Відео

Enjoyed this 👍

i read difference and repetition a couple of months ago and this really helped piecing some things together, like the eternal return of the same

Thanks heaps for this teaching, much appreciated. Perhaps a little too much to wrap your head around for 1 lesson (i.e, getting across the development of epistemology re Hegel and Descartes), but nonetheless a helpful teaching.

i'm often astounded by how much under represented is the rather reasonable opinion that deleuze is full of manure...

Superb.. helps to clarify some of my thoughts on Judith Butler and the many discussions of being.. thanks for introducing Fanon..

have you seen Cronenberg’s “eXistenZ”? It’s much better than The Matrix

The best primer on Ulysses I've ever heard.

Thanks - your lecture was well-structured, clear, and very helpful. I’m looking forward to watching your other videos on D&R and D&G.

Didn't he write this a his master's thesis when he was 20 or something. Just interesting that his most important work was his pre d&g stuff. I've got to say this is the book that resonates with me the most.

I've been working through D&R as well as trying to watch videos about it trying to better grasp. I could definitely use some clarification. Am I understand that Difference is Difference from itself by differienating itself from itself? And because of process of particularity (roughly speaking), each difference is uniquely different in such that the Repetition for itself comes from the fact that it is Difference from itself? and because repetition is never repetition of the same, things are only repeated in that they are repeated differently? In the example of A, and "repeating" by going AA, A is not the repetition, but the addition of a 'new' A causes the original A to be different from itself, forming the AA and the A and A difference, which is then seen as repetition as difference without concept? As AA is wholly different, yet repetitious, from the original A? I could be completely off. I want to thank you for covering these materials. I have been following your channel for a little while and what I love most is that you seem to have an innate passion for Deleuze and philosophy. It is much easier to be excited about things I do not understand when it seems the other person also feels excited

Are you married?

Hi!. I'm a non-denominational Christian. Here's a few counter-arguments. Moral compass Moral compass is actually taught by the bible to be in us all some what (Romans 1:28-). It is the knowledge of the goodness of God. This is why men are often inherently hesitant to kill others (do not kill). This is also why atheists can be morally superior to believers. We've not invented good, we have been taught it and inherited it, so we can't justify ourselves by our "goodness" and we cannot atone for our sins by doing good works, because we only do the good works because we've been taught to do them. We don't have goodness in us. This is why, if any of us were born among violent men, we would end up like them. We have the same potential for evil. Sin & sin nature Sin nature is actually easily spotted in each and everyone of us. We don't need to look into the past. We've all sinned beyond measure. Sin nature is inherited. It's not like God decides for us that we would be sinners, that's just how it is. We all, individually, commit sins by our own will. We, from our childhoods, all have desired to commit evil. God doesn't force us to do it. It also seems you are confused about Israel's covenants and what actually is written to this generation directly. Bible is not a book where books and chapters are without context, although many Christians read it as if there is no context. It is important to note to whom things are said and by whom and at what time. Israel made a covenant with God and part of it was to be blessed for observance of the law and to be cursed for not observing it. This covenant is not universal, but was for Israel and Israelites. Eternal punishment Eternal punishment is only thing there is to give to someone who rejects eternal love. Besides, it is man-kinds sins for which Jesus was punished, and Jesus is the eternal God, so in a sense, we put Christ into eternal torment by our sins. Jesus is as eternal as God is. So perfect justice happens when we are damned to hell, we receive what we did to Christ. At final judgement Christ says that all the evil people did, they did to him and all the good they didn't do, they didn't do to him (Matthew 25:31-46). But because God and Christ is completely innocent, his work is total forgiveness to those who believe in him. We are created eternal, and we will spend eternity, where our heart desires to spend it. It's not Gods fault if we don't want to be with him. He is all goodness and being out of his presence cannot be anything but agony. When I was unbeliever, I told my friends I don't want to be in the presence of God, I didn't want to change my ways and who I am. Forsake all Christ told his Jewish disciples at the time to forsake everything. I don't think it is meant as a religious practice. Jerusalem was destroyed and jews scattered. God protected these in Israel who received him. It was better to loose everything willingly then to loose everything by the sword of the romans. Atonement Christ has paid for sins of atheists also. Its the state of eternal rebellion that leads to hell and sins are evidence for that rebellion. That's the state we've all been in. By faith in Christ we leave that rebellion behind. We have all been like little devils and devil is pure evil and eternally against God. Sins are no longer problem, Christ dealt with them all, the rebellion is. Christ vs Adam Jesus never was just a man. He was and always is the eternal God, who took a human form (Colossians 2:9). Its like a man went into virtual reality game he has created to live inside his creation. Christ's body was the means by which God lived a perfect human life, suffered for our sins, died and rose from the dead. Death Christ's death on the cross was the second death, for us all. It was eternal because God cannot be, but eternal. Those in hell never reach the end of the punishment, but Christ did, although bible indicates that he is forever the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13.8 KJV), that there is timelessness in what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Secular atheism had a good run. It is clearly running out of steam though. Hitchens is passed. Sam Harris turned to eastern spiritualism. Dawkins says he considers himself a "cultural Christian." People are turning away from the empty perspective of atheism in droves. That's why half the comments under this video are the poster's. Even the arguments are tired. Atheists often either sound like people in need of medication or like dumb guys who read a book and want to sound smart. "How is God love if God hates some things?" I don't know Chief, maybe the Creator of time, space and matter is a bit more complicated than you first perceived. "If God is good, why does bad stuff happen?" Maybe the history of the human race is a bit more complicated than what you heard on Sesame Street as a kid.

nice vid and useful commentary.

Great video! Keep going with the lectures on Ulysses' chapters, you are doing a great job. What commentaries did you read before getting into the book? Which ones would you recommend?

I'm always amazed about how not many religious people question why God wants to be worshipped, wanting to be worshipped is a such human desire.

Three minutes in and still nothing. Moving on to a more interesting atheist.

It seems atheists can not stop talking about Christ as it is a problem with their desire to not be held accountable.

Hey Gavin! Very well presented topics, i appreciate you sharing your perspective and bringing these passages into light. I love exploring the christian doctrine and was interested when your video appeared on my recommended! My questions relate to the first concept mentioned, humans are inherently sinful, that we have inherited this sin from generations past since the original sin. Do you think that human beings are sinful? If I were to define sin from a secular point of view, i would most likely describe it as causing suffering to others or to yourself. Evil is present in the world, so even if sin is not a spiritual substance as spoken about in the bible, we can agree that its "function" and effect is still measurable here in this realm. I would argue that while there is possibility for generational sin, it doesn't really matter cause humans keep adding more sin anyway. What are your thoughts? As far as Matthew 10 goes, bringing not peace but a sword, the purpose of this statement is judgment, to "rightly divide". I'd like to conjecture that being judged and being measured as an individual is actually a good thing, especially when the judge is doing it for you or your society's benefit. Judgment doesn't have to belittle someone when it has the purpose of building each other up and in the long term, bettering society as a whole. Remember, the greatest commandment according to Jesus is "love the lord your God with all your heart, and Love your Neighbour as yourself". The purpose of true and just judgment is inevitably love, holding each other accountable, not allowing our families and friends to slip into apatheticall or as I'm sure you've heard "lukewarm" attitudes when considering spiritual matters, (the matters of utmost importance to Christ). In the same way a Judge shows love to society by bringing judgment and enacting sentences, we are called to do this out of love for our brothers and sisters. Jesus was bringing into order a moral code, a code that continually convicts me of the problems and unhealthy actions I take in my life. What is Right and Wrong will continually divide people, as it should, in the pursuit of truth and perfect judgment. The purpose of communion is to have one mind, and one body as followers. Paul calls us to have NO DIVISION (1st Corinthians 1:10), (an obviously impossible feat of course). Christ did not come to pat us on the back and tell us he loves us no matter what, even though he does, he instead came to provide us a character and a goal that we can continually strive towards. Your interpretation of John 12 is interesting. In a religion where eating, drinking and sharing tables (Ecclesiastes 2:24) and building community centers is the core aspect, I think the full meaning of the verse could still be uncovered. Arguably one of the most important teachings of Jesus is "the kingdom of heaven is at at hand." When this topic is studied in full you'll discover that the kingdom of heaven is not actually JUST a far off place, but present in this very moment, arguably a way of life or a state of consciousness. (Luke 17:21). Christs distinction of "in the world", as opposed to life in continual service and connection with God in his already present kingdom of heaven, I believe is the root of that section in John 12; where the "life" you will lose is a present moment, experiencing imperfection in alignment with the world, as opposed to the hatred for that imperfect and worldly life which grants you access to the kingdom of heaven state of consciousness now, aswell as the proposed spiritual and continued existence after death. A great book on this that you might enjoy reading is Access Granted by Steve Holmstrom! :) Regarding point 4, by not accepting something, you are rejecting it, ("you are either for me or against me") you cannot be lukewarm in legal matters, theres no neutrality. You sin, I sin, this manifests evil in the world, we are responsible unless someone pays that debt for us. Unless all this really is meaningless and chance, we should be worried about the consequences of our actions. The reason we should grovel at the feet of God is because he shows and makes it obvious to us what is best for the outcome of this universe, but we continually fight against that in exchange for personal gain and vanity, even and especially without our awareness ("Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."). If you cause death (which is the nature of sin), you are accountable to repay that death with your own personal life energy (blood). The only reason why Christ stands out as unique from the rest of us is because Christ never caused or manifested any death (sin) on earth, actually he performed miracles and healings in opposition to death. While you may consider the use of the word death as extreme, I consider the possibility that microaggression or really any negative energy directed at an individual causes "death", while only in small doses. Death as an ever-changing and transforming substance will help give the christian concept of sin a bit more context. Christ Calls us to be grateful for his sacrifice. He doesn't want to keep us in anguish, but actually he wants to lead us to a happiness greater and more profound than before, through repentance of (turning away from) the things that cause us suffering and death. Suffering is caused by individual sin, or the sin of others. According to the bible, Christ did live just like everyone else, as a man, subject to the same temptations and snares as us. He was capable of pain (John 11:35 Jesus Wept) and crucifixion at the time was the most humiliating and drawn out experience death partake in. I really enjoyed the video, especially part 6/7 where you bring up an incredible point: "If the wages of sin is death, and if christ never died, how did he pay for our sin?" The answer to this question resides in the legislative nature of the bible. Because Jesus lived a sinless life, he CHOSE to come to earth to pay the debt for us by taking on mortal clothing and suffering in our place. God didn't have to intervene, but he chose too for our sake. Gods body died, but once it went through the legislation laid down prior, and it was exposed that he didn't deserve to be punished, effectively the whole judiciary system was rewritten from what it was before, thus a new testament, as prophesied in the old. Jesus Returns to earth with a new immortal body before rising to heaven. When Adam and Eve were present in the garden, the story goes that they were immortal, perfect beings, in complete face to face communion with God (he walked among the garden with them), but we lost this privilege when we started living out of alignment with life. Christ's death is unexpected and is similar to what some might consider a legal loophole 😂a costly one though. Christ wants us to have an Infinite, immortal existence like we once had (1st corinthians 15) and has provided us a way through his sacrifice to put on that title as opposed to the mortal and perishable nature we currently have. Point #7, If Christ's sacrifice is nothing, I would ask you if you would make that sacrifice for others also? In Philippians 2 the generally translated english word used in regard to the process of God becoming man is that he "humbled" himself. In a phrase earlier it uses the word "emptied" himself. Either way, We know that God limited himself somehow to a smaller capacity and lived consciously as a human being with the same nature as man for a short period of time. We know that there was "separation" from the father, the same way that we are, and that the father delivered him information through the holy spirit. Without getting too off topic and discussing the nature of the trinity, which is one of the most profound mysteries of this religion, The Nature of God's experience here on earth is incredibly complex and is still something I find new questions for every day. It was a pleasure writing to you and considering these topics :) Would love to continue the discussion anytime and hope you are well wherever you are! Thanks again.

Most of these objections can be refuted by Jay Dyer. He’s an Orthodox Christian UA-camr who studied Philosophy, Theology, Meta Narratives. God isn't a “being” per se. That’s a western idea not among Orthodox Christianity as well as guilt being inherited. Most of these objections are understandable coming from a Roman Catholic or Protestant perspective but this theology is not found among Orthodox Christianity.

9:40 "Christianity is a fundamental denial of life" "requires that we hate life to it's very core": I can't find myself agreeing with this, it is a forsaking of freedoms and comforts that do not serve good purposes in Gods eyes, sure. If you are to compromise somewhere as a Christian it is supposed to not be in favour of comfort or sin. This means hard times and telling people they're "living life wrong" angers them which leads to the breakdown of relationships. However, you don't have to hate everything about life. You can find joy and peace when there is time or reason. 11:00 ish "Blood Sacrifice": I'm not sure why Jesus would need to die on the cross in some metaphysical sense other than to exemplify what goodness truly means in a sinful world. You don't get to a good world by giving as good as you get. You gotta give more than you get and the epitome of this is giving everything (your life) and getting tortured for no good reason. 14:00 ish "No suffering as a man": This is I think where the video turns to worse arguments that hold very little water imo. Before this it was quite good from my perspective. He grew up, worked, teached, was tortured and then died. While he performed miracles sometimes the majority of what he did one can assume he did so as a man enduring the toils of his labour and his death was brutal and painful if you believe it happened. Enduring torture when you have done nothing wrong is not suffering? 14:50ish "You should stay dead": Why? Because death is permanent for everybody else? In Christianity most people believe you live forever anyway and death isn't the end. A death has happened after a supposedly sinless life. If anything resurrecting on earth is taking on a small amount more suffering than just going to exist in heaven again, no? 16:20ish "Trivial inconvenience": I haven't been crucified but it sure doesn't sound fun. Also what do you think God would be doing all the time everything exists? Live in absent minded bliss at how awesome he is? Something is maintaining the fabric of existence, doing work and observing what is happening if a God exists. It is observing everything we do, bearing the weight of the world literally and feeling what it would feel at injustices. The strongest points from my POV is why the need for a sacrifice at all? Why not just forgive people as you should have the power to right and maintain their form and spirit. Then also infinite punishment for finite crimes being a thing. the justification stated is that you are sinning against something perfect but that just doesn't sit right with me. God should be able to choose to do whatever it wants, it can fall on the side of mercy or judgement. Jesus' sacrifice is supposed to be the catalyst to allow salvation to any who truly believe in him in a way that make them repent and do good works, making God want to save them. But then, is he really all loving? Shouldn't he correct them in more concrete ways throughout life rather than making an example 2000 years ago that people will dismiss precisely for this reason? You can go into things like divine hiddenness/faith and why that might be beneficial rather than intellectually teaching everybody things. There is something there like how people wouldn't be very different or very excited about life if they knew everything, so faith may be required to live a good life without ruining people's wonder/awe/joy/individuality. However it feels like a cop out when you should want to correct and save everyone possible if you love them, so maybe giving other paths to salvation on an individual basis would be better. Allowing those without faith to lose some of that joy but in the end be saved.

My boy read Nietzsche once and then went bananas on UA-cam

I think you missed the story of what happened before the sin that was inherited in the garden of Eden, and confused it with what Ezekiel 18:20 is saying. Your interpretation of the Bible is different from mine.

There’s a common phrase, I’m sure you’ve heard, of standing in someone else’s shoes, or seeing from someone else’s perspective. Throughout the video you take the perspective of an outsider, which in fairness you are, in doing so you claim to see things as they really are. I think this is the exact wrong way to see things. Of course something doesn’t make sense from the outside, people on the outside bring assumptions and presuppositions that don’t conform to the assumptions and presuppositions of those on the inside and can distort what those on the inside see. If you look through a microscope you need to adjust the sight to see clearly. When evaluating a world view, one must first “adjust the sight” to see it how those on the inside see it. Only once the world view has come into focus and one accurately evaluate it.

I grew up atheist in a religious town so I didn't understand the logic of Christians around me. Interestingly every person I've ever met who left Christianity for atheism cites its abusive relationship to God. This was a popular angle in the late 2000s and it was closely interacting with the politics of gay marriage at the time.

Very interesting video. Your criticisms were pretty strong. This is why I like your videos so much Gavin, because you aren’t making the same kind of lame objections other UA-cam atheists use.

I interpret My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? as a revelation of nonexistence of transcedence. In the beginning, the realization that there is no transcendence can induce paralyzing anxiety, but in the end it can increase the feelings of responsibility and care towards others.

22:17 There's no contradiction since it's a character speaking about other characters, not necessarily the opinion of the author himself. Like when the villain Richard III is giving his opening Incel monologue it's definitely not Shakespeare's personal view on life. So it's ok to like Chaucer as an author.

20:48 She tore a page out his book? With books being expensive and rare as they were back then? A deafening smack upon the cheeck may be too good for her, says I.

Awesome video! loved it

Great video. Loved the conversation

Strauss is the right pick

Also, your interpretation is more interesting than her words

Symbolic significance may be better expressed as semiotics. With respect to the fact that your audience is undergrads, if they wanna read, dictionary is a fantastic start

I just started listening so I probably am having a wrong impression, but why are you starting this on BwO by resembling it to Foucault? Deleuze discusses how the subject is created differently from Foucault in his book on Foucault. Some secondary work on that say Deleuze pushed Foucault where he was going to go anyways if he didn't get sick and pass away. Others say Deleuze changed "subjectivation" completely. My point is, introducing BwO as "resembling" Foucault's is one of Deleuze's critiques of thinking in Difference and Repetition and situated in the introduction sort of gave me a "suspicion" of what to come next. It is probably a wrong first impression. I just thought, you might want to consider this in future videos. Thank you for your efforts in advance.

Honestly a lot of the issues with Freud and signification in his theories probably applies to medicalism in general and has large consequences for gender, body and disability politics hmmm

I have a degree in philosophy. One tip for especially challenging works is to write a sentence or so describing the purpose of each paragraph. I've occasionally done this for parts of Aristotle and it has been immensely helpful.

thank you very much more than much what is much a lot what is a lot it is a land an island of ideas that grows and grows like the rhizome thank you

Gavin, do you know if Semiotext(e) is still around?

what are your socials? how can we get in contact beyond youtube. great lecture as always

Alright. Holst is a decent pick. Stravinsky would’ve been better. Could’ve really cashed in on the edgy 13 yo Reddit atheist crowd. Missed opportunity.

I feel strongly a that a reading of schizoanalytic cartographies would benefit your journey. Guatarri is Dat dude

My contribution: pataphysics. Sèe: Alfred jarry and Antonin Arnaud

How dare you…. The choice of music here was sub par at best.

Beautiful

capitalism is perpetual war. terrorism is only a tactic. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. private property is illegitimate.

this is kind of messed up, man. i’m going to have to unsubscribe.

i dont get it why so called peace loving liberals worship such a creep as de Sade

Thank you.