speaker 3: get everything right. That's why we don't go by one
Speaker 3: saint right. He got it wrong about Genesis. He thought
Speaker 3: the fall resulted in the distinctions between male and female,
Speaker 3: but that's not what Genesis says. So he was too
Speaker 3: influenced by origin. He wasn't a heretic like Origin, but
Speaker 3: he was influenced by origin. But it doesn't matter because
Speaker 3: we don't accept the opinion of every single church father.
Speaker 3: Nobody does. There's no person on the there's no religion
Speaker 3: or or church or system and the face of the
Speaker 3: planet that actually does that. Son't, So it's stupid when
Speaker 3: people bring that up. Well, well, one I found a
Speaker 3: church father who teaches this, so I could still hold
Speaker 3: that view. No you can't. It doesn't work like that.
Speaker 3: So that's how change ultimately becomes illusory. And it's actually
Speaker 3: just a nonsensical statement to say that time is eternal,
Speaker 3: that the world is eternal. That doesn't make any sense
Speaker 3: because if it had no beginning, middle, or end, then again,
Speaker 3: the change that we're experiencing is actually not real. It's
Speaker 3: not it's illusory because eternality is in that view static.
Speaker 3: If eternality is static and the one is eternal and
Speaker 3: we're in the realm of change in flux, always moving,
Speaker 3: then change in flux and always moving are not real
Speaker 3: because eternality in the monad is what's real. So this
Speaker 3: is why the far Eastern religions are more consistent and
Speaker 3: they say, yeah, exactly, that's why you got to wake
Speaker 3: up from this deceptive dream realm, which is an illusion,
Speaker 3: and get back to ultimate absolute, get back to thusness,
Speaker 3: get back to the great and personal sea of being
Speaker 3: or whatever. Immerse yourself into the great ocean of non
Speaker 3: being in the thusness. Orthro Nat twenty dollars, thank you worthnet. Yes, no,
Speaker 3: it's fine. I understand that you weren't trying to be
Speaker 3: gossipy and no, I'm not in trouble with anybody. I
Speaker 3: tend a church in good standing and it is canonical,
Speaker 3: and I'm not gonna say anything more than that. And
Speaker 3: thank you for the fan art. Appreciate that much much appreciated,
Speaker 3: Mario callib Calobic. Five dollars. My grandparents were by Kings.
Speaker 3: You are being offensive, Okay, well you could be offended, bra.
Speaker 3: I know you're joking, but thank you for that, Mario. Marco.
Speaker 3: Jethro told fifteen dollars. Well, I hope you guys are
Speaker 3: benefiting from that. Those are some fat super chats, some
Speaker 3: super fats P A A T. Misty Earn's one dollar,
Speaker 3: thank you, Missy, white Top two bucks, Thank you, white Top.
Speaker 3: Lawrence ballinag two bucks. Much appreciated, Lawrence. We always love
Speaker 3: seeing our usual friends, Jethro and Misty and white Top
Speaker 3: and Lawrence n c rid Jay, you have big brained cracker.
Speaker 3: Drew McMahon, thank you, and see Drew McMahon, the father
Speaker 3: of Vince McMahon. Seven dollars. I'm a fan of you
Speaker 3: and mister Pageot. Why did you too, not, Jill? He
Speaker 3: seems to have wanted to. He's I don't think he
Speaker 3: wants a dialogue anymore. He at one time he was
Speaker 3: open to that, but ultimately I think we just decided
Speaker 3: that the approaches are too different. And I think I
Speaker 3: critiqued too many of the people that he regards very highly.
Speaker 3: Obviously I wasn't intentionally critiquing them to get mad, to
Speaker 3: get him mad or anything like that. It was just, uh,
Speaker 3: I critique the people that he regards highly, and that
Speaker 3: caused a problem. And then I think from there we
Speaker 3: just decided that we have different approaches to things. So yeah,
Speaker 3: that just kind of fell through the cracks. So I
Speaker 3: don't think there's going to be I mean, I would.
Speaker 3: I'm open to talking to people, but I don't think
Speaker 3: he's interested in having a chat with me. And I'm
Speaker 3: not butt hurt. That's fine. I don't have any any
Speaker 3: harsh feelings or anything like that towards him. So that's
Speaker 3: what's up. Gabriel. Are five dollars our thoughts. Logi pre
Speaker 3: existing patterns in the mind of God. Well, if you
Speaker 3: read the essay by Father Fluorowski, which is really good,
Speaker 3: the logi have a an uncreated and a created aspect
Speaker 3: to them. So the logi that are in that are
Speaker 3: all one the logos. If you read Ambiguum seven by
Speaker 3: Saint Maximus, he goes into depth about this, which is
Speaker 3: not very long. I think it's about eight ten pages.
Speaker 3: It's a great chapter Ambiguum seven. So there's a created
Speaker 3: and uncreated aspect to them, and they are thought wills
Speaker 3: of God, they're not the essence of God. And Father
Speaker 3: Fluorofsky in his essay Creation and Creature Hood is what
Speaker 3: you must read. So read Ambiguum seven of Saint Maximus
Speaker 3: and then read Father Fluorowski's Creation and Creature Hood. That's
Speaker 3: one of the best treatments of the low boy the
Speaker 3: logi I've ever seen, and it actually solved a lot
Speaker 3: of problems I had understanding it too. And Tho's other
Speaker 3: guys torst Off, Torstein, Talofsun, these guys have written a
Speaker 3: lot really fat, lengthy books on logos logi. So they
Speaker 3: are pre existing patterns in the mind of God. And
Speaker 3: but what's in our minds is not exactly the same
Speaker 3: as that, because our thoughts are created, so we have
Speaker 3: a created reasoning, we have a created energy. The noetic
Speaker 3: energy in our mind is created, but it is tapping
Speaker 3: into and it is reflecting something that's an uncreated energy.
Speaker 3: And so that's why for us there are analogia. There
Speaker 3: are analogies, but the analogies, the analogia, contrasted to the
Speaker 3: tomiss to the Roman Catholics, is not the essence of God.
Speaker 3: It's the uncreated energies of God. And so Saint Maximus
Speaker 3: and Father Florarovsky and any of the Orthodox writers ever
Speaker 3: who've written on this will make great pains to point
Speaker 3: out that the logoi, the logi are uncreated energies, and
Speaker 3: they're not the essence of God. They're not predeterminations that
Speaker 3: God had to create. They are thought wills of God
Speaker 3: and archetypes and patterns that He willed to do. So
Speaker 3: they're not the same as the essence of God, because
Speaker 3: if they're the same as the essence of God, then
Speaker 3: they must have been created and they are coterminous and eternal,
Speaker 3: which they are not. Alright, let's see, Okay, I don't
Speaker 3: see any more super chats, anymore questions. I'm only gonna
Speaker 3: read super chats because if I read people's questions from
Speaker 3: the chats, it's not fair to the people who super chatted.
Speaker 3: Some pretty gross questions in the gross Marl Kark's five
Speaker 3: dollars an Orthodox church recommendation in Nashville. I don't think
Speaker 3: there's a row Core church. There's one in Tennessee somewhere,
Speaker 3: but it's a good drive from Nashville. I would not
Speaker 3: go to the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Nashville because I
Speaker 3: asked if they accepted Freemasonry and they said they do,
Speaker 3: so I would not go there, but I would check out.
Speaker 3: You could check out the Antiochian Church in Franklin. Probably
Speaker 3: what would be your best bet The Antiochian Church in Franklin, Tennessee,
Speaker 3: which is right by Nashville. Franklin is right outside Nasville.
Speaker 3: So all right, thank you for that question. There are
Speaker 3: Marl Kirks, and thank you guys again. So the debate
Speaker 3: is here in the show description. Now good luck. If
Speaker 3: you want to try to decipher, you're welcome to The
Speaker 3: first two hours I think are fine. So like, if
Speaker 3: you listen to the first two hours of the exchange,
Speaker 3: my audio is good. It's just that third hour where
Speaker 3: it really kind of starts get getting choppy. But with
Speaker 3: the Rosetta stone that I just gave you in this talk,
Speaker 3: you should be able to decode the argument I'm making
Speaker 3: and I think you'll see that it's a pretty strong argument.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you guys, God Bless. If you want
Speaker 3: to hear more of this talk, I'm going to give
Speaker 3: you a more in depth analysis of the presocratics in
Speaker 3: Aristotle and monism and dualism in the hour two chat
Speaker 3: this week for subscribers. And yes, we will do more
Speaker 3: of Julian Huxley. It's just that I got really bogged
Speaker 3: down in the Julian Huxley is boring writing, man, It's boring, boring,
Speaker 3: boring globalism book. So I had to take a break
Speaker 3: this week and we had these debates, so I thought
Speaker 3: revisiting Aristotle would be would be fun, more relevant. But yes,
Speaker 3: next week next the next talk after this will we
Speaker 3: will go back to the rest of Julian Huxley in
Speaker 3: the next part of that book will be public, and
Speaker 3: then we'll do some more Jillian for the subscribers next week.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys for listening. God Bless, have a good night.