Professor Hubert Dreyfus - “Dostoyevsky on how to Save the Sacred from Science”
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2015
- "In The Brothers Karamazov one of the monks tells Alyosha that "the science of this world has … analyzed everything divine handed down to us in the holy books. After this cruel analysis the learned of this world have nothing left of all that was sacred of old.” The Brothers Karamazov is Dostoyevsky's answer to the alleged loss of the sacred. There he quite explicitly interprets Christian practices such as baptism, confession, and even belief in miracles, so that they allow one to appreciate the sacred without having to deny the validity of modern science. He even makes clear in each case which specific sacred experience he is existentializing. As far as I know, no one has understood Dostoyevsky's profound accomplishment. I will present, discuss, and defend his view."
PROFESSOR HUBERT DREYFUS is an American philosopher and professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests include phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. Dreyfus is known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001 and is a recipient of the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching at UC Berkeley. Erasmus University awarded Dreyfus an honorary doctorate "for his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence, and for his equally outstanding contributions to the analysis and interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy".
The Humane Philosophy Project is an international initiative based at the Oxford and Warsaw Universities. Please visit www.humanephilosophy.com for further information.
RIP professor... I took a class at Berkeley with him- the professor would drive a 1969 dark Green VW Karmann Guia.
Dostoevsky saw the miracle in the Ordinary and the Sacred in the Extraordinary.
I believe Prof Dreyfus had to contend with dyslexia. His work is new to me, but it is already very important to me particularly because he could 'see' wider implications without too much respect for the borders between disciplines. I also enjoy his delight in his discovery and the way he helps us to discover. RIP Prof Dreyfus.
A wonderful lecture by a very fine man. Inspiring,
Nothing can touch the sacred. It remains sacred despite the modifications of our minds.
Bert's mission is to convince us to allow our minds to comprehend both the scientific and the sacred in one frame. He reads Dostoevsky much like a rabbi reads the Torah - each phrase is pregnant with some sublime meaning. No word or passage is unimportant in Dostoevsky's vision of sacred equations that tie theology to the ordinary, an insight found not by received authority, but in the actual muddy experience of daily life, that is, in Christian existentialism. His overall transect crosses Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard and Pascal. Read him.
Is the ideal outcome here that religion as such will disappear because humans will dedicate to science the same aspects of their being that they dedicated to religion?
@@bubabure My interpretation is that, in the future, truth as such will no longer be rigidly defined by science alone, therefore, there will no longer be contradictions between what has in the past been called 'religion' and that which is currently called 'science'.
The deepest truths of Christianity will no longer be rejected out of hand. The Prof. is suggesting that Dostoevsky was exploring the fact that the deepest truths of Christianity were in its practice, rather than in its metaphysics.
Therefore, in answer to your question; it is neither A or B, but rather C, an unseen path to most.
@@nickshelbourne4426 'In practise' that's exactly right, that's the grand inquisitor story. That's Jesus not replying with words or refutes but rather a kiss of which is enough even for the likes of the inquisitor to leave the door open.
@@nickshelbourne4426 the "deepest truths of Christianity" are not rejected out of hand, but because it's just yet another religion...
The ideal outcome is take the magic out of religion (as in violating the laws of physics) and assign its role as to cultivating connectedness through selflessness. That’s what gives our lives meaning.
Conversely, FD also warns us as to the dangers of science leading us into the opposite world: solipsism and nihilism.
Wonderful Professor Hubert Dreyfus as usual... Rest in Peace.
What happened?
Sadly I did not know about his death. Couple of weeks ago I decided to type his name and found out :( For the past ten years I have been listening from time to time his lectures. It was a pleasure. Thank you.
46:30 For anyone who finds this to be a somewhat unsatisfying answer to the neurons problem, the turning and walking away. I prefer this anecdote I'll paraphrase from James Gleick 'Chaos', on the discovery of fractal systems, Mandelbrot discovered the mathematics of fractal systems, systems of limitless complexity where organization is nested within organization forever downward and upward, somehow irreducibly yet reliably, and these mathematics went on to be applied to various sciences with great success. One night Mandelbrot awoke, startled, from a dream wherein he heard the booming voice of god (perhaps half laughing, half enthusiastically), "You know... there really was something to that 'Mandelbrot' "
Great insight! The Q and a ruins it!
When the teacher reads the best paper to the class
Alexey says, towards the end of the book that they must be kind to each other and to tell the truth. Dreyfus struggles at the end of the lecture to explain life after death and FD’s existentializing all the miracles in the bible.
When alexey says to the kids that there is life after death, I think he was being primarily kind. Truth comes after and is there as we grow out of the need for stories and myth.
This preserves the sacred memories for the kids. I would assume the never completed Book II would concern the maturation (or not) of the kids where they retain these memories fondly but are mature enough to handle the reality of there might not be life after death. But alexey gives them the experience of discovering Eternity in Time. That’s the real sacred. The experience of connectedness is experience Eternity in Time. To drop a bomb on the kids that that there’s no heaven would short-circuit their experience of the sacred.
Furthermore, Alexey is basically a kid himself. He’s also not necessarily the mouthpiece for FD’s personal viewpoint. He’s halfway through the journey FD was describing to us.
I would sell my father to slavery to watch him and Irwin Weil talk about the great Dostoyevsky!
same.
59:00 🤕 what?! That's not even, wait one minute. What?!
Eu tô aqui achando as pessoas certas
Eu, doméstica, pensando muito em como o jurídico vai exigir bastante
dreyfus the fire breather
The sacred will always be there, it is the unseen sublime denied by modern man but constantly revived by the sincerity of the faithful and the prophesies of the Bible.
What does that mean?
59:00 . The debate over the reserection of the flesh is older than the days of Rabbi Yeshua the Christ. Is that the same event called the "rapture" ?
Maybe? I was taught they were separate events but it's good to question what ones been taught. LoL
lets sum up our society in 2 words. cuteness and catastrophe.
I loved the book. I think Dostoevsky’s point is that the reductionists are wrong … we are not just tangled networks of neurons … we are not ants … the father acted that way … Rikitin acted that way … as though they were not free … as though they could never get beyond completely selfish behavior … and much of modern science tragically still denies that man can have freedom to choose … Smernikov and Ivan also intellectualized this way .. as did the scientist Bernard who had recently discovered neuronal tangles and was a reductionist … claiming that man is no more than that ..,, Elyosha (the hero) clearly despised this degrading paradigm. THE POINT IS THE SCIENTIFIC REDUCTIONISTS ARE WRONG AND THAT ALIYOSHA IS RIGHT … we are not ants. Our minds are more than neural computers. Much more. God grants us free choice … which transcends physics … and which makes moral choice the critical issue . The key then is TO ACT IN LOVING WAYS … TO ACT IN MORAL WAYS … as the children did when they rallied to be emotionally supportive of the dying Eliosha at the end of the book. THAT ACT OF LOVE IS WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED FOR ETERNITY …. BECAUSE … the soul of man is eternal ! … and the “memory” which God has for our actions is ETERNAL ! The SACRED is when man chooses to serve GOD … and a major way to serve God is by acting with kindness towards his fellow man. The “devil” is when man instead acts like an ant … in a selfish self-absorbed manner. It simply boils down to will man serve God by being kind to others … by loving … by being moral … by being just …. or will man like Rikitin act like a self-serving insect who is oblivious to our sacred obligation to God … and to one another. The “ eternity” I speak of above involves our souls and does not require physical resurrection
There can be two different languages...when science becomes witchcraft and religion perfected as science....I'm not talking about scientology or christian science I'm speaking about minipulation...and can be switched around...or agree to disagree with saudaces and pharaces.....
mans asked a terrible question. took up hella time as well smh
His analysis in 20:00 is wrong, wrong, wrong. I think the reason why Father Zossima stank and Ilusha did not stink is because Dostoyevsky was trying to make a statement about life and beyond. It could be a tacit and polite rebuttal of the catholic perception of sainthood.
Also, he got Alyosha’s loss of faith completely wrong. I think Dostoyevsky was trying to make a statement there that ‘…miracles don’t make faith, faith make miracles”. It was after Alyosha overcame his distress that he started to be a living manifestation of Father Zossima’s teachings. Alyosha the realist was transformed into Alyosha the believer of metaphysics.
+Kennedy Ifeh "Also, he got Alyosha’s loss of faith completely wrong. I think" there's the key right there. You think he got him wrong, he thinks he got him right. Unless you can somehow demonstrate conclusively why his interpretation is unfounded (that is, not based on any textual evidence) than he couldn't really have gotten him wrong, or at least, no one would ever know since we can't ask Dostoevsky, and even if we could there would always be the possibility that he would lie to us. His would be one interpretation, yours would be another. There's no such thing as the single correct interpretation of a text, there are just interpretations, more or less convincing.
That is the kind of academic nihilism the author himself dabbled with in his youth and completely turned against later in life, the time when he wrote his most famous books. Don't make a Christian conservative thinker like Dostoevsky into a liberal darling because you happen to think he is cool. That will make you stupid. I think this analysis of Dreyfus was shallow, the factual points he made were obvious, like he said, his "interpretation" was an uninteresting projection of his own school of thought, "phenomenology".
I agree with your point that there is a subtle hint of criticism of Catholicism, which is also seen not quite so subtly in Ivan's play, but there is clearly a critique of Orthodoxy as well. The monks are so obsessed with maintaining tradition, and everyone is so tied up with fantastical ideas of miracles, that they fail to see the real-life miracles that Zosima did.
It is clear in the novel that, if the Church followed Father Zosima and updated, it could prevent the spread of 'atheism', in the same way that if Alyosha had not spent all his time in the monastery then the killing of Mr Karamazov could have been prevented. The monks do not want any 'innovation' such as having elders in monasteries, which Dostoevsky ironically explains is a tradition dating back thousands of years.
It is also clear that Dostoevsky does not include any 'miracles' which break the laws of physics. Dostoevsky is presenting all of the missing pieces in the liberal materialist world view: he makes no claims which could be argued as false from the scientific perspective. It is a fact that in order for the novel to stay scientifically factual, there could be no inclusion of miracles. It is this which made this novel one of the greatest of the 20th century, rather than a rehashing of old Christian apologists.
The other commentator in this thread makes the mistake of seeing Dostoevsky as simply a Christian conservative: it is necessary to differentiate 'Dostoevskys' from other Christians. This is something that atheist liberals in the novel are unable to do. The true Christian conservatives do not want to change - they want the same systems. Some of the Christians, which seems to align with those who 'have' the Holy Spirit, are not so concerned about traditions, perhaps for this very reason.
Kennedy Ifeh that’s the wonderful thing about reading. Everyone digests it differently. Don’t think there can be a wrong or right. Just different interpretations.
@@hookedonafeeling100 How was Dostoevsky conservative for his time? And what academic nihilism?
A Jewish woman once asked me if I prayed in toilet...I said you can pray anyware in the name of God ...to get the thilth out of you.
What to come...is an invitation to a FEAST UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. Who are all kings and priests! Upon all the tribes of judah. Chose to sits in the LOWEST sits but others choose the highest sits! The least among all of the tribes of judah WILL BE GREAT IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Beloved many WORTHLESS MYSTERIES OF PRINCIPALITIES HAVE SHOWN, REVEALED, THOUGHT, AND PRINCIPALITIES WHO GOES AFTER FEELING THAT DON'T BRING REST BUT STRIFES UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. FATHER GOD ALMIGHTY OUR INNOCENTS YOUNGS SONS AND DAUGHTERS UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. FATHER GOD ALMIGHTY. THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS. It's about our innocents youngs sons and daughters father God ALMIGHTY! If the child can't be recognized. Father God will my beloved recognize my father God. 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. Who among can throw the 1st. stone? Beloved the SWORD it's place in its rightful place indeed. According to God's True Will. Resting upon 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. Can't separate these 2. YESHUA Jesus christ COMMANDED not to judge not yet ye be judge beloved. BUT me and you should be able to see. Able to see by the fruits. HOLY spirit out pouring upon all flesh. New LANGUAGE given. Beloved who among them can tell you? That the HOSTS of YESHUA Jesus never have child to mold. Obviously you have to give time to mold. But who deserves the time to mold? My professor nor anyone? Ask thy intent, based, foundation, and where your heart will be also. New LANGUAGE. What will a tree produces?
💦
I profoundly disagree with this perspective. In my opinion FD was asking how humanity can save itself from miserable fragmentation in a secular world. In Karamazov there is a big allegory with Fyodor and his sons; each an unbalanced fragment of the whole he represented. His murder IS the death of God and Karamazov a literary exploration of the results of it. The Sacred to Dostojevskij, represented by Alexei, is nothing but an empty, moralistic husk after the murder; just as futile as the intellectualism and self-indulgence you see in the other two brothers.
In The Idiot Dostojevskij broke apart the human psyche. In Karamazov he broke apart humanity. But it's the same thing, and the idea was not to save anything. It was to explore if it was possible reunite it, and thereby potentially make a new foundation for the individual and for human life in general. That was never just the Sacred before, and it can't be just that in the future. Just as it can't only be intellectualism of the kind we have running society now. You need all three parts at the same time for people and societies to be happy and balanced: the Beast, the Thinker and the Holy Man.
This is a year later and I dislike your name, but will engage in good faith lol. I'm not sure your and his argument are mutually exclusive, Alyosha is certainly the answer and part of the answer, but what's significant is he's the 'lesser' brother to Ivan in the eyes of the secular/academic/rational world. Dostoevsky's view is supremely Christian with love at the center (which I would also agree Dreyfus leans away from a bit), that Alyosha and Ivan can have these conversations where both are right (along with Dmitri strangely and supplementally) is maybe the true Christian vision that secular obsessions with logic have lost. Dostoevsky has been explicit about BK being a an attempt at representing the problem of suffering, and his solution is in Alyosha which rebounds to everyone. The absolute darkness of your vision I can't see supported by the text, though I'd agree with it's presence. Also the line between 'reunite' and 'save' seems the same rationalist issue Dostoevsky is railing against. The point is we are here and available to love and that's a miracle that triumphs/supports (in paradoxical deference) everything modern.
Yeah but I can't help but read Dostoyevsky as him struggling with all those three unreconcilable forces represented by three brothers. And after this huge struggle he just gives up and looks to children as an answer. Simple, meek, loving and lovable. Dostoyevsky for me kind of provides extremely excellent analysis of psyche or society, culture. Then instead of cheap solutions he redirects to children as he does in the Idiot where Myskin is child-like loving lovable Don Quixotian non-hero. He is not failing in providing the answer though, he recognizes all too well that cheap answers are not the way. Instead of quick and impulsive action (against which he warns in Demons) he brings attention to meekness (Gospel, of course). Unconditional commitment there as well as a reminiscence of Kierkegaard.
@58:30 Dostoyevsky here is telling you through Alyosha that the rapture is not meant to be literal, it should be spiritually interpreted. One's soul is always reborn whenever one turns from selfishness to generosity, from ignorance to knowledge. Alyosha laughs because this is obvious. Taking it literally is so absurd the believer is faced with no option other than to interpret the rapture spiritually, that's the point. You go for pancakes after to emphasise the absurdity of thinking the literal interpretation is sensible. There are no words to describe the spiritual, so a literal parable has to be constructed for the feeble minded. You speak the literal, and make it obvious it is absurd, that's what all the parables in religion are about. Only the clergy do not know it, or do not want their flock to know it, because they try to exercise power over the poor. The clergy, at least those seeking power, are always the most anti-religious.
laughing half-enthusiastic
На хера вам наш Достоевский? На что он вам, если вы всё равно хотите нас уничтожить? Его философия всё равно об обратном тому, чего вы все жаждете.
No worries, science will be abolished in 2020.
every philosophy professor should be forced to work for 10 years before they can teach philosophy.
Mark Zinan I'm a bit confused. Can you elaborate a little bit?
I knew you are going to shoot me but the world famous professor comes across as another of the 20,000 USA philosophy professors who spent their entire lives reading books and then discussing. And yes I am jealous but his lectures put me to sleep. So my point is, every philosophy professor needs to get out of the Ivory Tower and spend a decade working in the working world. Just to get another prospective. Professor Dreyfus followed the traditional role of PHD to Professor. Also how have any of these Philosophy professors had an impact outside of their philosophic academic world. The ones who made the impact are the Nietsches, and Dosky's, etc etc etc.
Mark Zinan,
The "working world" is still a bit vague. Do you mean something laborious, like reading? Or do you mean something easy and monotonous and boring, like welding? I ask as a welder and a reader. And, for your information, you communicate like someone who doesn't read. Is English your primary language? If not, please disregard the criticism. If so, please build your mind. You are the one lacking perspective. (Prospective is an adjective, by the way. You obviously meant to use the noun, which is spelled perspective.)
@Mark Zinan Nope.
Joe C. Well answered