1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,919
Speaker 1: Another edition of Jay's analysis. We're going to talk about

2
00:00:04,080 --> 00:00:08,080
continental philosophy this time, and we've done so many talks

3
00:00:08,080 --> 00:00:11,640
and so many discussions that dealt with analytical philosophy and

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:17,800
empiricism and what characterizes the West generally in our day

5
00:00:18,679 --> 00:00:23,519
and has sense the scientific revolution, Enlightenment and so forth.

6
00:00:24,199 --> 00:00:27,160
But there's also the European continental tradition, and so we

7
00:00:27,199 --> 00:00:28,879
want to look at those, and we also want to

8
00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:35,960
offer a critique because they're also very inadequate in what

9
00:00:35,960 --> 00:00:38,359
we're going to find out. As is often the case,

10
00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:44,759
there are dialectical tensions. Usually philosophical schools like to try

11
00:00:44,799 --> 00:00:49,520
to boil everything down to one single simple solution for everything,

12
00:00:50,000 --> 00:00:54,039
and some philosophers trying to make his case and sell

13
00:00:54,079 --> 00:00:59,880
his theories as a means by which everything can be grasped.

14
00:01:00,799 --> 00:01:06,400
And that is characteristic of analytical philosophy, with say bertrand

15
00:01:06,439 --> 00:01:10,799
Russell and the methods of quantification, and everything being encapsulated

16
00:01:10,879 --> 00:01:20,040
under numerics and tabulation and logic. That's characteristic of existentialism,

17
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:28,239
and everything being somehow explained according to the Unwi, and

18
00:01:28,359 --> 00:01:37,599
the difficulties and malleability of man's existence. It's in any

19
00:01:37,599 --> 00:01:40,640
of these schools of philosophy, really pragmatism. Everything can be

20
00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:44,519
boiled down to the pragmatic and common sense.

21
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:45,480
Speaker 2: Philosophy or whatever.

22
00:01:45,799 --> 00:01:52,439
Speaker 1: It's always an attempt to have everything explained in some autonomous,

23
00:01:52,760 --> 00:01:59,079
rationalistic or irrationalistic way. And that's across the board, and

24
00:01:59,519 --> 00:02:04,840
that's one my philosophy ultimately is inadequate. Just reasoning about

25
00:02:05,799 --> 00:02:10,800
the world and about man's affairs isn't enough to solve

26
00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:16,199
man's problems, to give man hope, to give man a worldview,

27
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:20,319
to give man a template or a means by which

28
00:02:20,319 --> 00:02:23,439
to understand and interpret the world. So what we see

29
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:29,599
is that it's kind of a a disparate, broken up

30
00:02:31,719 --> 00:02:35,039
pieces and fractions of the truth that are in these

31
00:02:35,159 --> 00:02:41,599
various schools and philosophers. So sometimes you know, if you read,

32
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:44,879
if we think about, say, the analytical tradition and empiricism,

33
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:48,680
is it all wrong? Well, no, we use the scientific method.

34
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:52,159
It's a great tool for understanding the natural world. Nothing

35
00:02:52,199 --> 00:02:55,360
wrong with that, but it's not in itself a grand narrative,

36
00:02:55,360 --> 00:02:57,840
and it can't be. If we think about the continental tradition,

37
00:02:58,719 --> 00:03:03,120
is existentialism, Well, there might be aspects to which it

38
00:03:03,159 --> 00:03:07,759
holds true insights into you know, man having a context

39
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:09,719
and man being.

40
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:11,280
Speaker 2: Part of a larger.

41
00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:16,960
Speaker 1: Situation in which he finds himself as an existing being

42
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:22,840
that informs who he is or determines or limits his

43
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:26,360
freedom or whatever. The different existential philosophy might be. There

44
00:03:26,439 --> 00:03:29,560
might be aspects of truth to that. Sure, So it

45
00:03:29,599 --> 00:03:32,439
really just depends on the philosopher and what the claim

46
00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:37,960
is and what the propositions are and so forth. And

47
00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:41,000
most of the time, when you put a lot of

48
00:03:41,360 --> 00:03:43,800
time and effort into philosophy. I've been studying philosophy for

49
00:03:43,879 --> 00:03:48,800
about twenty years, you'll notice that it has fragments of

50
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:51,400
the truth in these different positions. Now, that doesn't mean

51
00:03:51,439 --> 00:03:55,199
that every one of them is true, and certainly many

52
00:03:55,240 --> 00:03:57,840
of them are closer to the truth and others much

53
00:03:57,879 --> 00:04:03,039
further away from the truth. So if we want to

54
00:04:03,039 --> 00:04:05,319
think about the Continental tradition, the first thing that we

55
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:07,719
want to point out is that there are a lot

56
00:04:07,719 --> 00:04:11,400
of good critiques and insights in the Continental tradition, particularly

57
00:04:11,960 --> 00:04:20,240
in the way they approach and criticize the Western analytical tradition. Now,

58
00:04:20,319 --> 00:04:23,199
these two guys are of the left, so I'm not

59
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:24,319
advocating this.

60
00:04:24,480 --> 00:04:26,600
Speaker 2: Those of you who take.

61
00:04:26,439 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 1: What I say and run with it to the extremes.

62
00:04:29,199 --> 00:04:31,560
When I cite this in one of the things you

63
00:04:31,639 --> 00:04:34,519
learn in philosophy is how to deal with other conflicting

64
00:04:34,639 --> 00:04:38,360
ideas that are not your own position, and how to

65
00:04:38,959 --> 00:04:42,040
interact with them, how to critique them, how to adequately

66
00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:46,720
understand them, ideally to the satisfaction of the opponent if.

67
00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:48,000
Speaker 2: It were in a debate setting.

68
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:52,279
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of hotheads and candy asses on

69
00:04:52,319 --> 00:04:55,600
the internet that like to talk a lot of crap

70
00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:58,279
and take what you say out of context and then

71
00:04:58,360 --> 00:05:02,759
run to the extreme, as if, say, citing laboratory life

72
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:05,959
and the construction of scientific facts for example. Oh, that

73
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,199
means I'm a Marxist, because these guys are leftist, probably

74
00:05:09,319 --> 00:05:11,000
Marxist professors.

75
00:05:11,439 --> 00:05:13,879
Speaker 2: No, it means that I'm pointing.

76
00:05:13,639 --> 00:05:15,600
Speaker 1: Out the insight that they have in this book where

77
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:18,759
they show that a lot of science is constructed in

78
00:05:18,800 --> 00:05:23,680
a corporate setting for example. Now, corporations and professors at

79
00:05:23,759 --> 00:05:27,480
universities need money and they want they have a certain desire,

80
00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:31,160
a pre planned outcome, So the science that's done is

81
00:05:31,199 --> 00:05:33,839
not objective. That's a great insight. Has nothing to do

82
00:05:33,959 --> 00:05:38,959
with their Marxism per se. Now, Latour and vulgar may

83
00:05:39,040 --> 00:05:42,199
go too far that I think they do in constructing

84
00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:46,879
the idea that that science can't I mean, really, if

85
00:05:46,879 --> 00:05:48,519
you run, if you run too far with this, you

86
00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:52,360
would get the idea that that really science and engineering ultimately,

87
00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:54,160
which I think is a better form of science to

88
00:05:54,399 --> 00:05:58,000
hard sciences. You know, obviously they produce things, so they're

89
00:05:58,040 --> 00:06:02,079
not inept. It's not all class warfare or some crap

90
00:06:02,199 --> 00:06:06,560
like that. But it's also partly true that science is

91
00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:09,040
not objective and neutral because nothing in our life is

92
00:06:09,040 --> 00:06:13,959
objective and neutral. We all have our preconcy, biases and misunderstandings,

93
00:06:14,199 --> 00:06:17,240
perhaps which informed the way that we interpret the world.

94
00:06:17,639 --> 00:06:19,839
That does not mean that everything is relative. It does

95
00:06:19,879 --> 00:06:23,600
not mean that there's no correct paradigms. It just simply

96
00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:27,600
means that we come from a paradigm. And what do

97
00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:30,319
we mean by a paradigm a worldview? We have basic

98
00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:35,240
assumptions and presuppositions about life in the world that we

99
00:06:35,319 --> 00:06:37,360
haven't most of the time questioned. And if we have

100
00:06:37,519 --> 00:06:40,000
questioned them, most of the time, what we find is

101
00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:43,800
that we can't empirically verify them. So does that mean

102
00:06:43,800 --> 00:06:46,079
that they're irrational and we can't hold to them?

103
00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:47,040
Speaker 2: Or shouldn't hold them.

104
00:06:47,079 --> 00:06:48,800
Speaker 1: No, it's just the way that we are, It's the

105
00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:53,160
way the world's constructed. It's unavoidable. And so how do

106
00:06:53,199 --> 00:06:54,920
we know what's true and what's false. Well, that's why

107
00:06:55,000 --> 00:07:00,240
I believe in presubpositionalism, or the comparison of systems. And

108
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:02,639
if you compare the systems as a whole, what you

109
00:07:02,759 --> 00:07:07,240
look for is what's coherent and what is consistent and

110
00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:12,879
what is contradictory. Now, ultimately, no one has availability. Nobody

111
00:07:12,879 --> 00:07:20,480
can omnisciently determine for certain how correct someone else's entire

112
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:24,160
worldview is because we're finite. However, that does not mean

113
00:07:24,319 --> 00:07:30,279
that you can't say, consider relativism. Relativism would say then

114
00:07:30,319 --> 00:07:36,040
anything goes, and you can't lay any you know, limitations

115
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:40,800
or binding truths upon me or anyone else. Now, the

116
00:07:40,839 --> 00:07:43,720
problem with that is, of course, as we've used as

117
00:07:43,759 --> 00:07:48,040
an example many times, it presupposes the thing that it's

118
00:07:48,079 --> 00:07:53,759
trying to refute. So at the basic fundamental level of relativism, right,

119
00:07:53,839 --> 00:07:59,079
using objective truths makes saying that there's objective moral standards

120
00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:01,519
while at the same time you're saying that no such

121
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:05,759
thing exists. Is a fundamental contradiction, fundamental flaw at the

122
00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:07,439
presuppositional worldview level.

123
00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:10,680
Speaker 2: So in that regard, we.

124
00:08:10,639 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 1: Would say that system of thought, even though you might

125
00:08:15,079 --> 00:08:16,839
not think of it as a system of thought, it

126
00:08:17,279 --> 00:08:21,800
is still it is a worldview is incoherent. And so

127
00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:27,199
when it tries to express itself, which contains within that

128
00:08:27,279 --> 00:08:30,399
action of expressing and explaining, of course the logos has

129
00:08:30,439 --> 00:08:34,320
that presubposition of order and rationality and meaning it cannot

130
00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:37,919
do that. So there's a dialectical tension, there's an irrational

131
00:08:38,039 --> 00:08:41,440
rational tension in that worldview at its most fundamental level,

132
00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:48,120
and that for worldviews and philosophy is very self destructive

133
00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:52,200
and ultimately probably one of the strongest arguments against the

134
00:08:52,200 --> 00:08:56,879
position that you have if you're relativest So you know,

135
00:08:56,919 --> 00:09:01,759
that's philosophical nonsense. It falls apart. And on top of that,

136
00:09:01,840 --> 00:09:04,120
it's not just theory. No one can actually hold to

137
00:09:04,159 --> 00:09:07,759
that or live that way. So it's an armchair sophistry

138
00:09:08,440 --> 00:09:10,600
that no one in the real world lives according to

139
00:09:10,759 --> 00:09:13,759
or expects anyone else to live that way, right, I mean,

140
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:19,000
the person who's the sophistical relativist generally speaking, gets mad

141
00:09:19,039 --> 00:09:22,399
when somebody steals their money, right, which they shouldn't do

142
00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:24,759
if they were consistent with their position, because that guy

143
00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:28,919
was just living according to whatever he wanted. So in

144
00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:31,960
the same way, we look at other world views and

145
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:36,200
we look for the internal contradictions and inconsistencies, and I

146
00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:40,360
think that that coherence theory is a much better approach

147
00:09:40,519 --> 00:09:45,200
to philosophy into world views, into analysis of these kinds

148
00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:50,879
of things than it is the older empirical models or

149
00:09:50,919 --> 00:09:55,320
the older medieval models of the West with a quinas,

150
00:09:55,399 --> 00:09:59,440
where you do what's called classical foundationalism, and all that's

151
00:09:59,519 --> 00:10:03,679
kind of been more or less tossed away and deconstructed

152
00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:07,600
by modern philosophy. So we're at we're at a post

153
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:10,879
postmodern state, and so what do you do then, how

154
00:10:11,240 --> 00:10:13,440
is it even possible to critique worldviews?

155
00:10:13,440 --> 00:10:16,320
Speaker 2: Well, most professors would.

156
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:19,639
Speaker 1: Inconsistently say, no, you can't do that anymore. That's all

157
00:10:19,679 --> 00:10:22,120
old school stuff. There's no more grand narratives. Well I

158
00:10:22,159 --> 00:10:25,399
don't believe that. So, because I'm orthodox, I do believe

159
00:10:25,399 --> 00:10:28,960
that there's a worldview, a basic pattern of living that

160
00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:33,080
informs how I read the world, and it does inform

161
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:36,720
my presuppositions. And in my view, the reason I believe

162
00:10:36,799 --> 00:10:42,240
it is not just existential but also logical and rational.

163
00:10:42,279 --> 00:10:45,080
I believe that it's the only logical and rational position

164
00:10:45,159 --> 00:10:49,559
that makes sense of my experience, makes sense of history,

165
00:10:49,639 --> 00:10:52,759
makes sense of the future, makes sense of meaning, makes

166
00:10:52,799 --> 00:10:55,279
sense of most of these philosophical questions that we raise.

167
00:10:55,960 --> 00:10:59,399
Doesn't provide every single answer. No worldview out there is

168
00:10:59,399 --> 00:11:03,879
going to provide every single possible answer. And if they

169
00:11:04,080 --> 00:11:07,720
try to sell you that that's probably some kind of cult, it's.

170
00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:09,159
Speaker 2: A good red flag for a cult.

171
00:11:09,799 --> 00:11:13,120
Speaker 1: But I believe that the answers in the anthropology and

172
00:11:13,279 --> 00:11:16,879
the metaphysics and on and on and on that we

173
00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:20,960
find in this worldview make the most sense. And the

174
00:11:21,080 --> 00:11:24,679
other ones that attempt to do that, you know, whether

175
00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:29,000
it be naturalistic materialism or something New Age or some

176
00:11:29,039 --> 00:11:33,480
sort of cult or Islam or whatever, generally tend to

177
00:11:33,519 --> 00:11:36,200
have pretty big difficulties.

178
00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:36,519
Speaker 2: At a fundamental level.

179
00:11:37,279 --> 00:11:41,360
Speaker 1: Now that's not to say that there's nothing difficult quote

180
00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:44,039
unquote in the theology that I hold to that doesn't

181
00:11:44,080 --> 00:11:47,799
have to kind of be examined and dug into. And

182
00:11:49,159 --> 00:11:52,440
you know, even on a certain level, it's mystical.

183
00:11:52,519 --> 00:11:52,639
Speaker 2: Right.

184
00:11:52,679 --> 00:11:56,279
Speaker 1: If you think of the Great Book by Vladimir Lawsky,

185
00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:59,679
which I highly recommend to people. Mystical theology of the

186
00:11:59,720 --> 00:12:05,279
East in church. You'll notice that in our view theology

187
00:12:05,600 --> 00:12:10,960
and the ultimate big questions in the final analysis, they

188
00:12:11,759 --> 00:12:16,360
transcend purely rational analysis. Now that does not mean that

189
00:12:16,399 --> 00:12:20,159
they are quote irrational or incoherent, because God is not

190
00:12:20,240 --> 00:12:23,240
irrational or incoherent. It just simply means that His ways

191
00:12:23,279 --> 00:12:27,679
transcend our ways. And so there are at times paradoxes. Now,

192
00:12:27,679 --> 00:12:29,840
if you're the atheist or the materialists, you hear that,

193
00:12:29,879 --> 00:12:31,080
you say, ah haha.

194
00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:31,799
Speaker 2: We've got you.

195
00:12:31,799 --> 00:12:35,440
Speaker 1: You admit you have no doubt, you can't answer these questions.

196
00:12:35,480 --> 00:12:42,080
Therefore you admit that there are paradoxes. Well, the thing is, though,

197
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:45,279
if you read Bert and Russell, he'll talk about paradoxes.

198
00:12:45,759 --> 00:12:48,039
And even Berg and Russell will say that there's a

199
00:12:48,039 --> 00:12:53,000
difference between a contradiction and a paradox. Now that's a

200
00:12:53,080 --> 00:12:55,879
very difficult philosophical question, but and that we're not going

201
00:12:55,960 --> 00:12:57,840
to go into that today. But I'm just making the

202
00:12:57,840 --> 00:13:01,720
point that it doesn't matter what worldview you accept, there

203
00:13:01,759 --> 00:13:05,720
are going to be difficulties and problems and serious questions

204
00:13:05,720 --> 00:13:07,120
that require.

205
00:13:07,639 --> 00:13:09,879
Speaker 2: An attempt to answer it. You know, if you care

206
00:13:09,960 --> 00:13:11,360
to do. So you may not care.

207
00:13:11,440 --> 00:13:13,759
Speaker 1: Maybe you just want to eat hot pockets and play

208
00:13:14,120 --> 00:13:18,320
World of Warcraft. But if you want to be a

209
00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:21,639
man and put away childish things, as Saint Paul says,

210
00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:26,200
and engage in manly disciplines such as philosophy, which is

211
00:13:26,240 --> 00:13:30,799
a manly discipline, then it's time to get serious and

212
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:33,360
dig into these things. That's what Sam Basil says. Theology

213
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:34,720
is not for everybody.

214
00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 2: It requires a lot of work.

215
00:13:36,279 --> 00:13:39,639
Speaker 1: So I've spent twenty years in theology, and the only

216
00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:42,879
thing that you come to learn I'm speaking rhetorically here,

217
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:48,759
is that you there's so much more that you don't know.

218
00:13:49,279 --> 00:13:51,639
So there's kind of a paradox there involved in the

219
00:13:51,639 --> 00:13:54,039
fact that the more that you learn, and you do

220
00:13:54,159 --> 00:13:56,919
learn things, I'm not saying you learn nothing. The more

221
00:13:56,960 --> 00:13:59,440
that you learn, the more you realize, man, I really

222
00:13:59,679 --> 00:14:02,480
miss that. Oh crap, there's a whole thing like this.

223
00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:06,960
Last week, there was a whole mystery regarding the incarnation,

224
00:14:07,399 --> 00:14:10,080
and this is a subject that I've spent ten years studying.

225
00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:12,759
Speaker 2: There's a whole new subject.

226
00:14:13,360 --> 00:14:19,399
Speaker 1: Sort of side, very very deeply difficultly debated issue that

227
00:14:19,440 --> 00:14:21,840
I wasn't even aware of. So you're always going to

228
00:14:21,879 --> 00:14:24,399
find these kinds of things. Now, that doesn't mean that

229
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:27,759
every one of these issues is paradigm wrecking, that it

230
00:14:27,879 --> 00:14:32,000
makes you completely destroy your views. It just kind of

231
00:14:32,039 --> 00:14:36,159
forces you to answer deeper and more difficult questions. And

232
00:14:36,240 --> 00:14:39,879
I think in the mystical experience, as Losky is kind

233
00:14:39,879 --> 00:14:42,600
of trying to get at in his book, is that

234
00:14:42,679 --> 00:14:45,399
there's kind of always going to be this this greater

235
00:14:45,480 --> 00:14:50,639
and greater progression up into the truth, up into philosophy,

236
00:14:50,679 --> 00:14:53,519
and up into God. And that's the way Saint Gregory

237
00:14:53,519 --> 00:14:58,720
of characterize it. You're always going to be learning more,

238
00:14:58,879 --> 00:15:02,279
and then that's a grading more, is what I'm trying

239
00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:05,200
to say. So a lot of times there are apparent

240
00:15:05,279 --> 00:15:10,120
dialectics or contradictions or tensions in a philosopher or theology

241
00:15:10,159 --> 00:15:13,720
or whatever that that just seem maybe irreconcilable at times

242
00:15:14,080 --> 00:15:17,200
sometimes they are, but in other times you realize maybe

243
00:15:17,240 --> 00:15:19,519
five ten years down the road, as you progressed, you

244
00:15:20,279 --> 00:15:24,960
gain more experience, some life experience, some wisdom, and you realize,

245
00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:27,039
oh that that's a whole new way to see that

246
00:15:27,159 --> 00:15:30,679
problem in philosopher theology that I didn't know about five

247
00:15:30,759 --> 00:15:33,679
years ago. So you know that's just how we're made

248
00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:39,840
as humans and how we're constituted to experience the time,

249
00:15:39,879 --> 00:15:44,919
space realm, and as we progress and mature throughout life.

250
00:15:45,000 --> 00:15:48,440
So I'm going to recommend first this is a good book.

251
00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:49,039
Speaker 2: It's a good ass.

252
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:51,440
Speaker 1: There's some good essays in laboratory life that will again

253
00:15:51,519 --> 00:15:56,720
show you how science is not purely neutral and it's

254
00:15:56,799 --> 00:16:02,039
not purely objective. Now, again that doesn't mean that I'm

255
00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:03,919
saying there's no truth.

256
00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:05,159
Speaker 2: Or that there's no objective truth.

257
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:08,039
Speaker 1: I'm just making the point that truth, in my view,

258
00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:11,919
is not determined just by reading off a list of

259
00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:14,600
facts or presenting a bunch of things in front of someone.

260
00:16:15,480 --> 00:16:20,440
It's really a deeper question of world views and paradigms,

261
00:16:20,720 --> 00:16:23,720
is what I'm trying to say. So that is the

262
00:16:23,759 --> 00:16:28,279
first text that comes to mind when we consider the

263
00:16:30,279 --> 00:16:35,960
bigger questions and characters that will make up continental philosophy

264
00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:42,799
in contrast to the analytical Western tradition. And next I

265
00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:45,559
want to call your attention to Structures of Scientific Revolution

266
00:16:45,639 --> 00:16:48,279
by Thomas Kuhn. And of course this is very famous book,

267
00:16:48,360 --> 00:16:51,720
award winning book. Not saying that makes the truth. I'm

268
00:16:51,759 --> 00:16:54,720
just saying it's very well known, and it's well known

269
00:16:54,759 --> 00:16:56,879
for a reason because it makes a damn good point.

270
00:16:57,480 --> 00:17:00,360
Kuhn makes the argument that the times in him that

271
00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:03,159
we've had these giant paradigm shifts, you know, out of

272
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:10,680
say Renaissance Platonism or medieval theology and Platonism, into Descartes

273
00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:16,039
and scientific revolution, and then into Newtonianism. There were big

274
00:17:16,079 --> 00:17:21,559
scale political and monetary banking, etc. I'm adding that part

275
00:17:21,599 --> 00:17:27,000
from like tragedy, No, there were other events that played

276
00:17:27,039 --> 00:17:31,920
a role in quote science, and so science is not

277
00:17:32,079 --> 00:17:37,200
just this thing where oh everybody's just you know, salivating

278
00:17:37,400 --> 00:17:39,000
and licking their lips.

279
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:39,359
Speaker 2: To be wrong.

280
00:17:39,440 --> 00:17:41,160
Speaker 1: And that's how it's presented. It's like, oh, we just

281
00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:43,720
all we want is to be wrong. We can't wait

282
00:17:43,759 --> 00:17:47,680
to be refuted, which is total nonsense. I mean, that's

283
00:17:47,759 --> 00:17:48,720
just not human nature.

284
00:17:48,720 --> 00:17:49,039
Speaker 2: For one.

285
00:17:49,079 --> 00:17:53,480
Speaker 1: Nobody ever wants to be wrong. Everybody wants to be right,

286
00:17:53,599 --> 00:17:57,279
nobody wants to have egg on their face. It's just

287
00:17:57,319 --> 00:18:02,039
not human nature to be so quick to admit wrong,

288
00:18:02,119 --> 00:18:08,519
and especially when it's egos and so called science and big,

289
00:18:08,839 --> 00:18:12,319
big scale issues at work here. And so Newtonianism, I

290
00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:19,519
believe was a very fraudulent, partially correct worldview that was

291
00:18:19,599 --> 00:18:22,720
foisted upon the world at the behest of the Royal

292
00:18:22,759 --> 00:18:29,039
society and the Anglo American establishment, particularly for the purpose

293
00:18:29,160 --> 00:18:35,680
of promoting Eventually it would become Darwinism and scientism, materialism, atomism.

294
00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:40,599
That's all nonsensical. And even if you don't buy into

295
00:18:40,799 --> 00:18:44,240
quantum physics and all that stuff, it's still I think

296
00:18:44,400 --> 00:18:50,440
historically accurate to point out the errors of the resultant

297
00:18:50,759 --> 00:18:54,240
materialism that comes out of all this and absurdity. On

298
00:18:54,279 --> 00:18:57,039
top of that is Newton and all his buddies were alchemists.

299
00:18:57,319 --> 00:18:59,480
I pointed this out for years many times. I watched

300
00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:02,160
when I was an undergrad, I watched this documentary that

301
00:19:02,200 --> 00:19:04,759
we had, the Library on Newton. I couldn't believe it

302
00:19:04,799 --> 00:19:07,599
because it was all about Newton and his obsessions with

303
00:19:07,640 --> 00:19:09,799
alchemy and magic and all this stuff. And I really

304
00:19:09,799 --> 00:19:12,119
think he believed that. He wasn't just faking it or anything.

305
00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:15,599
He wasn't just a secret spot. He really believed that stuff.

306
00:19:16,599 --> 00:19:19,240
He's got volumes of writings on it that are I believe,

307
00:19:19,279 --> 00:19:23,839
housed in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or somewhere, and the

308
00:19:23,880 --> 00:19:26,839
Newton Library, and so he really thought that stuff was

309
00:19:27,759 --> 00:19:29,759
how you understand the world, and so many of those

310
00:19:29,799 --> 00:19:30,880
guys did Kepler.

311
00:19:30,960 --> 00:19:32,720
Speaker 2: You know, they're all into you know.

312
00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:39,880
Speaker 1: Playtonism in alchemy, Paracelsus. So again, the point being, the

313
00:19:39,920 --> 00:19:46,480
paradigms don't just happen because one guy comes up with

314
00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:47,559
the best argument.

315
00:19:47,799 --> 00:19:50,480
Speaker 2: That's just not how the world works. If it was,

316
00:19:50,880 --> 00:19:52,000
I mean, why would you think that.

317
00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:57,039
Speaker 1: I mean, do the best movie stars get their job

318
00:19:57,119 --> 00:19:57,920
because they were.

319
00:19:57,720 --> 00:20:00,359
Speaker 2: Just simply the best actors? Of course?

320
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:03,680
Speaker 1: Not I mean who was screwing who to get what job?

321
00:20:04,240 --> 00:20:04,480
Speaker 2: Right?

322
00:20:04,799 --> 00:20:06,440
Speaker 1: Who was willing to go to the eyes of white

323
00:20:06,480 --> 00:20:09,200
chup parties and be the you know, be passed around

324
00:20:09,200 --> 00:20:12,039
at the party. That's what gets you the acting jobs,

325
00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:17,759
not just being the best, right, Like who's the best guitarist? Oh,

326
00:20:17,759 --> 00:20:20,720
it's whoever can play at the best. No, that's not

327
00:20:20,759 --> 00:20:24,000
how the world works. So it's really stupid and naive

328
00:20:24,079 --> 00:20:29,279
and obviously some sort of just dumb pro pop propaganda

329
00:20:29,319 --> 00:20:34,839
thing that you see in these Daniel Dennett and Sam

330
00:20:34,880 --> 00:20:38,640
Harris and Dawkins and Tyson and Bill Nye and all

331
00:20:38,640 --> 00:20:40,680
these characters. And there's no better example than Bill n

332
00:20:40,720 --> 00:20:44,400
I of course, being the totally reversing his position on

333
00:20:45,000 --> 00:20:51,559
chromosomes determining the biological sex because obviously he was paid

334
00:20:51,559 --> 00:20:54,640
to do that, and Bill ny it was on.

335
00:20:54,599 --> 00:20:56,200
Speaker 2: A sketch show. I forgot about that too.

336
00:20:56,200 --> 00:20:59,079
Speaker 1: Somebody pointed that out and I used to watch that

337
00:20:59,119 --> 00:21:01,880
Canadian sketch show that he was on. So Bill Nye

338
00:21:01,920 --> 00:21:05,039
is a comedian. He has no actual training in science,

339
00:21:05,519 --> 00:21:10,440
aside from whatever kind of engineering he's done, which, oddly enough,

340
00:21:10,920 --> 00:21:12,839
I mean, in a way, engineering is kind of science,

341
00:21:12,880 --> 00:21:15,720
depending on what it is. But you know this guy

342
00:21:15,839 --> 00:21:18,000
gets up here and tries to talk to you about biology.

343
00:21:18,039 --> 00:21:20,200
Well I thought, I wait a minute. I thought, you

344
00:21:20,240 --> 00:21:23,319
can't talk about something unless you have a degree in that.

345
00:21:23,319 --> 00:21:26,640
That's what the scientist and proponents are always saying with

346
00:21:26,759 --> 00:21:29,359
their esoteric religion of Darwinism and scientism.

347
00:21:30,119 --> 00:21:31,319
Speaker 2: But Bill ny doesn't have a.

348
00:21:31,240 --> 00:21:35,079
Speaker 1: Degree in anything related to biological life sciences, So why

349
00:21:35,200 --> 00:21:36,079
is he talking.

350
00:21:35,839 --> 00:21:40,000
Speaker 2: About it now?

351
00:21:41,519 --> 00:21:46,119
Speaker 1: Kun is wrong in his piece his famous work to

352
00:21:46,559 --> 00:21:50,519
ultimately fall into the trap of well, if we admit

353
00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:53,759
that things are determined by paradigms, does that mean everything's

354
00:21:53,799 --> 00:21:55,960
a paradigm and we're stuck in the paradigm box?

355
00:21:56,039 --> 00:21:57,759
Speaker 2: Will never get out.

356
00:21:57,519 --> 00:22:04,359
Speaker 1: No again, because apparently wasn't aware of presubpositional philosophy, transcental

357
00:22:04,440 --> 00:22:07,960
arguments and coherence theory of truth, or comparing world views

358
00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:13,759
as a whole to look for the internal inconsistencies. But regardless,

359
00:22:13,759 --> 00:22:16,599
you can still gain a lot of insight in terms

360
00:22:16,599 --> 00:22:24,519
of understanding the critique of scientism, even from characters within

361
00:22:24,559 --> 00:22:26,519
the establishment. That's what we're trying to get out of here,

362
00:22:26,559 --> 00:22:29,720
just like we would read Tragy and Hope to understand

363
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:33,680
the inside ce farview of the twentieth century. You know,

364
00:22:33,759 --> 00:22:36,839
here we're looking at guys from within the Western academic

365
00:22:36,960 --> 00:22:40,400
establishment kind of saying, hey, this thing doesn't work. A

366
00:22:40,400 --> 00:22:43,680
lot of this stuff is nonsense. So, as mentioned, one

367
00:22:43,720 --> 00:22:48,119
of the great books that deals with breaking through the

368
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:52,839
barrier scientism is Wolfgang Smith's Cosmos and Transcendence. It's in

369
00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:55,480
my recommended reading list and I mentioned it many times.

370
00:22:56,200 --> 00:22:59,000
Very good book, and you know, he goes back to

371
00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:02,519
the new Tonian period, especially early on in the book

372
00:23:02,599 --> 00:23:07,960
to critique that dogmatism and the flaws in it.

373
00:23:08,039 --> 00:23:10,599
Speaker 2: And if you want more.

374
00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:14,640
Speaker 1: Of that kind of material relating to what I was

375
00:23:14,680 --> 00:23:18,680
talking about earlier on in the first section of this talk,

376
00:23:19,160 --> 00:23:20,440
I highly recommend that book.

377
00:23:22,519 --> 00:23:24,440
Speaker 2: But we have to kind of go back.

378
00:23:24,400 --> 00:23:30,359
Speaker 1: To Kant, and Kant really leaves us with anarchy in philosophy.

379
00:23:30,480 --> 00:23:32,960
Now that's not CONT's goal. He's not in any way

380
00:23:33,000 --> 00:23:37,400
an anarchist. Kant was actually one of the earliest forerunners

381
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:42,000
of globalism and promoting the idea of a global government,

382
00:23:42,039 --> 00:23:44,680
believe it or not. So we're going to get into that. Actually,

383
00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:46,039
I'm going to show you. Let me show you that

384
00:23:46,079 --> 00:23:50,599
really quick. Kant, of course wrote the famous essay perpetual piece,

385
00:23:52,200 --> 00:23:54,839
philosophical essay. What's funny is that I found this on

386
00:23:55,000 --> 00:23:59,079
whatever this libertarian website is, is that they lawed and

387
00:23:59,119 --> 00:23:59,640
praised us.

388
00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:00,960
Speaker 2: Is how about how great it was?

389
00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:03,400
Speaker 1: I thought we were against global government. Wait a minute, Hey,

390
00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:06,519
what's the deal here? Oh no, this is the good

391
00:24:06,559 --> 00:24:10,599
libertarian global government where oh, it looks like in order

392
00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:13,079
to have the free market globally, we're going to have

393
00:24:13,160 --> 00:24:17,799
to have a global police force to enforce peace so

394
00:24:17,839 --> 00:24:22,160
that we can have the market god dominating. So this

395
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:27,799
is once again testament to the absurdity of libertarianism and

396
00:24:27,839 --> 00:24:30,960
classical liberalism as the means by which to achieve the

397
00:24:31,079 --> 00:24:35,119
utopia and the global government. It's a scam. And that's

398
00:24:35,200 --> 00:24:38,680
why von Hayek says the exact same thing in his

399
00:24:38,759 --> 00:24:40,200
book Road to Serve Him.

400
00:24:40,200 --> 00:24:40,720
Speaker 2: He has the.

401
00:24:40,720 --> 00:24:44,680
Speaker 1: Appendix on how to create the Global Government. And I

402
00:24:44,680 --> 00:24:46,960
don't know why you libertarians can't get that through your head.

403
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:52,400
It's just stupid and you ought to know better by now,

404
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:54,160
because we've talked about it and called it out so

405
00:24:54,200 --> 00:24:59,720
many times I have, and I mean, you know what

406
00:24:59,759 --> 00:25:03,359
you know, Just stay stupid, stay in your idiocy, and

407
00:25:03,599 --> 00:25:07,400
forget about it. So next, though, but the reason we

408
00:25:07,440 --> 00:25:09,720
bring up KNT though, was not just global government, but

409
00:25:09,880 --> 00:25:15,039
to show that it's connected. The economic theory of KANT

410
00:25:15,480 --> 00:25:21,079
is connected to the economics of Newtonianism and what spreads. Again,

411
00:25:21,599 --> 00:25:24,720
this is in my essay that I've shared many times.

412
00:25:25,160 --> 00:25:30,759
I've been shared hundreds of times like others, the metaphysical

413
00:25:30,759 --> 00:25:35,079
implications of nominalist economics, and it shows how the philosophical

414
00:25:35,200 --> 00:25:41,039
theories inevitably invariably affect the economic theories. That's why man

415
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:51,960
becomes the unit that is consumed and traded. So what

416
00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:55,440
we're talking about, though, is continental philosophy. I'm just trying

417
00:25:55,480 --> 00:25:57,559
to point out. I want you to understand that continental

418
00:25:57,559 --> 00:26:03,519
philosophy is just as riddled with contradictions and nonsense, as

419
00:26:03,599 --> 00:26:10,799
the American analytical logic mathematics obsessed traditions are, because they

420
00:26:10,839 --> 00:26:12,279
of course have no.

421
00:26:12,319 --> 00:26:14,519
Speaker 2: Place for God or objective truth. Ultimately.

422
00:26:14,720 --> 00:26:17,799
Speaker 1: Now they may profess something like, oh, math is ultimate

423
00:26:17,799 --> 00:26:19,880
truth or something like that. But you know, it's like

424
00:26:19,960 --> 00:26:22,759
Bert and Russell thinks mathematics can explain everything. When will

425
00:26:22,799 --> 00:26:26,839
you get down to the brass tacks. He's a relativist

426
00:26:26,880 --> 00:26:33,640
and a global government you know, madman. But I just

427
00:26:33,799 --> 00:26:39,240
again keep this in mind Emmanuel Kant Perpetual Peace Philosophical Essay,

428
00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:43,000
because you got all these guys at this time who

429
00:26:43,119 --> 00:26:46,839
are really promoting global government back then. So the modern

430
00:26:46,920 --> 00:26:49,119
notions of globalism, and let me show you this. There's

431
00:26:49,160 --> 00:26:57,440
even a well, I did have a.

432
00:26:55,920 --> 00:27:02,000
Speaker 2: University of Chicago work. Well, crap, I've already lost it.

433
00:27:03,119 --> 00:27:06,000
Speaker 1: The University of Chicago has a book that deals with

434
00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:09,160
early notions of globalism, I think is the title of it,

435
00:27:10,559 --> 00:27:13,319
and it of course contains contest. But he also missed

436
00:27:13,400 --> 00:27:19,920
He mentions Rousseau and the French revolutionary characters obviously right,

437
00:27:20,000 --> 00:27:24,240
because they're the fathers of internationalism, right with the communist

438
00:27:24,279 --> 00:27:29,359
Marxist movements. So internationalism is just another flavor or version.

439
00:27:30,000 --> 00:27:33,079
I mean, the Communist Internationals is just another flavor version

440
00:27:33,119 --> 00:27:38,559
of the international market guys like Kant and Adam Smith

441
00:27:38,599 --> 00:27:42,440
and all those characters. So that shows you again just

442
00:27:42,480 --> 00:27:46,519
making the point that this spills out, this philosophy spills

443
00:27:46,559 --> 00:27:51,759
out into the rest of society and the rest of

444
00:27:52,559 --> 00:27:56,519
thought in the West, and so they're not isolated. The

445
00:27:56,559 --> 00:28:00,680
philosophy of those days is not isolated in having basically

446
00:28:00,720 --> 00:28:03,079
nothing to do with you know, what's going on in

447
00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:07,880
the marketplace. It's directly related because these guys, these scoundrels,

448
00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:11,720
are the ones who are giving the philosophy the the

449
00:28:12,000 --> 00:28:19,079
the basis supposedly for how there can be the one

450
00:28:19,119 --> 00:28:19,759
world order.

451
00:28:21,119 --> 00:28:21,880
Speaker 2: I'd love to.

452
00:28:21,880 --> 00:28:26,480
Speaker 1: Hear the whoever this whoever is the Online Library of

453
00:28:26,559 --> 00:28:30,480
Liberty how they explain that. But I don't think they're

454
00:28:30,480 --> 00:28:33,839
going to have any explanation for that. So let's look

455
00:28:33,880 --> 00:28:35,599
at a couple more books before we get into more

456
00:28:35,640 --> 00:28:40,519
of the the critique of continental philosophy here, And as mentioned,

457
00:28:40,599 --> 00:28:43,680
you definitely want to if you want to start, if

458
00:28:43,839 --> 00:28:45,720
maybe you have a kind of a basic idea of

459
00:28:45,759 --> 00:28:50,359
theology processent or Catholic, if you if you want to

460
00:28:50,400 --> 00:28:53,839
start in terms of orthodoxy. You don't want to get

461
00:28:53,880 --> 00:28:58,000
into heavy dogmatics. A great place is mystical theology the

462
00:28:58,039 --> 00:29:00,279
Eastern Church. It's one of the best books that I

463
00:29:00,359 --> 00:29:02,680
read ten years ago when I was starting to look

464
00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:07,680
into these things really and definitely, and I think Lawsky

465
00:29:07,759 --> 00:29:12,440
presents a very readable approach to most of the questions

466
00:29:12,440 --> 00:29:16,319
in terms of mystery. So this is not directed at

467
00:29:16,359 --> 00:29:21,160
the questions of science and empiricism, but it is relevant

468
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:24,039
to all this because you know what we have in

469
00:29:24,079 --> 00:29:27,519
the rise of rationalism in the West, and then hyper

470
00:29:27,640 --> 00:29:34,400
rationalism with the analytical tradition, and then it's reactions with existentialism, romanticism,

471
00:29:34,519 --> 00:29:40,920
German idealism. Those right reactions are oftentimes grasping for the

472
00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:44,480
realms of mystery. And so when analytical philosophy gets into

473
00:29:44,480 --> 00:29:49,200
the arenas where it can say no more like Gridell's

474
00:29:49,200 --> 00:29:55,599
in completeness theorems, or you know, philosophical or mathematical problems

475
00:29:55,640 --> 00:29:59,039
dealing dealing with different infinities and notions of zero and infinity,

476
00:29:59,720 --> 00:30:03,440
then it's in the in the category of you know,

477
00:30:04,039 --> 00:30:07,440
issues that are just no longer rational because the human

478
00:30:07,480 --> 00:30:14,279
mind is again finite. That's when the solutions are ultimately,

479
00:30:15,279 --> 00:30:18,559
I think to be found in Eastern theology. And so

480
00:30:18,720 --> 00:30:20,960
this is definitely definitely one of the one of the

481
00:30:21,000 --> 00:30:24,039
books you want to have in your library, especially if

482
00:30:24,039 --> 00:30:27,799
you're starting on this track. It's definitely I must read

483
00:30:27,880 --> 00:30:30,880
for a new newcomer, so to say.

484
00:30:32,400 --> 00:30:34,640
Speaker 2: Uh, And even if you.

485
00:30:36,279 --> 00:30:38,759
Speaker 1: Are pretty well read in theology, maybe you read a

486
00:30:38,759 --> 00:30:41,240
good bit of Eastern theology. If you haven't read this one,

487
00:30:41,359 --> 00:30:45,000
it's it's still one that you've got to read, just

488
00:30:45,119 --> 00:30:50,440
very good overall. And so that one is something to

489
00:30:50,519 --> 00:30:53,160
keep in mind as we plumb the depths of all

490
00:30:53,240 --> 00:31:00,640
this rationalism and emotional based reactionism and things like anticism

491
00:31:00,680 --> 00:31:03,319
and so forth. So we're going to look into more

492
00:31:03,359 --> 00:31:11,680
of the the continental guys here, and we mentioned Kant,

493
00:31:11,759 --> 00:31:12,359
but there's.

494
00:31:12,200 --> 00:31:13,440
Speaker 2: Quite a few that we're going to look at.

495
00:31:13,480 --> 00:31:16,519
Speaker 1: So I don't I've got quite a few notes here,

496
00:31:16,640 --> 00:31:19,480
and I'm not sure how many hours this is going

497
00:31:19,559 --> 00:31:21,559
to be, but a lot of people I get so

498
00:31:21,640 --> 00:31:24,279
many book recommendations, and I am building up the book

499
00:31:24,319 --> 00:31:29,119
recommendation section of the site. But these, you know, these

500
00:31:29,200 --> 00:31:33,200
some of these are on here. But for those interested

501
00:31:33,240 --> 00:31:35,200
in the books want who want to read more those

502
00:31:35,200 --> 00:31:38,000
are the ones that you're going to want so far.

503
00:31:38,960 --> 00:31:41,319
The things that we want to consider, as we've mentioned

504
00:31:41,319 --> 00:31:46,160
many times, is classical apologetics, and one of the best

505
00:31:46,160 --> 00:31:50,480
examples of this, of course is the Summa Contridge and Telays.

506
00:31:50,920 --> 00:31:57,000
The first book, which is the Aquinas, is famous apologetic

507
00:31:57,079 --> 00:32:01,359
work that seeks to establish first and foremost a generic

508
00:32:01,480 --> 00:32:06,119
first cause, and from a generic first caused so called

509
00:32:06,160 --> 00:32:10,480
God Little G. Perhaps what we would get is by

510
00:32:10,559 --> 00:32:17,200
extension tacking on the other arguments for Jesus and the Trinity.

511
00:32:17,559 --> 00:32:22,119
So if we can establish that little g generic idea

512
00:32:22,160 --> 00:32:27,440
of God first cause, whatever it may be, through natural

513
00:32:27,480 --> 00:32:31,000
theology in the tonistic sense, then we can tack on

514
00:32:31,480 --> 00:32:36,559
the other stuff. Now, the problem is that this dominant

515
00:32:36,720 --> 00:32:41,319
apologetic methodology falls apart. It ends up failing, It doesn't

516
00:32:41,359 --> 00:32:47,839
work because of the theological problems and missteps in the West.

517
00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:52,839
These go back to the philioque. You can read the

518
00:32:52,839 --> 00:32:55,000
many articles I've done on that. You can also read

519
00:32:55,039 --> 00:32:58,640
the different books that we've mentioned in the recommended reading

520
00:32:58,640 --> 00:33:01,359
list that deal with this. We're not going to specifically

521
00:33:01,359 --> 00:33:04,400
treat of the philioque and a critique of Continental philosophy,

522
00:33:04,400 --> 00:33:07,279
but we do want to mention that a lot of

523
00:33:07,279 --> 00:33:15,319
the reasoning behind the rise of these faulty philosophies is

524
00:33:15,400 --> 00:33:23,200
because of the faulty answers and questions in traditional Latin theology,

525
00:33:23,960 --> 00:33:29,559
and that ultimately revolves around absolute divine simplicity, which is modalism,

526
00:33:29,799 --> 00:33:33,119
in which is eunomianism. As I've said many times, it

527
00:33:33,119 --> 00:33:37,799
doesn't mean that Thomas Aquinas was or Augustine or any

528
00:33:37,839 --> 00:33:41,079
of the Western theologians that they were consciously trying to

529
00:33:41,079 --> 00:33:45,119
be eunomian. It just means that they adopted presubpositions about

530
00:33:45,160 --> 00:33:49,839
what divine simplicity means, such that they're the reasoning for

531
00:33:49,920 --> 00:33:52,519
the rest of the system because it's grounded in God.

532
00:33:52,920 --> 00:33:56,920
Their first cause is thereby affected by.

533
00:33:56,759 --> 00:33:57,759
Speaker 2: The starting point.

534
00:33:58,079 --> 00:34:01,920
Speaker 1: So you can again many books on that, go through

535
00:34:01,960 --> 00:34:03,279
my recommend reading list if you.

536
00:34:03,279 --> 00:34:04,240
Speaker 2: Want to get deeper into that.

537
00:34:04,279 --> 00:34:08,760
Speaker 1: But what happens is that this generic idea of deity

538
00:34:09,000 --> 00:34:11,239
that we have assumed here, and you can read my

539
00:34:11,440 --> 00:34:15,039
essay from Tomism to Enlightenment Deism to get a better

540
00:34:15,760 --> 00:34:19,280
picture of all of this. What we have is the

541
00:34:19,320 --> 00:34:26,880
West reacting to the ina inadequacies and unanswered issues in Tomism.

542
00:34:28,559 --> 00:34:31,480
Now that is all part of the precursors to the Reformation.

543
00:34:31,719 --> 00:34:36,199
So nominalism and we am of Oakham and all those

544
00:34:36,320 --> 00:34:40,320
kind of Gabriel Bile and the nominalists, they end up

545
00:34:40,800 --> 00:34:44,360
raising all of these issues that are attempted to be

546
00:34:44,480 --> 00:34:47,840
answered through what you get in Aquinas or what you

547
00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:52,360
get in and some of Canterbury, all of which is

548
00:34:52,440 --> 00:34:58,599
either Aristotelian Neoplatonic, or an attempt at the synthesis of

549
00:34:58,639 --> 00:35:01,920
the two. It never goes to the point of questioning

550
00:35:01,960 --> 00:35:08,000
the presuppositions of what the monad is or what simplicity is.

551
00:35:08,880 --> 00:35:12,920
And those issues were already solved in Eastern theology. They

552
00:35:12,920 --> 00:35:16,440
were already dealt with. And that's, by the way, why

553
00:35:16,519 --> 00:35:19,000
we don't have the filioque is because the essence of

554
00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:23,960
God is not at what spir rates. It's the Father.

555
00:35:24,360 --> 00:35:29,199
It's the hypostatic person, the Father who spir rates the Spirit,

556
00:35:29,639 --> 00:35:33,039
and the Spirit is not love. He's not one attribute.

557
00:35:34,000 --> 00:35:39,320
The Godhead has all of its attributes in unison, right,

558
00:35:39,360 --> 00:35:41,840
So the Father has love just as much as the

559
00:35:41,840 --> 00:35:44,280
Holy Spirit has love. If we said that the Holy

560
00:35:44,320 --> 00:35:47,920
Spirit has love, then we also can't by extension, say

561
00:35:47,960 --> 00:35:51,679
that the Holy Spirit is love. That's stupid because the

562
00:35:51,800 --> 00:35:55,840
attributes are not persons, all right, Justice is not one

563
00:35:55,880 --> 00:35:57,039
of the persons in God.

564
00:35:57,320 --> 00:35:59,039
Speaker 2: It's it's just foolishness.

565
00:35:59,079 --> 00:36:01,599
Speaker 1: And all the Eastern father have already dealt with.

566
00:36:01,559 --> 00:36:03,840
Speaker 2: Those issues, so they come to the.

567
00:36:03,800 --> 00:36:06,719
Speaker 1: Four and the again go read my other many articles

568
00:36:06,760 --> 00:36:11,800
and talks on that. The first question that gets posed

569
00:36:11,840 --> 00:36:15,880
in is in the Continental tradition, with you have, well,

570
00:36:16,239 --> 00:36:19,920
in Kant's Continental tradition, you have the question of causality

571
00:36:19,960 --> 00:36:23,679
in the world, and how do we know that causality

572
00:36:23,719 --> 00:36:26,559
in the world actually is a thing? Now, this is

573
00:36:26,599 --> 00:36:30,960
an important question because this is a big part of tumism.

574
00:36:31,119 --> 00:36:35,559
Tumism is based on classical apologetics and the so called five.

575
00:36:35,400 --> 00:36:37,440
Speaker 2: Proofs, which are all about arguments.

576
00:36:37,480 --> 00:36:41,920
Speaker 1: And one of those is the cosmological argument, the argument

577
00:36:41,920 --> 00:36:46,320
from a first cause. And Kant raises a different question

578
00:36:46,400 --> 00:36:48,719
and says, Okay, you've got all these points about causes,

579
00:36:49,159 --> 00:36:51,119
and yeah, it looks like there's causes in the world.

580
00:36:51,199 --> 00:36:52,559
Speaker 2: But the question is, how.

581
00:36:52,400 --> 00:36:55,039
Speaker 1: Do you actually know that there's a thing called quote

582
00:36:55,039 --> 00:36:58,320
causality out there in the world, because you don't actually

583
00:36:58,320 --> 00:37:01,880
observe causality of one event and then an event that

584
00:37:02,000 --> 00:37:07,199
follows that event, and you're calling that quote causality, But

585
00:37:07,280 --> 00:37:09,159
how do you know that the thing in your mind

586
00:37:09,199 --> 00:37:12,679
that you're interpreting as causality out there in the world

587
00:37:12,920 --> 00:37:16,840
actually corresponds to the phenomena or event of causality out

588
00:37:16,880 --> 00:37:21,679
there in the world. And because, as I said, atomism

589
00:37:21,760 --> 00:37:28,039
and Thomas Aquinas is based on the idea of foundationalist imperis,

590
00:37:29,119 --> 00:37:33,760
empirical foundationalism or classical foundationalism, that was not a question

591
00:37:33,800 --> 00:37:37,800
that had arisen in Aquinas's mind. It never it never

592
00:37:38,159 --> 00:37:41,599
occurred to people in the Middle Ages to raise the

593
00:37:41,679 --> 00:37:48,440
question of the psychological divide of the Enlightenment period, you know,

594
00:37:48,519 --> 00:37:50,559
about how do we know that what's in our mind

595
00:37:50,599 --> 00:37:55,360
corresponds to the external world? Because they were working with presupposition. Now,

596
00:37:55,360 --> 00:37:58,199
I'm not saying that Aquinas is wrong when he says

597
00:37:58,239 --> 00:38:01,719
that thoughts in the mind and correspond to the external world.

598
00:38:01,800 --> 00:38:03,320
Speaker 2: Of course they do. I believe that they do.

599
00:38:03,639 --> 00:38:05,960
Speaker 1: But what I'm saying is that Kant is asking the

600
00:38:06,039 --> 00:38:11,800
question to a quit us on his bases. Right, if

601
00:38:11,840 --> 00:38:15,480
you're an empiricist, how do you know, and Aquinas ultimately

602
00:38:15,599 --> 00:38:20,679
is an empiricist, how do you know that there's this

603
00:38:20,800 --> 00:38:23,119
thing out there in the world called causality because you

604
00:38:23,159 --> 00:38:28,159
don't ever, you don't ever empirically experienced causality. And guess

605
00:38:28,199 --> 00:38:30,639
what CONT's right about that? And he got that from

606
00:38:30,719 --> 00:38:34,679
David Hume. And why is this correct? Well, because these

607
00:38:34,719 --> 00:38:39,519
guys are taking the empiricist position to its logical conclusions,

608
00:38:39,519 --> 00:38:44,559
and they're saying, if this, then this right, and it

609
00:38:44,639 --> 00:38:48,960
follows it follows that if we begin with sense experience, right,

610
00:38:49,599 --> 00:38:54,880
you don't ever observe causality. And you don't. Now I

611
00:38:54,960 --> 00:38:57,480
believe that you do. But again, what I'm saying is

612
00:38:57,480 --> 00:38:59,400
that if you but I don't start with imperio. I'm

613
00:38:59,440 --> 00:39:02,559
not a a naive empiricist. So this is not a

614
00:39:02,599 --> 00:39:05,679
problem in my worldview. It's only a problem in worldview

615
00:39:05,920 --> 00:39:10,159
that begins with empiricism, as tomism does. So you don't

616
00:39:10,199 --> 00:39:13,360
experience causality. So how do you know that the event

617
00:39:13,480 --> 00:39:20,000
following event B, following event A was caused directly by

618
00:39:20,079 --> 00:39:22,800
event A?

619
00:39:22,880 --> 00:39:23,079
Speaker 2: Right?

620
00:39:23,159 --> 00:39:27,199
Speaker 1: So just think of the idea of quote causality itself. Right,

621
00:39:27,639 --> 00:39:30,880
We're not talking about experiencing the phenomena of the billiard

622
00:39:30,880 --> 00:39:34,159
balls hitting each other. No one is in these different

623
00:39:34,159 --> 00:39:39,679
schools or ideas here denying that you do experience billiard

624
00:39:39,679 --> 00:39:43,119
balls hitting one another. There's a different question being asked,

625
00:39:43,320 --> 00:39:46,599
a deeper question. The question is, how do you know

626
00:39:46,679 --> 00:39:51,760
that when that event happens, you're experiencing quote causality. Put

627
00:39:51,760 --> 00:39:56,000
a big circle around causality and say and explain to

628
00:39:56,079 --> 00:40:01,440
me where that phenomenon is. And you'll say, what's when

629
00:40:01,440 --> 00:40:04,039
that ball hits that ball? But that's begging the question

630
00:40:04,440 --> 00:40:07,199
because we're asking We're not asking about the balls hitting

631
00:40:07,239 --> 00:40:13,199
one another, We're asking causality. Where does that come from?

632
00:40:13,400 --> 00:40:16,639
And again, of course, on an empirical basis, you can

633
00:40:16,679 --> 00:40:20,599
never answer that question. You can also never know or

634
00:40:20,639 --> 00:40:23,000
answer a whole bunch of other questions. And this is

635
00:40:23,039 --> 00:40:27,519
what will give rise to kant asking how do we

636
00:40:27,599 --> 00:40:32,119
know about the self over time? Since you know, this

637
00:40:32,239 --> 00:40:36,519
is an older philosophical issue of the question of you know,

638
00:40:37,199 --> 00:40:39,239
how do I know that I'm the same me over time?

639
00:40:39,320 --> 00:40:40,920
How do I know that the chair over there is

640
00:40:40,960 --> 00:40:43,159
the same chair over time? I mean if I knock

641
00:40:43,239 --> 00:40:46,079
one leg off of the chairs at the same chair.

642
00:40:46,719 --> 00:40:48,800
How do we know that there's a unified mind over

643
00:40:48,920 --> 00:40:54,039
time that has a unifying experience of the external world

644
00:40:54,199 --> 00:40:57,239
or the self? How do we have this self over time.

645
00:40:57,280 --> 00:41:02,840
In other words, well, Kant realize that there wasn't an

646
00:41:02,880 --> 00:41:07,239
answer to this in the kind of Humian empiricism, and

647
00:41:07,280 --> 00:41:11,519
there's not. So what con said was, well, there is

648
00:41:11,559 --> 00:41:17,119
a transcendental category of this self, right, transcendental category of apperception,

649
00:41:18,880 --> 00:41:23,679
transcendal unity of apperception, by which we can presuppose that

650
00:41:23,760 --> 00:41:26,400
there's a self, because if we were to deny the self,

651
00:41:26,880 --> 00:41:30,119
we would immediately be caught in a nonsensical contradiction.

652
00:41:30,159 --> 00:41:31,880
Speaker 2: Now there's a bit of truth here, right.

653
00:41:31,920 --> 00:41:34,480
Speaker 1: So again, as we've said, not every one of these

654
00:41:34,519 --> 00:41:35,480
philosophers is wrong.

655
00:41:35,679 --> 00:41:37,800
Speaker 2: Not every one of them is right. Uh.

656
00:41:37,840 --> 00:41:43,920
Speaker 1: And transcendental arguments already have a tradition in Aristotle and

657
00:41:43,960 --> 00:41:45,280
in Saint John Damascus.

658
00:41:45,280 --> 00:41:46,119
Speaker 2: So we're not, we're not.

659
00:41:46,559 --> 00:41:51,599
Speaker 1: This is not completely new territory. So Kant is kind

660
00:41:51,599 --> 00:41:57,559
of right that a self is something that is that

661
00:41:57,639 --> 00:42:01,840
it underlies. It's a precondition for experience. So you're never

662
00:42:01,880 --> 00:42:06,440
going to directly experience your own self. It's always part

663
00:42:06,480 --> 00:42:10,039
of the act of experiencing. It's it's what undergirds it.

664
00:42:10,039 --> 00:42:14,280
It's the presupposition of experience. And so how do you

665
00:42:14,360 --> 00:42:17,119
prove it? Well, it's not proven the same way that

666
00:42:17,159 --> 00:42:20,800
you prove there's crackers in the pantry. It's not empirical,

667
00:42:20,880 --> 00:42:23,880
it's proven by the impossibility of the contrary. And in

668
00:42:23,960 --> 00:42:27,039
every act of trying to prove or disprove, you're assuming

669
00:42:27,039 --> 00:42:30,360
a self. Therefore, that's the strongest proof for it. And

670
00:42:30,440 --> 00:42:34,880
anytime anyone tries to prove it doesn't exist, they're already

671
00:42:34,920 --> 00:42:37,639
caught in the dilemma the contradiction of assuming the thing

672
00:42:37,679 --> 00:42:42,760
they're trying to disprove. So the transcendental ego or the

673
00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:49,880
transcendental self, right, this is something that he calls the

674
00:42:49,920 --> 00:42:55,599
transcendental unity of apperception. And Kaunt.

675
00:42:57,440 --> 00:42:59,679
Speaker 2: Would then go on to.

676
00:42:59,679 --> 00:43:02,360
Speaker 1: Say, well, human is right to say that there's no

677
00:43:03,840 --> 00:43:09,599
external order in the universe, right, And that's because, according

678
00:43:09,599 --> 00:43:12,440
to Kant, there's no order in the world itself out there.

679
00:43:13,039 --> 00:43:16,159
Rather order is what is the faculty or of the

680
00:43:16,199 --> 00:43:20,159
template of human the human mind. Because there's no God,

681
00:43:20,199 --> 00:43:22,679
we're not starting with God, we're starting with the autonomous

682
00:43:22,719 --> 00:43:25,639
human mind here, which is ultimately the problem for this philosophy.

683
00:43:26,599 --> 00:43:30,599
Kant doesn't ground his transcendental arguments in the ultimate transcendental God.

684
00:43:31,039 --> 00:43:33,559
He grounds them in the finite mind of man. Which

685
00:43:33,599 --> 00:43:36,679
makes them all sillipsistic and relativistic in the long run,

686
00:43:36,719 --> 00:43:39,960
and that's why cont fails. However, there's insights right, there

687
00:43:40,000 --> 00:43:42,960
is a transcendental unity of apperception that we call the self,

688
00:43:43,760 --> 00:43:45,760
and we know it by the possibility of country or

689
00:43:45,800 --> 00:43:48,960
a transcendental argument. But Kant's a big problem is that

690
00:43:49,039 --> 00:43:52,480
he's split the mind of man off from the external world,

691
00:43:53,239 --> 00:43:57,719
and this all ends in syllipsism. You have these transcendental

692
00:43:57,840 --> 00:44:03,000
categories by which we interpret time and space and so forth,

693
00:44:03,519 --> 00:44:06,440
and again, those are insightful and they're true. They're part

694
00:44:06,440 --> 00:44:10,400
of the transcendental arguments that I make, which are not contient.

695
00:44:10,480 --> 00:44:11,960
Speaker 2: By the way, I'm not.

696
00:44:12,039 --> 00:44:14,639
Speaker 1: Arguing CONTs because there's some people misunderstand that and think

697
00:44:14,639 --> 00:44:18,519
that I'm a kantient. No, no, no, I am not a sillipsist.

698
00:44:19,199 --> 00:44:21,880
I do not believe that everything is ordered by the

699
00:44:21,920 --> 00:44:22,599
mind of man.

700
00:44:23,320 --> 00:44:23,599
Speaker 2: Man.

701
00:44:23,639 --> 00:44:27,239
Speaker 1: I know there is order in the external world absolutely,

702
00:44:28,119 --> 00:44:30,360
and the mind of man directly perceives that.

703
00:44:30,679 --> 00:44:31,480
Speaker 2: There's no question.

704
00:44:32,920 --> 00:44:36,320
Speaker 1: But when we ask the question of how do we

705
00:44:36,360 --> 00:44:38,880
know that there's a self, well, you can't really beat

706
00:44:38,960 --> 00:44:43,000
this argument. There's just no other way to know that

707
00:44:43,039 --> 00:44:46,360
there's a self, because it's not by the very nature

708
00:44:46,360 --> 00:44:50,159
of what it is going to be proven empirically. So

709
00:44:50,199 --> 00:44:53,719
the post Kantian absolute idealism is what arises in the

710
00:44:53,800 --> 00:44:58,320
German guys that succeed him, and they have various lights

711
00:44:58,360 --> 00:45:03,719
in the school ficta Shelling Hegel. Hegel of course kind

712
00:45:03,719 --> 00:45:06,000
of stands out as the big figure as an absolute

713
00:45:06,039 --> 00:45:10,639
idealist mind spirit geist is what is the real reality

714
00:45:10,679 --> 00:45:14,519
behind everything, And really Hegelianism is just kind of falling

715
00:45:14,559 --> 00:45:19,840
back into an almost mystical Some people argue a times

716
00:45:20,239 --> 00:45:26,239
Cabbylistic or or Platonic scheme, uh, and that's that's true.

717
00:45:26,280 --> 00:45:26,599
Speaker 2: I think.

718
00:45:26,639 --> 00:45:29,239
Speaker 1: I think that in fact, some academic has written some big,

719
00:45:29,400 --> 00:45:33,000
gigantic tone which I never to get my hands on

720
00:45:33,000 --> 00:45:34,840
because back in the time, at the time I was looking,

721
00:45:34,880 --> 00:45:36,280
it was really expensive and I didn't want to pay

722
00:45:36,280 --> 00:45:38,320
the money for it. But there's some giant tome about,

723
00:45:38,400 --> 00:45:41,760
you know, Hegel and Hermeticism or something like Hegel and

724
00:45:41,840 --> 00:45:45,519
Cabala or something like that. And yeah, I've always thought

725
00:45:45,559 --> 00:45:47,599
that there's got to be some connection there, because it's

726
00:45:47,639 --> 00:45:51,199
just a hop, skip and a jump from Neoplatonism to Cobbylism,

727
00:45:52,400 --> 00:45:56,400
and there's a lot of affinities in those positions with Hegel.

728
00:45:56,480 --> 00:45:59,000
Speaker 2: So Hegel is an.

729
00:45:58,840 --> 00:46:06,719
Speaker 1: Attempt to respond to Kant and to the relativism of

730
00:46:07,039 --> 00:46:12,960
the empiricism of Hume. And so there's some insights in

731
00:46:13,000 --> 00:46:15,800
Hegel as well, because he actually notices a lot of

732
00:46:15,840 --> 00:46:19,320
these problems. Does that mean that we're going to jump

733
00:46:19,360 --> 00:46:22,639
all the way in Hegel's boat and go off the cliff,

734
00:46:22,920 --> 00:46:26,800
off the waterfall with him. No, because Hegel, unfortunately, being

735
00:46:27,559 --> 00:46:33,920
a descendant of all of this Western philosophy, is also

736
00:46:34,119 --> 00:46:37,880
enmeshed in the problems of absolute divine simplicity. The absolute

737
00:46:37,920 --> 00:46:42,000
in Hegel is really just the monad of Plato or

738
00:46:42,039 --> 00:46:47,800
the one which is again ultimate divine simplicity or absolute simplicity,

739
00:46:48,400 --> 00:46:51,960
And in Hegel it's not really I mean, there's like

740
00:46:51,960 --> 00:46:57,679
this loose Christian baggage, but it's not the God of Exodus,

741
00:46:57,719 --> 00:47:00,159
it's not the God of the Psalms, it's not Jesus.

742
00:47:00,800 --> 00:47:08,280
So we're looking at absolute impersonal philosophical philosophy god, right,

743
00:47:08,760 --> 00:47:12,920
not the personal God of the Bible. And again that's

744
00:47:13,079 --> 00:47:16,239
the point there I'm making is that these are clearly distinct.

745
00:47:16,360 --> 00:47:19,280
Even if you don't believe the Bible it's stupid to

746
00:47:19,320 --> 00:47:21,800
try to make Hegel into some sort of Christian philosopher.

747
00:47:21,800 --> 00:47:25,000
He's not, but he is insightful in that he does

748
00:47:25,039 --> 00:47:29,840
notice a lot of these presuppositional problems in the previous guys,

749
00:47:30,400 --> 00:47:35,400
in continent and in others. So let's look at a

750
00:47:35,440 --> 00:47:38,719
couple of the key problems here in Kant and his

751
00:47:39,079 --> 00:47:43,760
excuse me, Hegel and his his dialectics. He too understanding.

752
00:47:43,760 --> 00:47:48,920
Hegel is dialectics, and Hegel believes everything is in dialectical

753
00:47:48,960 --> 00:47:53,559
process in a very metaphysical mystical way. Absolute geist or

754
00:47:53,639 --> 00:47:57,880
spirit is actually working everything out towards its t lose,

755
00:47:59,239 --> 00:48:04,360
where everything will become geist or spirit, and every consciousness

756
00:48:04,360 --> 00:48:09,119
will become self conscious of self consciousness. Basically matter will

757
00:48:09,599 --> 00:48:12,320
achieve or attain a kind of consciousness. So it's a

758
00:48:12,360 --> 00:48:16,119
kind of panpsychism in the long run. And history is

759
00:48:16,159 --> 00:48:20,199
this entire dialectical process of the working out the cunning

760
00:48:20,199 --> 00:48:24,119
of reason or absolute Spirit, and so everything that happens

761
00:48:24,119 --> 00:48:27,639
within history is the will of absolute Spirit. Now this

762
00:48:27,840 --> 00:48:30,840
is all heretical, This is totally anti Christian.

763
00:48:30,880 --> 00:48:31,920
Speaker 2: It's not biblical.

764
00:48:32,639 --> 00:48:34,400
Speaker 1: So I'm not really sure why so many people have

765
00:48:34,440 --> 00:48:40,800
such a obsession and fetish for Hegel. I mean again, yes,

766
00:48:40,840 --> 00:48:45,119
there are insights here, but if we think about it,

767
00:48:45,159 --> 00:48:50,760
that's not history is not dialectics and Orthodox theology, particularly

768
00:48:50,840 --> 00:48:53,679
in the way that it's argued in the Concilier statements,

769
00:48:53,960 --> 00:48:58,800
for example, Saint Maximus of the Confessor, the Sixth Council,

770
00:48:59,280 --> 00:49:05,920
they're very explicit about the rejection of dialectical tensions, and

771
00:49:06,119 --> 00:49:08,360
all of those things relate to what we're talking about.

772
00:49:08,480 --> 00:49:11,800
And you can read to doctor Farrell's Volume two of

773
00:49:11,800 --> 00:49:15,199
God histrom Dialectic where he deals specifically with this topic,

774
00:49:16,880 --> 00:49:20,559
and then into volume three as well where he deals

775
00:49:20,559 --> 00:49:23,159
with Hegel. But for my purposes here, I'm going to

776
00:49:23,199 --> 00:49:28,039
talk about the fact that absolute Spirit is not the

777
00:49:28,079 --> 00:49:31,239
divine person of the Bible. It's impersonal. So we're back

778
00:49:31,280 --> 00:49:36,360
to Platonism or Aristotle's thought thinking itself, right, that's not God.

779
00:49:36,519 --> 00:49:38,840
God has not thought thinking in itself. If you say

780
00:49:38,880 --> 00:49:43,559
God has thought thinking itself, you are heretic, and the

781
00:49:43,679 --> 00:49:48,039
Orthodox theology that's heretical. So there's no way that's biblical.

782
00:49:48,599 --> 00:49:50,880
I mean, what is Exodus does not present God is

783
00:49:51,000 --> 00:49:52,039
thought thinking itself.

784
00:49:52,119 --> 00:49:54,800
Speaker 2: That's false. That is a false God.

785
00:49:55,320 --> 00:49:58,360
Speaker 1: But so again Hegelianism is all based on absolute divine

786
00:49:58,400 --> 00:50:03,440
simplicity and then everything in history working itself out to reunite.

787
00:50:02,800 --> 00:50:04,239
Speaker 2: With the one or the monad.

788
00:50:04,320 --> 00:50:08,360
Speaker 1: So it's a kind of neoplatonism, kind of repackaged and

789
00:50:08,400 --> 00:50:09,559
that's all it is, really.

790
00:50:11,199 --> 00:50:12,480
Speaker 2: And that is not our view.

791
00:50:12,800 --> 00:50:16,440
Speaker 1: And it also doesn't make any sense because in Hegelianism

792
00:50:17,199 --> 00:50:20,679
the will of absolute spirit, I mean, it's not personal.

793
00:50:21,039 --> 00:50:23,239
But how do you have a will without a person?

794
00:50:23,280 --> 00:50:24,639
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just just just stupid.

795
00:50:24,719 --> 00:50:27,920
Speaker 1: It's like saying it's as dumb as the Darwinian view

796
00:50:28,000 --> 00:50:34,960
that you know, natural forces select the best. Well, that

797
00:50:35,079 --> 00:50:39,960
again presupposes an active subject or agent to judge and

798
00:50:40,039 --> 00:50:44,239
adjudicate between best and worst. So but that's not what happens.

799
00:50:44,280 --> 00:50:47,440
It's blind process. Blind process doesn't have the ability to

800
00:50:47,599 --> 00:50:52,480
choose anything. So it's just nonsense. But you know so

801
00:50:52,559 --> 00:50:57,440
much for being consistent in terms of Darwinism that there's

802
00:50:57,480 --> 00:51:01,719
no no concern for consistency and Darwinism. But Hegelianism, which

803
00:51:01,760 --> 00:51:04,519
by the way, can fit well with Dorwinism or some

804
00:51:04,599 --> 00:51:07,079
kind of Buddhism or any of this, it just falls

805
00:51:07,079 --> 00:51:10,079
back into the same old nonsense of Far Eastern thought,

806
00:51:11,159 --> 00:51:13,559
and that we're actually going to see that. By the way,

807
00:51:13,599 --> 00:51:16,519
some of the guys like Heidiger and Hussarole will in

808
00:51:16,599 --> 00:51:22,079
their later days of philosophy verge on Buddhism. But Hegelianism

809
00:51:22,119 --> 00:51:25,559
has this kind of millennial aspect to it, which also

810
00:51:26,199 --> 00:51:29,039
maybe that's why it seems to appeal to people at times.

811
00:51:29,920 --> 00:51:32,199
But the problem again, what is the ultimate issue?

812
00:51:32,559 --> 00:51:32,800
Speaker 2: You know?

813
00:51:34,039 --> 00:51:36,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, you might be putting out in the notion of

814
00:51:36,440 --> 00:51:39,719
a purpose to history and a final stage and that

815
00:51:39,800 --> 00:51:43,920
everything's under divine providence, but it's not divine providence. It

816
00:51:43,960 --> 00:51:49,960
is thesis antithesis and thesis antithesis synthesis working itself out

817
00:51:50,400 --> 00:51:55,159
in the mode of being throughout history, and all events

818
00:51:55,239 --> 00:51:59,679
are part of this process. And ultimately, again, if all

819
00:51:59,679 --> 00:52:03,480
things are one thing monism, uh, then why are there

820
00:52:03,480 --> 00:52:07,320
different differentiations? And oh, well, that's why there's all the

821
00:52:07,320 --> 00:52:12,320
dialectical process that's taken everything back to ultimate unity. Well, no,

822
00:52:12,400 --> 00:52:14,920
any minute, Why why is their division to begin with?

823
00:52:15,000 --> 00:52:17,079
And of course this is the perennial problem for all

824
00:52:17,119 --> 00:52:20,800
the Platonists and Neoplatonists. Why was there a schism to

825
00:52:20,880 --> 00:52:24,320
begin with between the monad turning into the diad and

826
00:52:24,360 --> 00:52:27,400
the triad and so and then into the tractors. Right, Uh,

827
00:52:27,480 --> 00:52:31,639
there's no explanation. Oh, it's just well, then it's chaos. Ultimately,

828
00:52:31,679 --> 00:52:35,119
it's chaotic. It was accidental. And to try to paste

829
00:52:35,119 --> 00:52:38,679
all this stupidity into theology and the theology that's presented

830
00:52:38,719 --> 00:52:42,079
in the Bible is just a waste of time and

831
00:52:42,119 --> 00:52:44,800
its foolishness. And the history of the West of Western

832
00:52:44,800 --> 00:52:47,400
thought shows that that, by the way, is what Saint

833
00:52:47,400 --> 00:52:50,559
Gregor palm Is told Barlon that it's a waste of

834
00:52:50,599 --> 00:52:53,079
time and at least to atheism, and that's exactly what's happened.

835
00:52:53,119 --> 00:52:57,679
Speaker 2: So the individual, by.

836
00:52:57,519 --> 00:53:03,440
Speaker 1: The way, is sto fold as an individual in Hegelianism.

837
00:53:03,440 --> 00:53:03,920
Speaker 2: And.

838
00:53:05,320 --> 00:53:09,760
Speaker 1: He loses his identity because if I recall exactly, Hegel

839
00:53:09,800 --> 00:53:13,320
has his position that you're not a self until like

840
00:53:13,400 --> 00:53:14,840
the community makes you a self.

841
00:53:15,960 --> 00:53:17,559
Speaker 2: So that's very dangerous.

842
00:53:17,679 --> 00:53:21,199
Speaker 1: This is why Hegel believes that the state is the

843
00:53:21,199 --> 00:53:23,360
march of God within history. And so when you look

844
00:53:23,400 --> 00:53:28,519
at these, I think the Prussian king at the time,

845
00:53:29,559 --> 00:53:33,159
who was this high level Masonic character.

846
00:53:34,639 --> 00:53:35,320
Speaker 2: He was he.

847
00:53:35,360 --> 00:53:39,639
Speaker 1: Viewed himself as this sort of the great Hegelian dictator.

848
00:53:40,519 --> 00:53:45,039
And again this is not the orthodox view of emperors

849
00:53:45,119 --> 00:53:49,519
or monarchs. They're not absolutists. They're not the march of

850
00:53:49,519 --> 00:53:51,960
God in history. The Church is the march of God

851
00:53:51,960 --> 00:53:56,400
in history. The state serves a function subordinate to the Church,

852
00:53:56,440 --> 00:54:00,920
and that's why the church is who anoints rulers in

853
00:54:00,960 --> 00:54:06,880
the history of Christendom. So because the spiritual, of course,

854
00:54:07,840 --> 00:54:12,119
you know, is what's above the material. Now, in Hegalianism

855
00:54:12,159 --> 00:54:14,239
there's all this talk of spirit, but that's not what

856
00:54:14,280 --> 00:54:17,400
he he means like pan psychism, he means that at

857
00:54:17,400 --> 00:54:21,239
base everything is psyche, which, in a way that might

858
00:54:21,280 --> 00:54:24,559
be true depending on how you mean that. I mean,

859
00:54:24,559 --> 00:54:28,519
if you mean by that that atomism and quote materialism

860
00:54:28,599 --> 00:54:32,800
is not true and that reality is spirit. Yeah, But

861
00:54:33,199 --> 00:54:37,639
the problem is that for Hegel, distinctions are what's the problem.

862
00:54:38,079 --> 00:54:43,000
So Hegalianism fits into this sort of globalist glob philosophy

863
00:54:43,039 --> 00:54:46,920
that everything is turning into one giant heat glob blob heap,

864
00:54:47,480 --> 00:54:49,840
you know, the Altis Huxley idea that we've got to

865
00:54:49,840 --> 00:54:53,000
get rid of all distinctions, which is ultimately the Far

866
00:54:53,079 --> 00:55:01,079
Eastern view that man's problem is particularity, individuality and distinction. Right,

867
00:55:01,159 --> 00:55:04,440
this is the hallmark of the Far Eastern philosophies. And

868
00:55:04,480 --> 00:55:06,280
that's why you got to get out of this reality

869
00:55:06,400 --> 00:55:10,519
through meditation and achieve usness, because you know, the problem

870
00:55:10,559 --> 00:55:13,000
is that you think you're distinct. Now, wait a minute,

871
00:55:14,519 --> 00:55:16,480
what if this is dialectics right, and this is the

872
00:55:16,599 --> 00:55:19,519
Orthodox to you, there's a die, there's no dialectical tension

873
00:55:19,559 --> 00:55:22,519
between the one and the many. But false philosophies and

874
00:55:22,599 --> 00:55:27,000
false world views always want to interject that dialectical tension, right,

875
00:55:27,239 --> 00:55:30,400
and the heresies is too right, the great heresies of

876
00:55:30,440 --> 00:55:35,280
Nestorianism or Arianism or mono Thelicism. They always want to

877
00:55:35,320 --> 00:55:39,960
interject these dialectical tensions between one and many, between God

878
00:55:39,960 --> 00:55:42,639
and man, between grace and nature, whatever it may be.

879
00:55:42,960 --> 00:55:50,239
And in Hegelianism it's all based on exactly Hegalianism is

880
00:55:50,280 --> 00:55:53,719
like the ultimate version of dialectical tensions and philosophy.

881
00:55:53,840 --> 00:55:55,800
Speaker 2: So this is not something that can be.

882
00:55:55,920 --> 00:56:00,480
Speaker 1: Cut and fasted or grafted onto biblical theology. And you know,

883
00:56:00,559 --> 00:56:02,480
I've done this for a long time. I know, I've

884
00:56:02,920 --> 00:56:04,440
I've just I've seen all this. I've been in the

885
00:56:04,440 --> 00:56:06,639
academic realm, I've been in the theological realm. I know

886
00:56:06,679 --> 00:56:08,920
I see the people who try to Charles Taylor, who

887
00:56:08,920 --> 00:56:12,519
try to paste this crap onto Christianity and it's just

888
00:56:12,559 --> 00:56:14,760
a big, garubbled mess and it's a.

889
00:56:14,760 --> 00:56:15,400
Speaker 2: Waste of time.

890
00:56:16,320 --> 00:56:18,559
Speaker 1: So if you want to go waste your time with that,

891
00:56:18,920 --> 00:56:20,800
if you're in the academic realm, have fun.

892
00:56:21,880 --> 00:56:22,599
Speaker 2: It's a waste.

893
00:56:23,239 --> 00:56:27,679
Speaker 1: So next we're going to look a little bit at Curecredguard,

894
00:56:27,719 --> 00:56:31,599
who is interesting in many ways himself. But that's going

895
00:56:31,679 --> 00:56:34,840
to constitute hour two. You've been listening to Jay's analysis

896
00:56:34,880 --> 00:56:39,199
as we dive into a critique of the continental tradition

897
00:56:39,880 --> 00:56:43,119
with you know, beginning with the Enlightenment and Kant and Hegel,

898
00:56:43,239 --> 00:56:45,599
and we're kind of doing a survey here. Obviously a

899
00:56:45,639 --> 00:56:48,880
lot more could be said. Both Hegel and Kant's books

900
00:56:48,920 --> 00:56:53,119
are gigantic tomes, very technical, very dry, very boring, very

901
00:56:53,119 --> 00:57:00,400
difficult at times, almost impossible to interpret what they're talking about,

902
00:57:01,119 --> 00:57:01,920
especially Hegel.

903
00:57:02,239 --> 00:57:03,800
Speaker 2: But they still need to.

904
00:57:03,719 --> 00:57:07,880
Speaker 1: Be done, and there will be in depth you know,

905
00:57:07,920 --> 00:57:10,679
analysis of each of these guys I plan to do

906
00:57:10,800 --> 00:57:13,639
in the future, so you know, don't think you're getting

907
00:57:13,639 --> 00:57:17,440
short short change here. We will do in depth analysis

908
00:57:17,519 --> 00:57:19,639
of these individual characters. But I think we got to

909
00:57:19,719 --> 00:57:24,360
start kind of looking at the big ideas first before

910
00:57:24,400 --> 00:57:26,960
we really dive into the technics, because we need.

911
00:57:26,800 --> 00:57:29,679
Speaker 2: To see the.

912
00:57:28,639 --> 00:57:31,880
Speaker 1: The milieu in which they're situated, right, what's the zeitgeist

913
00:57:32,239 --> 00:57:37,239
to use Hegel's favorite idea, you know, the spirit of

914
00:57:37,280 --> 00:57:40,519
the age in which he comes right, And you know,

915
00:57:40,559 --> 00:57:44,039
these guys, these are kind of arrogant weirdos that think

916
00:57:44,119 --> 00:57:47,440
that they're at the end of history, right, like because

917
00:57:47,480 --> 00:57:51,440
Hegel's philosophy came and because it's the great ultimate grand

918
00:57:51,519 --> 00:57:55,760
narrative of the history of spirit, it must be the

919
00:57:55,840 --> 00:57:59,039
end of the age, which is just nonsense, because you know,

920
00:57:59,280 --> 00:58:02,719
we're what three hundred years later, So no, hey, Gold,

921
00:58:02,800 --> 00:58:07,440
you're not the t los of history. However, many insights

922
00:58:07,480 --> 00:58:12,559
you might have had about presuppositions and universals in particulars.

923
00:58:13,159 --> 00:58:15,000
But we're going to look at Careguard next an hour

924
00:58:15,039 --> 00:58:18,440
two and I've got a lot more notes, so I'm

925
00:58:18,440 --> 00:58:20,920
not sure how far we'll get up to maybe Desartra

926
00:58:21,320 --> 00:58:24,280
or Heidigger, but that's what we're going to look at

927
00:58:24,280 --> 00:58:26,119
an hour two. For subscribers, if you want to hear

928
00:58:26,159 --> 00:58:28,400
the second hour, subscribe to Jays Analysis for four ninety

929
00:58:28,440 --> 00:58:30,760
five a month, or for sixty dollars a year where

930
00:58:30,840 --> 00:58:34,719
you get a really in depth analysis of Western thought

931
00:58:35,239 --> 00:58:38,840
and philosophy and theology that I don't think anyone else

932
00:58:38,920 --> 00:58:41,639
is really doing this kind of stuff. So you know,

933
00:58:41,719 --> 00:58:44,920
maybe you hate me out there, that's okay. I'm putting

934
00:58:44,920 --> 00:58:46,880
out stuff that nobody else is doing. So I'm not

935
00:58:46,920 --> 00:58:50,760
saying there aren't philosophers putting out ideas, but are they

936
00:58:50,840 --> 00:58:52,239
talking about Tragy and Hope?

937
00:58:52,639 --> 00:58:53,800
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so.

938
00:58:53,800 --> 00:58:57,400
Speaker 1: So thank you for listening, and also check out my

939
00:58:57,440 --> 00:58:59,679
book as it's her Hollywood sex Calls and Symbols in film,

940
00:58:59,719 --> 00:59:02,599
which you can get a copy at my site, signed copy,

941
00:59:02,639 --> 00:59:06,480
by the way, which has a lot of philosophy. So

942
00:59:06,559 --> 00:59:08,679
it's not a dumb movie book. It's not a sex

943
00:59:08,760 --> 00:59:14,519
scandal book. It actually deals with semiotics, with philosophy, with geopolitics, history,

944
00:59:14,679 --> 00:59:17,639
the esoteric, all of that in one book, three hundred

945
00:59:17,639 --> 00:59:21,519
and sixty three pages, four hundred and four footnotes on

946
00:59:22,679 --> 00:59:28,239
kubrick Ian, Fleming, Hitchcock, Spielberg, you know, all the big directors.

947
00:59:28,280 --> 00:59:31,440
So definitely check out my book, and if you want

948
00:59:31,440 --> 00:59:33,960
to hear the rest, subscribe. And let's get into some

949
00:59:34,119 --> 00:59:35,320
Cuker Guard critique