Explaining "the one discourse" (for a commenter)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 жов 2024
- The commenter's name was "Jacob Stewart". Thanks, I appreciate the question, it was a good one. I thought the reply would work better as a video.
This was just a sort of off-the-cuff explanation of this thing I keep referencing. I hope I did not say anything that offends, since these were just my sincere thoughts. Feel free to comment your disagreements etc. (hopefully respectfully).
Appreciate everyone who shows up to watch these videos, and I apologize if I've been rude to anyone. My point is just to have honest discourses, that's it. I'm not trying to take over the world hehe
Can you give an example of how a comment can be perceived to undermine a universalising or totalising discourse (which I think is a better word for it than "one discourse", which sounds awkward grammatically in this context)?
what you are doing to me right now by saying "I think a better word for it", is trying to put me inside of a different discourse than the one I was having. You may not be aware of it but it experiences to the other as rude and depersonalizing
also, as far as examples go check my recent community post, in there i am undermining the discourse of "Place", the one that assumes to every object is an assigned place that experiences as independent of that object.
i gave your comment a like anyways, cause i appreciate that youre putting some thought into the topic. Some people would just get mad
the adage was “theology is the queen of the sciences and philosophy her handmaid”, now it's a swamp of heresies.
i think ive heard that quote, but I forget from where. is it even possible to trace back all those heresies to statements to then refute them one by one? after one is defeated already another has sprung up somewhere else. One thing I've been wondering is, when Jesus spoke in parables, did it have the function of the Pharisees not being able to perceive Him as speaking in their discourse. In that way it seems like a tactic of speaking truth that does not perceive as "truth"
@@Ryans_Science there are a few exceptions to the speaking in parables, of a certain special character, as in John 10:35-36 "If He called them gods, men to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be undone or annulled or broken), [if that is true] then do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and set apart for Himself and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" Amplified Bible
@@alexzickerinteresting. that verse was not one i was too familiar with, but the logic behind it is blowing my mind right now. I wonder what their answer was (i mean it seems like its revealing their discourse to be one of convenience and not of truth or logical consistency)
@@Ryans_Science Oh yes, convenience, the defence of the group, not truth. It's all very well explained by René Girard: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Scapegoat_mechanism
My brother has a small library of Girard's books but i've never looked at them firsthand, but my he has talked to me about Girard's concept of the scapegoat. Seemed like it would apply to alot of things