UA-cam recently demonetized us, which means our Patrons are absolutely vital for allowing us to continue putting out high-quality and consistent content. Please consider supporting us! www.patreon.com/Telosbound
I haven't believed for a couple of years now, but after having read a bit of Hegel, Richard Dien Winfield and seeing how logically fallacious our modern nihilism is, I am starting to feel called back to Christ. Pray for me.
Should have started with the wonderful clip of Matt Dillahunty trying to explain secular humanism then losing his poo seconds later when pressed by Andrew Wilson. Never do relativism kids!
@_Sloppyham God is the objective. Not just what he says; what he is. His IS the good in substance. And as creator, this underlies everything. And you believe in objective morality. Every moment, you live like you do. You just pretend not to so you can make yourself the standard of it.
I think calling moral relativism as “secular dogma” may be stretching it; a lot of secular philosophers are moral realists. Your point about irony poisoning in popular discourse is interesting.
Moral relativism could be conceived as a kind of moral realism, actually. Moral relativism is essentially the claim that moral properties do exist, but those properties are somehow culture-dependent, rather than universal.
Your work has heavily inspired me in the past, but with this video, I am on your exact wavelength. Ironic detachment and virtue signaling are the two common modes of (primarily terminally online) people in our anomic society where morality can now only be relative since all faiths have been debased to mere wills to power - according to most thinkers given social currency. I am very optimistic about the younger generations. We all desire sincerity, and we are beginning to deny a self-relational ontology, as this perspective only closes ourselves off from the trust and love of others, which is he basis of sincerity. Hopefully, we will all choose to follow Jesus Christ.
I agree with you yet I have some problem. Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem establishes that any formal axiomatic system capable of expressing basic arithmetic [thus, it needs to be strong enough and computably enumerable to express facts about natural numbers] is either incomplete (i.e., there are true statements in the system that cannot be proven within it: everything provable in it is a subset of what is true about it) or inconsistent (i.e., it proves contradictory statements.) The Second Incompleteness Theorem states that no such system can prove its own consistency or another system that proves the first to be consistent etc. There are always truths beyond what any formal system can capture. All formal systems rely on axioms that cannot themselves be proven within the system-they must be assumed. Any attempt to "step outside" a system to justify it leads to another system with its own limitations. Yet, Gödel believes that in God there are all truths, he was himself influenced by Leibniz and merely believes that human systems fail to capture "Truth" necessarily. There is an interesting theory that comes to mind when we connect both Gödel and Leibniz in terms of epistemology and metaphysics. Because a monad can be understood as a self-generated universe reflecting the same world as all other universes but from a unique point of view, and through divine energy the coherence of these universes to one world nested in infinite perspectives or micro-cosms is affirmed, we can say that each hypostases [= universe = monad] is a self-developed system that is dependend on God which, in its own [unique] way, depicts the same world in a limited way. And that is why Gödels theroms are true metaphysically: the world is a collection of inifnite many systems which uniquely (unreducable to each other) but incompletely reflect the same universe grounded in God. [Though I think that these systems are not completely self-generated but co-generated to avoid ontologically narcism.] Which is also, as I think, the strongest mathematical proof that shows the world is not just one hypostasis or truth but multiple: that humanity is not just an illusion and ... what's it called again ... pantheism is false.
24:00 At one point is its argued that relativism entails accepting every perspective as equiprobable, but in the other that it inevitably leads to conflict. But if every perspective is seen as purely equinamious in regards to each other, then what grounds are there to fight over given that it's accepted that there are no standards one is ultimately accountable to? Guess what, relativism is not even feasible, because, when brought to its limits, it leads, at best, to complete apathy. Competition and violence are only possible precisely because every worldview someone happens to hold onto is thought of as *transcendentally objective* i.e. "because what I believe in is true, everything incompatible with it is false, thus, underminable." To put it simply: we only fight over that which we believe is right but cant be agreed upon by someone else. How else would we be committed to a belief if not by having confidence in its verity? Even gay marriage is saturated with metaphysical ideas (inalienable rights)
@@_Sloppyham Both. If moral relativism was true, your very question would be rendered meaningless. For if moral relativism were true, Truth would no longer be an objective good. I would no longer have any commitments to knowing Truth or telling the Truth to anyone, including myself, and including you.
@ this is just silly and still (kinda sorta) arguing from consequences. I don’t know you, but most people like to believe they are rational people. And being rational is a identifiable action. If moral relativism is true, then it’s always been true. So even if it’s not some objective good, you would still have cared up to this point about being a rational person. But let’s say you don’t care anymore because you hypothetically believe in moral relativism…why should I care? This discussion was about truth claims and facts of reality. That’s what I care about here. If you no longer care about that, that’s your prerogative as an irrational person (in this hypothetical, of course). You not caring anymore has ZERO bearing on the truth, and so your comment is just irrelevant, man. To quote a particular man, facts don’t care about your feelings. So, we can continue the conversation and you actually answer some of my question because you care about being a rational person. Or we can stop because you don’t care about being a rational person (or you can also stop because nobody is owed a conversation, it’s perfectly fine to want to opt out. just to make that clear) Your call.
Hey man, really awesome of an atheist like you to acknowledge the spiritual bind we're in. Just want you to know that, if you ever feel like you're stuck feeling like there's nothing more out there but this world, just remember that your mind alone proves that's wrong. Everything that's in this world is real, your mind is in this world, so it's real too. Your mind is immaterial, so immaterial things do exist, for better or worse. Keep your eyes and mind open. Christ is Lord.
There was a point of religion and secular thinking had a good balance, we are seeing the negatives of being more stacked in the secular view. This is the pendulum of humanity. I hope the fall back to religiosity doesnt leave us like how it left the middle east after their secular colapse.
Secular thinking will always be void because they cannot posit a universal transcendence to the Human(including human values, human logic). The problem, though is where the religious view is encapsulated in an erroneous way. But what fixes improper religiosity is not secularity but proper religiosity.
Leaving the fact that I’m an atheist aside, I’ve only made it about five minutes into the video but why is your whole thesis or at least the foundation for your thesis hedged around the philosopher riedrich Nietzsche and his worldview? You have a compelling argument for something, you don’t need five minutes of prefacing to make that argument.
There are different levels of philosophical elaboration and he simply chose to make a more detailed and historical approach. The response to moral relativism is indirectly the response to postmodernism. The reason why the Nietzschean worldview is important is because it is a precursor to postmodernism. We believe that Christian morality is the only possibile way to have a morality. Please consider giving the "Sermon on the Mount", beginning from Matthew chapter 5 a read.
Hey Trey, it’s Link your Protestant mulatto friend here. I personally use a system of ethics called group consequentialism. Basically, I prioritize the well being and interests of my internal groups like my girlfriend, friends, family, ethnic group, and country above let’s say random people. Wondering what you think of this idea? Good? Bad? Neutral? Understandable?
There's nothing wrong in itself with prioritizing the people to whom you are obligated by duty because of your relationships. But, from what I know, group consequentialism has to do with more than priorities. Consequentialism broadly says what is ethical or good simply is what produces the greatest benefit or happiness for the greatest number of people. The first problem with this is that "benefit" is not clearly defined, so consequentialists can put forward whatever they intuit as the benchmark for what is beneficial (you said "interests", which if meant literally would just be a kind of subjective will to power). This is extremely bad and was connected to arguments during World War II that supported genocide, mass imprisonment, various war crimes, and acts of total war against innocent civilians including the atom bombs (because the supposedly beneficial consequences on a large number of people outweighed the harm done to a small number of people). Obviously this is very evil and renders consequentialism itself as a straight ahead "BAD" view for being so ambiguous. With group consequentialism, taking it how you have defined it (which differs somewhat from other definitions I see online), the biggest problem is that when to act in favor of someone outside your group is not clearly defined. What if acting for the good of those outside actually reduces or even reverses some of the benefits enjoyed by your group? Group consequentialism seems to preclude that as a valid choice, but in many cases it may actually be the most ethical choice (e.g. in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man should have stepped outside his family to care for the poor Lazarus). This means group consequentialism could also be "BAD", depending on how it is qualified. Whatever you mean by these terms, I'd recommend you distance yourself from the consequentialist label. Look into virtue ethics and start seeing your choice to prioritize the wellbeing of your groups not as a working principle or starting place but as a natural result of fulfilling your duty to these people - you have greater responsibility for those close to you, and so to act virtuously is to honor your responsibilities. But don't go beyond what you are responsible for in hoarding for your in group at the expense of those outside your group because you also have a general responsibility to love all humanity ("In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek nor slave nor free..."; "If you give a cup of water to the least of these...").
@ well obviously I believe in duty to protect as well which can include war if it comes to it. Conflict is a natural part of life. But I understand what you’re saying. So you’re recommending a tribalist virtue ethics.
@@lincolnhaldorsen5649 Tribalism is even worse as a term, haha! I'd suggest just sticking with virtue ethics and then working out on a case-by-case basis how your duties to your family, your friends, your community, and your nation would be best balanced by your duties to your neighbor. Tribalism as a concept implies an inherent disconnect from one's neighbor, or perhaps a blindness where one is unable or unwilling to engage with the needs and perspectives of people outside one's chosen in-group. That is not Christian, it is very much opposed to Christian approaches to ethics. We do have a responsibility to our neighbor, and tribalism is intrinsically oriented towards a "My people come first, so I won't consider their needs" mentality that minimizes or even willfully ignores our duty to our neighbor. In my opinion, it may not even be a good idea to focus so much on the idea of prioritizing yours and your people's interests in the first place. Just let the prioritization occur naturally as a result of being faithful to the relationships and responsibilities that you have, that should be enough in itself.
Consequentialism only describes HOW one forms a moral belief. It does NOT give grounding and reasons for that believe. Consequentialism may help you make decisions in a scenario where you have to choose between a family and a stranger, but it does not ground the reason why it is more moral for one to prefer their family to that of a stranger. This is why Consequentialism is fundamentally not a moral system. It lacks a meta-ethic. I am Eastern Orthodox, so I believe this is why we fundamentally need God, Scripture, and the lives of the Saints and Monks to model after. But I think there is nothing errant about your position by itself, as long as it's only taken to describe one function of your entire Christian ethic, instead of being taken as your whole ethical system. I think there are a plentitful of Scriptural evidence to support group consequentialis, just like how there are much Scriptural evidence for Deontology, Virtue ethics, and even something like the feminist ethics of Care. Christian ethics truly encompasses the Good from all the world's ethics. In Orthodox ethics, I would say that we actually take group consequentalism to a more logical conclusion. The reason why Orthodox communities are often *seen as* slightly more "closed off" but tight knit is precisely because of this ethic. Most traditional Christians would critique the more evangelical sects of Protestantism because they focus too much on out-group marketing rather than in-group community--the natural consequences of that is high rates of apostasy and rise in atheism. I think Orthodoxy takes the best balance between in-group fellowship and out-group evangelism.
Hey Trey, great video! I understand that for a created being to have an "objective perspective," it has to be given to him by entering into communion with God, who is not bounded by creation. I also understand the necessity of the incarnation and God assuming human nature for this communion to be possible. The saints enter into this communion, they can truly say, "I know the Truth." How do Christians know the Truth before this experience of meeting Christ face to face? Are we always going to have room to doubt until Christ gives Himself fully to us? I feel like Christians can often resort to emotional or rational appeal as to why what they know is true. I feel like we have to rely on trust, but we must already have some sense of what Truth is if we are able to recognize it in the saints.
God’s revelational has always been personal (incarnational), even in the OT, and even to the unillumined despite the latter’s inability to see. As Paul says in Romans 1, God’s “invisible attributes” (energies) have been perceptible throughout creation for all rational beings.
And yes, until we see Him face to face, I believe doubt is a threat that we have to wrestle with. Doubt is essentially the reversion of our mind/attention back towards finite created realities that we are seemingly “certain” of in their immediacy, while patience is the “hypostasis of things hoped for” according to Paul, a patience in which we allow the personal other to reveal themselves on their own terms. Our patience is not absolutely groundless, though, since we are acting on the basis of some revelation of God which we desire even more of.
Doubt is a recurring motif within Orthodox spirituality and there's a lot of good pieces of writing on it. Just like what telos said, it's something that we have to wrestle with, potentially until we depart this world and come face to face with Christ. Many of the saints struggled with doubt. Kallistos Ware probably has my favorite quote on the matter.-"Because faith is not logical certainty but a personal relationship, and because this personal relationship is as yet very incomplete in each of us and needs continually to develop further, it is by no means impossible for faith to coexist with doubt. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps there are some who by God's grace retain throughout their life the faith of a little child, enabling them to accept without question all that they have been taught. For most of those living in the West today, however, such an attitude is simply not possible. We have to make our own the cry, 'Lord , I believe : help my unbelief (Mark 9:24) . For very many of us this will remain our constant prayer right up to the very gates of death. Yet doubt does not in itself signify lack of faith. It may mean the opposite - that our faith is alive and growing. For faith implies not complacency but taking risks, not shutting ourselves off from the unknown but advancing boldly to meet it."
Some pretty sttange points you made here. The example with the king is strange since Christians often resisted various kings. If it is god who institutes kings as a reality hoe can we explain the change is social snd political relations and the dall of monarchies. Also if secular and atheistic regimes lead to violence how than to expalin that religious regimes where equally violent and caused wars
Belief in the “divine right of the king” (not necessarily in its developed late medieval form, mind you) is just the basic teaching of the New Testament. Paul says God instituted earthly authorities. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is his. Peter says to “honour the king” in his second epistle.
@telosbound sure but if kings rule by the divine right than how can they be overthrown, how can man change what was instituted by god. Also we know kings haven't existed since the beginning of time, does that mean god instituted ancient Greek democracy or the Roman republic. The problem is that the social world changes through time, you can't explain that change if you think any social form is divinely instituted. Also you are just wrong about national identity and similar phenomena, there are many explanations of those things in social science and philosophy. You are mixing up mental or psychological reality with "spiritual" reality.
Look up mao, Stalin, and Kim jong il. Materialist are by far the worst governments to ever exist. Haven't even been around half as long as theist but more murders than all of them combined. Don't claim religion is violent if u never ran the numbers. It's so one sided you'll laugh if u aren't coping. I was lied to about that too materialist being peaceful bit but now u know. They are much worse by every metric.
No. Objective morality is knowing something is God's will, whether or not you personally agree with it. I may personally believe I should be able to eat 40 moon pies, but according to divine revelation via Christ's Church, that's gluttony and a sin. To be objectively moral is to obey the divine standard set by your Maker, especially when it stands against your personal inclinations and opinions.
@KnoxEmDown No, your just talking yourself out of it, debating yourself isnt objective morality, either you can eat it or not, the only limit is your Ability to do so, thats objective, the reality of being able to or not being able to. Debating the standards set by other religions isnt objective morality, debating the standards set by other cultures isnt objective morality, so now, why would it be any diffrent then what you call god? Everyone is blind to their own god subjectivity, everyone is blind to the fact that their god is just a figment of imagination, but its easy to see it coming from someone Else. Also all this isnt my opinion btw, its actually objective according to my god :^)
@ The inverse of your comment also applies - that is, one wishing something to be false does not make it so. Distrust your own thoughts, Frog, as I struggle to with mine, for indeed they are not necessarily our own. Also, you ought to invest in a grammar checker, as your comments are poorly written, to say the least. It's hard to take you seriously when you write so badly.
You lost me in the first minute or so. Modernism is based on the enlightenment quest for objectivity. Also there are no objective ethics because all value judgements are subjective. What's right and wrong are fundamentally different questions than the atomic weight of oxygen or the speed of light in a vacuum or whatever.
"modern" in a more colloquial sense i.e. contemporary culture and presuppositions. Probably should've just used "postmodern" the whole time to be more consistent/clear.
@@telosbound The point is you still haven't really presented an argument for moral realism. As a moral anti-realist this video is philosophically weak.
@@telosbound Ok well then the question shifts away from figuring what is true and more to a question of "What is best for society?" or "what makes people feel good?".
@@joshuaparsons887 Which are universal by themselves. Nonetheless, should you refer to those which appear in the Old Testament, we are precisely speaking of a specific worldview.
😤 i don't have the energy rn message again tomorrow ill just leave you with this quote Hess as the head of the National Socialist party, stated: "The National. Socialist point of view is irreconcilable with the Christian.
@@Theo-c9x6h where was thou shalt be eugenicists in the bible? Also Hitler stopped going to church at 18 and had jihadis in his ranks. Please look into Hitler before posting single quotes from Wikipedia. It's so obvious you don't know anything about him. He tried to replace Jesus w himself. Is that what u consider christian or are u playing word games?
Even if Fascists would want to claim they are Christian, Christ's teachings are in direct opposition to the foundational principles of Fascism, meaning it would be paradoxical for them to claim to be followers of Christ as Fascists. It would be like Communists claiming to be Rothbardians (followers of the Anarcho-Capitalist philosopher).
only way to not be a sack of shit is simply to not force others to play a game "YOU personally happen to enjoy". pretty simple idea but this is why murder and war will never stop. The most important ideas are always beyond arguing.
UA-cam recently demonetized us, which means our Patrons are absolutely vital for allowing us to continue putting out high-quality and consistent content. Please consider supporting us! www.patreon.com/Telosbound
I haven't believed for a couple of years now, but after having read a bit of Hegel, Richard Dien Winfield and seeing how logically fallacious our modern nihilism is, I am starting to feel called back to Christ. Pray for me.
Praying for you David!
He is the Logos. Come and see the Divine Liturgy.
We preface every Gospel reading with: "Wisdom!"
Should have started with the wonderful clip of Matt Dillahunty trying to explain secular humanism then losing his poo seconds later when pressed by Andrew Wilson. Never do relativism kids!
Things change over time that's a fact
and the time he was trying to explain "I believe moral because monkey believe moral" to jordan peterson
@miguelatkinsonPeople can be wrong about what is right and wrong. It doesn't change, though situations can make principles to be applied differently.
@@toomanymarys7355can you please demonstrate this objective right and wrong in some way without invoking a personal, subjective mind?
@_Sloppyham God is the objective. Not just what he says; what he is. His IS the good in substance. And as creator, this underlies everything.
And you believe in objective morality. Every moment, you live like you do. You just pretend not to so you can make yourself the standard of it.
I think calling moral relativism as “secular dogma” may be stretching it; a lot of secular philosophers are moral realists.
Your point about irony poisoning in popular discourse is interesting.
Moral relativism could be conceived as a kind of moral realism, actually. Moral relativism is essentially the claim that moral properties do exist, but those properties are somehow culture-dependent, rather than universal.
@ I think that’s perspectivism or cultural relativism in the anthropological sense; not moral relativism.
I think of the morality of the Aquinas argument to tolerate prostitution.
@@TruSoleSeven Relativism is not exhausted by cultural relativism. Appraiser and Agent relativism for instance.
Atheistic moral realism is not a viable ethical position. Hume demonstrated that with the Is-Ought problem. Secularism inevitably leads to relativism.
It's just a bias, lack of support and laziness. It's easier to claim things like this especially when you restrict yourself to dialogue or proofs
Awesome lecture! Thank you! From an OO Copt
Nietzsche being considered a great thinker is a lie agreed upon lol
Great video! Thanks!
Your work has heavily inspired me in the past, but with this video, I am on your exact wavelength. Ironic detachment and virtue signaling are the two common modes of (primarily terminally online) people in our anomic society where morality can now only be relative since all faiths have been debased to mere wills to power - according to most thinkers given social currency. I am very optimistic about the younger generations. We all desire sincerity, and we are beginning to deny a self-relational ontology, as this perspective only closes ourselves off from the trust and love of others, which is he basis of sincerity. Hopefully, we will all choose to follow Jesus Christ.
Awesome stuff!
This is a very good video, bless your soul.
Another humbling video. This flies right over my head 😂
well explained, Christ is king
Were back
I'd be gretaly intrested in a video about Zizek's "incomplete subject".
Wow great explanation!
OK, I’ve just made it to an equals a. And I believe that will be called Circular reasoning, specifically as to how you got to that conclusion.
I agree with you yet I have some problem.
Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem establishes that any formal axiomatic system capable of expressing basic arithmetic [thus, it needs to be strong enough and computably enumerable to express facts about natural numbers] is either incomplete (i.e., there are true statements in the system that cannot be proven within it: everything provable in it is a subset of what is true about it) or inconsistent (i.e., it proves contradictory statements.) The Second Incompleteness Theorem states that no such system can prove its own consistency or another system that proves the first to be consistent etc.
There are always truths beyond what any formal system can capture. All formal systems rely on axioms that cannot themselves be proven within the system-they must be assumed. Any attempt to "step outside" a system to justify it leads to another system with its own limitations.
Yet, Gödel believes that in God there are all truths, he was himself influenced by Leibniz and merely believes that human systems fail to capture "Truth" necessarily. There is an interesting theory that comes to mind when we connect both Gödel and Leibniz in terms of epistemology and metaphysics. Because a monad can be understood as a self-generated universe reflecting the same world as all other universes but from a unique point of view, and through divine energy the coherence of these universes to one world nested in infinite perspectives or micro-cosms is affirmed, we can say that each hypostases [= universe = monad] is a self-developed system that is dependend on God which, in its own [unique] way, depicts the same world in a limited way. And that is why Gödels theroms are true metaphysically: the world is a collection of inifnite many systems which uniquely (unreducable to each other) but incompletely reflect the same universe grounded in God.
[Though I think that these systems are not completely self-generated but co-generated to avoid ontologically narcism.]
Which is also, as I think, the strongest mathematical proof that shows the world is not just one hypostasis or truth but multiple: that humanity is not just an illusion and ... what's it called again ... pantheism is false.
24:00 At one point is its argued that relativism entails accepting every perspective as equiprobable, but in the other that it inevitably leads to conflict. But if every perspective is seen as purely equinamious in regards to each other, then what grounds are there to fight over given that it's accepted that there are no standards one is ultimately accountable to? Guess what, relativism is not even feasible, because, when brought to its limits, it leads, at best, to complete apathy. Competition and violence are only possible precisely because every worldview someone happens to hold onto is thought of as *transcendentally objective* i.e. "because what I believe in is true, everything incompatible with it is false, thus, underminable." To put it simply: we only fight over that which we believe is right but cant be agreed upon by someone else. How else would we be committed to a belief if not by having confidence in its verity? Even gay marriage is saturated with metaphysical ideas (inalienable rights)
I think we agree. My whole thesis is that relativism is impossible but I realize I should’ve made that argument more clearly.
Are you saying moral relativism is not true or that you don’t like the consequences of it?
@@_Sloppyham bring me someone who's simultaneously indifferent to gay marriage and gays being thrown off buildings
@@_Sloppyham Both.
If moral relativism was true, your very question would be rendered meaningless.
For if moral relativism were true, Truth would no longer be an objective good.
I would no longer have any commitments to knowing Truth or telling the Truth to anyone, including myself, and including you.
@ this is just silly and still (kinda sorta) arguing from consequences. I don’t know you, but most people like to believe they are rational people. And being rational is a identifiable action. If moral relativism is true, then it’s always been true. So even if it’s not some objective good, you would still have cared up to this point about being a rational person. But let’s say you don’t care anymore because you hypothetically believe in moral relativism…why should I care? This discussion was about truth claims and facts of reality. That’s what I care about here. If you no longer care about that, that’s your prerogative as an irrational person (in this hypothetical, of course). You not caring anymore has ZERO bearing on the truth, and so your comment is just irrelevant, man. To quote a particular man, facts don’t care about your feelings.
So, we can continue the conversation and you actually answer some of my question because you care about being a rational person.
Or we can stop because you don’t care about being a rational person (or you can also stop because nobody is owed a conversation, it’s perfectly fine to want to opt out. just to make that clear) Your call.
What do you make of the idea of the fall of man and human evolution? Are they compatible?
No
Lore of The secular dogma of “moral relativism” and its consequences momentum 100
Hey man, really awesome of an atheist like you to acknowledge the spiritual bind we're in.
Just want you to know that, if you ever feel like you're stuck feeling like there's nothing more out there but this world, just remember that your mind alone proves that's wrong. Everything that's in this world is real, your mind is in this world, so it's real too. Your mind is immaterial, so immaterial things do exist, for better or worse.
Keep your eyes and mind open. Christ is Lord.
My mind is not immaterial.
@@laurensbaan3596yes it is.
I can’t tell if this is sarcastic considering he’s a Christian
@@jacobi-vision3249 Explain what it means for a mind to be immaterial. If it isn't material then what is it?
Telosbound isn't an atheist, huh?
There was a point of religion and secular thinking had a good balance, we are seeing the negatives of being more stacked in the secular view.
This is the pendulum of humanity. I hope the fall back to religiosity doesnt leave us like how it left the middle east after their secular colapse.
Secular thinking will always be void because they cannot posit a universal transcendence to the Human(including human values, human logic). The problem, though is where the religious view is encapsulated in an erroneous way. But what fixes improper religiosity is not secularity but proper religiosity.
Leaving the fact that I’m an atheist aside, I’ve only made it about five minutes into the video but why is your whole thesis or at least the foundation for your thesis hedged around the philosopher riedrich Nietzsche and his worldview? You have a compelling argument for something, you don’t need five minutes of prefacing to make that argument.
There are different levels of philosophical elaboration and he simply chose to make a more detailed and historical approach.
The response to moral relativism is indirectly the response to postmodernism. The reason why the Nietzschean worldview is important is because it is a precursor to postmodernism.
We believe that Christian morality is the only possibile way to have a morality. Please consider giving the "Sermon on the Mount", beginning from Matthew chapter 5 a read.
What's your ethnic background?
Pure Ugandan
@telosbound I was being serious lol.
@@truthshallsetyoufree-n8o romanian and filipino
@@telosbound You looked a bit like an east/south east asian guy tbh. Interesting combo. So you are half privileged half oppressed in Canada right lol?
Are you a philosophy major?
Yes
Hey Trey, it’s Link your Protestant mulatto friend here. I personally use a system of ethics called group consequentialism. Basically, I prioritize the well being and interests of my internal groups like my girlfriend, friends, family, ethnic group, and country above let’s say random people. Wondering what you think of this idea? Good? Bad? Neutral? Understandable?
There's nothing wrong in itself with prioritizing the people to whom you are obligated by duty because of your relationships. But, from what I know, group consequentialism has to do with more than priorities. Consequentialism broadly says what is ethical or good simply is what produces the greatest benefit or happiness for the greatest number of people. The first problem with this is that "benefit" is not clearly defined, so consequentialists can put forward whatever they intuit as the benchmark for what is beneficial (you said "interests", which if meant literally would just be a kind of subjective will to power). This is extremely bad and was connected to arguments during World War II that supported genocide, mass imprisonment, various war crimes, and acts of total war against innocent civilians including the atom bombs (because the supposedly beneficial consequences on a large number of people outweighed the harm done to a small number of people). Obviously this is very evil and renders consequentialism itself as a straight ahead "BAD" view for being so ambiguous.
With group consequentialism, taking it how you have defined it (which differs somewhat from other definitions I see online), the biggest problem is that when to act in favor of someone outside your group is not clearly defined. What if acting for the good of those outside actually reduces or even reverses some of the benefits enjoyed by your group? Group consequentialism seems to preclude that as a valid choice, but in many cases it may actually be the most ethical choice (e.g. in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man should have stepped outside his family to care for the poor Lazarus). This means group consequentialism could also be "BAD", depending on how it is qualified.
Whatever you mean by these terms, I'd recommend you distance yourself from the consequentialist label. Look into virtue ethics and start seeing your choice to prioritize the wellbeing of your groups not as a working principle or starting place but as a natural result of fulfilling your duty to these people - you have greater responsibility for those close to you, and so to act virtuously is to honor your responsibilities. But don't go beyond what you are responsible for in hoarding for your in group at the expense of those outside your group because you also have a general responsibility to love all humanity ("In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek nor slave nor free..."; "If you give a cup of water to the least of these...").
@ well obviously I believe in duty to protect as well which can include war if it comes to it. Conflict is a natural part of life. But I understand what you’re saying. So you’re recommending a tribalist virtue ethics.
@@lincolnhaldorsen5649 Tribalism is even worse as a term, haha! I'd suggest just sticking with virtue ethics and then working out on a case-by-case basis how your duties to your family, your friends, your community, and your nation would be best balanced by your duties to your neighbor. Tribalism as a concept implies an inherent disconnect from one's neighbor, or perhaps a blindness where one is unable or unwilling to engage with the needs and perspectives of people outside one's chosen in-group. That is not Christian, it is very much opposed to Christian approaches to ethics. We do have a responsibility to our neighbor, and tribalism is intrinsically oriented towards a "My people come first, so I won't consider their needs" mentality that minimizes or even willfully ignores our duty to our neighbor. In my opinion, it may not even be a good idea to focus so much on the idea of prioritizing yours and your people's interests in the first place. Just let the prioritization occur naturally as a result of being faithful to the relationships and responsibilities that you have, that should be enough in itself.
Consequentialism only describes HOW one forms a moral belief. It does NOT give grounding and reasons for that believe.
Consequentialism may help you make decisions in a scenario where you have to choose between a family and a stranger, but it does not ground the reason why it is more moral for one to prefer their family to that of a stranger.
This is why Consequentialism is fundamentally not a moral system. It lacks a meta-ethic.
I am Eastern Orthodox, so I believe this is why we fundamentally need God, Scripture, and the lives of the Saints and Monks to model after.
But I think there is nothing errant about your position by itself, as long as it's only taken to describe one function of your entire Christian ethic, instead of being taken as your whole ethical system. I think there are a plentitful of Scriptural evidence to support group consequentialis, just like how there are much Scriptural evidence for Deontology, Virtue ethics, and even something like the feminist ethics of Care. Christian ethics truly encompasses the Good from all the world's ethics.
In Orthodox ethics, I would say that we actually take group consequentalism to a more logical conclusion. The reason why Orthodox communities are often *seen as* slightly more "closed off" but tight knit is precisely because of this ethic. Most traditional Christians would critique the more evangelical sects of Protestantism because they focus too much on out-group marketing rather than in-group community--the natural consequences of that is high rates of apostasy and rise in atheism. I think Orthodoxy takes the best balance between in-group fellowship and out-group evangelism.
@ interesting so you would say Orthodoxy actually perfectly would complete my value system
Hey Trey, great video!
I understand that for a created being to have an "objective perspective," it has to be given to him by entering into communion with God, who is not bounded by creation. I also understand the necessity of the incarnation and God assuming human nature for this communion to be possible. The saints enter into this communion, they can truly say, "I know the Truth."
How do Christians know the Truth before this experience of meeting Christ face to face? Are we always going to have room to doubt until Christ gives Himself fully to us? I feel like Christians can often resort to emotional or rational appeal as to why what they know is true.
I feel like we have to rely on trust, but we must already have some sense of what Truth is if we are able to recognize it in the saints.
God’s revelational has always been personal (incarnational), even in the OT, and even to the unillumined despite the latter’s inability to see. As Paul says in Romans 1, God’s “invisible attributes” (energies) have been perceptible throughout creation for all rational beings.
And yes, until we see Him face to face, I believe doubt is a threat that we have to wrestle with. Doubt is essentially the reversion of our mind/attention back towards finite created realities that we are seemingly “certain” of in their immediacy, while patience is the “hypostasis of things hoped for” according to Paul, a patience in which we allow the personal other to reveal themselves on their own terms. Our patience is not absolutely groundless, though, since we are acting on the basis of some revelation of God which we desire even more of.
Doubt is a recurring motif within Orthodox spirituality and there's a lot of good pieces of writing on it. Just like what telos said, it's something that we have to wrestle with, potentially until we depart this world and come face to face with Christ. Many of the saints struggled with doubt. Kallistos Ware probably has my favorite quote on the matter.-"Because faith is not logical certainty but a personal relationship, and because this personal relationship is as yet very incomplete in each of us and needs continually to develop further, it is by no means impossible for faith to coexist with doubt. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps there are some who by God's grace retain throughout their life the faith of a little child, enabling them to accept without question all that they have been taught. For most of those living in the West today, however, such an attitude is simply not possible. We have to make our own the cry, 'Lord , I believe : help my unbelief (Mark 9:24) . For very many of us this will remain our constant prayer right up to the very gates of death. Yet doubt does not in itself signify lack of faith. It may mean the opposite - that our faith is alive and growing. For faith implies not complacency but taking risks, not shutting ourselves off from the unknown but advancing boldly to meet it."
@@SetItStrate what book is this quote from?
@@sorenotm2368 It's from The Orthodox Way, by Kallistos Ware.
do a vid on the nous
Commenting for algorithm
h
Some pretty sttange points you made here. The example with the king is strange since Christians often resisted various kings. If it is god who institutes kings as a reality hoe can we explain the change is social snd political relations and the dall of monarchies. Also if secular and atheistic regimes lead to violence how than to expalin that religious regimes where equally violent and caused wars
Belief in the “divine right of the king” (not necessarily in its developed late medieval form, mind you) is just the basic teaching of the New Testament.
Paul says God instituted earthly authorities. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is his. Peter says to “honour the king” in his second epistle.
@telosbound sure but if kings rule by the divine right than how can they be overthrown, how can man change what was instituted by god. Also we know kings haven't existed since the beginning of time, does that mean god instituted ancient Greek democracy or the Roman republic.
The problem is that the social world changes through time, you can't explain that change if you think any social form is divinely instituted. Also you are just wrong about national identity and similar phenomena, there are many explanations of those things in social science and philosophy. You are mixing up mental or psychological reality with "spiritual" reality.
Look up mao, Stalin, and Kim jong il. Materialist are by far the worst governments to ever exist. Haven't even been around half as long as theist but more murders than all of them combined. Don't claim religion is violent if u never ran the numbers. It's so one sided you'll laugh if u aren't coping. I was lied to about that too materialist being peaceful bit but now u know. They are much worse by every metric.
h
Jokes aside, very helpful video
Trancendence is a cope
Calling something a cope is itself a cope.
Perspectivism are just angels. He’s secretly claiming there’s only angels but no God. It’s like saying there’s no truth only my feelings and thoughts
Subjective morality is what i belive, objective morality is what i belive but say its actually god who belives it. Easy
No. Objective morality is knowing something is God's will, whether or not you personally agree with it.
I may personally believe I should be able to eat 40 moon pies, but according to divine revelation via Christ's Church, that's gluttony and a sin. To be objectively moral is to obey the divine standard set by your Maker, especially when it stands against your personal inclinations and opinions.
@KnoxEmDown No, your just talking yourself out of it, debating yourself isnt objective morality, either you can eat it or not, the only limit is your Ability to do so, thats objective, the reality of being able to or not being able to. Debating the standards set by other religions isnt objective morality, debating the standards set by other cultures isnt objective morality, so now, why would it be any diffrent then what you call god? Everyone is blind to their own god subjectivity, everyone is blind to the fact that their god is just a figment of imagination, but its easy to see it coming from someone Else.
Also all this isnt my opinion btw, its actually objective according to my god :^)
@ "The beginning of salvation is to distrust your own thoughts."
@@KnoxEmDown indeed, hence why one should be sceptical of religious claims, just because one wants something to be true does not make it so
@ The inverse of your comment also applies - that is, one wishing something to be false does not make it so. Distrust your own thoughts, Frog, as I struggle to with mine, for indeed they are not necessarily our own. Also, you ought to invest in a grammar checker, as your comments are poorly written, to say the least. It's hard to take you seriously when you write so badly.
You lost me in the first minute or so. Modernism is based on the enlightenment quest for objectivity.
Also there are no objective ethics because all value judgements are subjective. What's right and wrong are fundamentally different questions than the atomic weight of oxygen or the speed of light in a vacuum or whatever.
"modern" in a more colloquial sense i.e. contemporary culture and presuppositions. Probably should've just used "postmodern" the whole time to be more consistent/clear.
So basically what he said 😑
@@telosbound The point is you still haven't really presented an argument for moral realism. As a moral anti-realist this video is philosophically weak.
@ that’s not the point of the video. It’s just philosophical and cultural diagnosis of the consequences of moral relativism
@@telosbound Ok well then the question shifts away from figuring what is true and more to a question of "What is best for society?" or "what makes people feel good?".
Well, it is a fact that morality changes from time to time and from place to place.
That doesn't mean there is no objective morality however, it only shows we can choose not to abide by that morality.
@joshuaparsons887 What is the true morality then?
@oraetlabora1922 the commandments established by God
@joshuaparsons887 Which are universal. Nonetheless, those respond to a specific tradition should we look at them through the Jewish lens.
@@joshuaparsons887 Which are universal by themselves. Nonetheless, should you refer to those which appear in the Old Testament, we are precisely speaking of a specific worldview.
Fascism at least NatSocalism, was Christian.
😤 i don't have the energy rn message again tomorrow ill just leave you with this quote
Hess as the head of the National Socialist party, stated: "The National. Socialist point of view is irreconcilable with the Christian.
@nataliamundell6266 The party itself confesses itself to positive Christianity - 25 point program NSDAP
@@Theo-c9x6h where was thou shalt be eugenicists in the bible? Also Hitler stopped going to church at 18 and had jihadis in his ranks. Please look into Hitler before posting single quotes from Wikipedia. It's so obvious you don't know anything about him. He tried to replace Jesus w himself. Is that what u consider christian or are u playing word games?
Even if Fascists would want to claim they are Christian, Christ's teachings are in direct opposition to the foundational principles of Fascism, meaning it would be paradoxical for them to claim to be followers of Christ as Fascists. It would be like Communists claiming to be Rothbardians (followers of the Anarcho-Capitalist philosopher).
It really wasn't. Like at all.
only way to not be a sack of shit is simply to not force others to play a game "YOU personally happen to enjoy". pretty simple idea but this is why murder and war will never stop. The most important ideas are always beyond arguing.