It seems that Zizek and Peterson were meant to come together. Zizek’s/Chesterton’s view has profoundly touched me. Zizek is incredible. And I have never seen Peterson struck so profoundly in an instant. And then Peterson articulates it so well. This is beautiful. I know exactly what they are talking about. Thanks for posting this.
Chesterton is amazing I discovered him about 20 years ago. I was always a sci-fi/fantasy reader and Chesterton was the first nonfiction that I read that I "fell into" like a fiction book. He is not only extremely profound, but such a beautiful writer. Another fun fact, from what I have read, Chesterton dictated his books in long spontaneous orations to his secretary, who wrote it down.
@@kyleoliva2411 I've only ever read his quotes, and I thought many of them were absolutely brilliant. I've been meaning to read some of his books, any recommendations on which one to start first?
@@remotefaith Orthodoxy. its only about 160 pages but its DENSE and will keep you occupied for a few months. it will make you cry, and make you laugh, and make you read and re read the same passage a dozen times. but its his best work
If you'e interested, Biblical text reference. When Christ on the cross says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me..." (they could have done deeper research) it is not a cry of abandonment, it's a reference to Psalm 22, which sheds a whole new light on Christ's point of view. A little Hebrew tradition there - reference the first line, it tells the whole story. This may have been one of the earliest recorded hidden pop culture references. The Hebrews, knowing the texts, would've gotten it while the Romans didn't.
Isn't that a subjective interpretation of what was said? From what i gather this moment is often a point of contention within people of the faith. That being said, you should state it as such. Your interpretation rather than fact.
"Back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist." G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
That was my thought exactly. This is supposedly two of the greatest minds in the world today and they don't understand the Gospels, or the relationship of the old testament and the new, but they have no problem quoting from them. The Jews certainly would have understood the significance of the words Jesus was quoting from the beginning of Psalm 22. A close reading of that Psalm describes exactly what was happening to Jesus at that very moment. Reading further, it illustrates the hope that Jesus was was trying to convey to the Jews and of course, all of us. It's as if someone today simply said the words "nine-eleven". We would all instantly know what that meant without any further explanation of the events that took place.
Religious Jews like the Pharisees and scribes were called to memorise Scripture. Their scriptures were not numbered and versed like those conveniently provided in our Bible translations of those same Hebrew scriptures. They would memorise first lines in order to help memorise the whole verse...When given the first line of a poem or song that we know we tend to continue it either vocally or mentally. They would know Psalm 22 off by heart. it starts; 'My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me ?' Thus He started in their minds the recital of said 'Psalm 22'. As they get to 22:11-22 they are seeing the ancient scripture going through their minds occurring right in front of their eyes !! Read the account or the crucifixion in the Gospels and you will see. Jesus knew scripture. this is what He was doing !
The book Slavoj Zizek mentioned is called Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton. Since it's old enough to be in the public domain, you can find a pdf of it online with a quick Google search.
Chesterton is amazing I discovered him about 20 years ago. I was always a sci-fi/fantasy reader and Chesterton was the first nonfiction that I read that I "fell into" like a fiction book. He is not only extremely profound, but such a beautiful writer. Another fun fact, from what I have read, Chesterton dictated his book in long spontaneous orations to his secretary who wrote it down.
(4 years later) "Let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist" (p. 145).
Back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
When I listened the Jordan's answer, this got me as an fucking earthquake. His skill in to describe such type of subject (The Passion of Christ) exploring the archetype's approach forced me to watch Jesus in a perspective that I felt really ashamed for someday said something bad or childish about Him. 🥺
did peterson actually the radicality of zizeks view of the crucifix coz in that last statement it seems as though peterson shoves in traditional understanding , what zizek meant was that god himself has killed himself from that transcendental up guy and transposed himself into a metaphysical being thats between two humans in spirit.
In my opinion; An pearl of impartiality criticism? Also uncommon but existentially not impossible in atheists? Observation; I was an atheist that didn't agree with the majority of "new intellectual unconcerned atheists", but still respect very much the high atheist profiles! It's most advantageous to learn the possible from atheists, for me ultra-conservative Catholic, also free and at no cost(!), from the possible reinterpretation of their belief system.
@@abhiroopdas3232 yeah you gotta be down bad to know god exists and not worship him. You don’t understand god if you compare it to yourself and an ant...
Was it to comfort? The interpretation I get is that he quoted this line in Psalms 22 to prove to the Jewish scholars present that he was indeed the Messiah fullfilling this prophecy. He was addressing the very men who thought they would get rid of Jesus by sending him to death, by showing them their actions were actually proving Jesus right. Quoting the Psalms was a message that only these Jewish scholars could understand immediately, and likely humbled them after they realized what they just did, while the "dogs" (Roman soldiers) piercing him and people despising him just saw the expected suffering of a normal human.
Think its more powerful of the interpretation that he felt abandoned. That even Jesus had his doubts, even though he knew everything would be ok and he would rise again, the son of god himself questioning his faith of his father, is a much more powerful message to Christians struggling with faith than “Oh he was just making a reference.”
why not? isn't that the point of the Incarnation? isn't that what the atonement is? to quote Athanasius, "God became a man so that men could become gods." Jesus was man. to deny that is a Christological heresy.
@@maxonmendel5757 Sounds like polytheistic nonsense garbed in philosophy. Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani? is a very human expression, it is not representative of Divine Speech. Does God really doubt His existence? This has got to be one of the most delusional notions entertained. Athanasius sounds like a Greek pagan Neoplatonist not an Abrahamic monotheist. Yes, Jesus(as) was a man, not God. To believe otherwise is violation of Abrahamic monotheism.
You have a lot to learn if you think the abrahamic God cannot enter creation. ua-cam.com/video/yKoz9fY83RQ/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared www.youtube.com/@Bei-Abedan
It seems that Zizek and Peterson were meant to come together. Zizek’s/Chesterton’s view has profoundly touched me. Zizek is incredible. And I have never seen Peterson struck so profoundly in an instant. And then Peterson articulates it so well. This is beautiful. I know exactly what they are talking about. Thanks for posting this.
well said
Chesterton is amazing I discovered him about 20 years ago. I was always a sci-fi/fantasy reader and Chesterton was the first nonfiction that I read that I "fell into" like a fiction book. He is not only extremely profound, but such a beautiful writer. Another fun fact, from what I have read, Chesterton dictated his books in long spontaneous orations to his secretary, who wrote it down.
@@kyleoliva2411 I've only ever read his quotes, and I thought many of them were absolutely brilliant. I've been meaning to read some of his books, any recommendations on which one to start first?
@@Gallowglass7 Depends, are you religious?
@@Gallowglass7 Orthodoxy is incredible.
Thank you so much for putting this part up. This was my favorite part of the discussion
same
best thing here is Chesterton getting some credits..Thnx Slavoj...GK Chesterton is the greatest intellectual of 20th century, hidden gem for so many
Where to start with him?
@@remotefaith Orthodoxy. its only about 160 pages but its DENSE and will keep you occupied for a few months. it will make you cry, and make you laugh, and make you read and re read the same passage a dozen times. but its his best work
Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man.
I would start with his short essays.
People will keep talkilng about this debate for years and years to come...what an amazing creatures..
If you'e interested, Biblical text reference. When Christ on the cross says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me..." (they could have done deeper research) it is not a cry of abandonment, it's a reference to Psalm 22, which sheds a whole new light on Christ's point of view. A little Hebrew tradition there - reference the first line, it tells the whole story. This may have been one of the earliest recorded hidden pop culture references. The Hebrews, knowing the texts, would've gotten it while the Romans didn't.
Isn't that a subjective interpretation of what was said? From what i gather this moment is often a point of contention within people of the faith. That being said, you should state it as such. Your interpretation rather than fact.
Interesting 🤔
"Back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."
G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
so what ur saying is right before jesus died he decided to make a meme?
That was my thought exactly. This is supposedly two of the greatest minds in the world today and they don't understand the Gospels, or the relationship of the old testament and the new, but they have no problem quoting from them. The Jews certainly would have understood the significance of the words Jesus was quoting from the beginning of Psalm 22. A close reading of that Psalm describes exactly what was happening to Jesus at that very moment. Reading further, it illustrates the hope that Jesus was was trying to convey to the Jews and of course, all of us. It's as if someone today simply said the words "nine-eleven". We would all instantly know what that meant without any further explanation of the events that took place.
on 1:29 zizek mentions name of a book, but I can't hear. Can anyone tell me?
It's Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.
Since it's old enough to be in the public domain, you can find a pdf of it online with a quick Google search.
Religious Jews like the Pharisees and scribes were called to memorise Scripture. Their scriptures were not numbered and versed like those conveniently provided in our Bible translations of those same Hebrew scriptures. They would memorise first lines in order to help memorise the whole verse...When given the first line of a poem or song that we know we tend to continue it either vocally or mentally. They would know Psalm 22 off by heart. it starts; 'My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me ?' Thus He started in their minds the recital of said 'Psalm 22'. As they get to 22:11-22 they are seeing the ancient scripture going through their minds occurring right in front of their eyes !! Read the account or the crucifixion in the Gospels and you will see. Jesus knew scripture. this is what He was doing !
JP would love Orthodoxy. He needs to read it.
The gnostic texts too
@@CausticSpace what gnostic texts?
Chesterton was a Catholic.
He literally reads precisely Orthodoxy.
Can anybody source the Chesterton original thought? Thank you in advance.
The book Slavoj Zizek mentioned is called Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.
Since it's old enough to be in the public domain, you can find a pdf of it online with a quick Google search.
Chesterton is amazing I discovered him about 20 years ago. I was always a sci-fi/fantasy reader and Chesterton was the first nonfiction that I read that I "fell into" like a fiction book. He is not only extremely profound, but such a beautiful writer. Another fun fact, from what I have read, Chesterton dictated his book in long spontaneous orations to his secretary who wrote it down.
(4 years later)
"Let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist" (p. 145).
@@ForeverYin Thank you for the reply! What a fascinating quote.
What was the title of the book he referenced that thought from?
The book Slavoj Zizek mentioned is called Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton
Back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.
G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
@@emmashalliker6862 God bless you. I would only ask also for chapter and page. but you are great. thank you.
When I listened the Jordan's answer, this got me as an fucking earthquake. His skill in to describe such type of subject (The Passion of Christ) exploring the archetype's approach forced me to watch Jesus in a perspective that I felt really ashamed for someday said something bad or childish about Him. 🥺
Same
Not Zizek vs Peterson. Zizek AND Peterson.
Thanks for the correction. I've updated the title!
love the input
Great perspective. 👏👏👏👏
did peterson actually the radicality of zizeks view of the crucifix coz in that last statement it seems as though peterson shoves in traditional understanding , what zizek meant was that god himself has killed himself from that transcendental up guy and transposed himself into a metaphysical being thats between two humans in spirit.
In my opinion; An pearl of impartiality criticism? Also uncommon but existentially not impossible in atheists?
Observation; I was an atheist that didn't agree with the majority of "new intellectual unconcerned atheists", but still respect very much the high atheist profiles! It's most advantageous to learn the possible from atheists, for me ultra-conservative Catholic, also free and at no cost(!), from the possible reinterpretation of their belief system.
it'd have been nice if Peterson stopped to understand what Zizek said.
I need close caption 😂
Can anyone tell me name of book zizek said because i couldn't understand it.
The book Slavoj Zizek mentioned is called Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton
.
I once had a friend with the same mannerisms has Zizek. He was a coke addict too.
What a completely complex idea, may be if consider he was just a human prophet will solve it.
Seems like a character straight out of South Park
I don't like how God suddenly is referenced as if he is just a human like all of us.
Jesus is fully human and fully divine.
@@abhiroopdas3232 Sounds like he isn't.
@@abhiroopdas3232 your loss mateington lol
@@MrNinjaFish more like his W.
@@abhiroopdas3232 yeah you gotta be down bad to know god exists and not worship him. You don’t understand god if you compare it to yourself and an ant...
Jesus didn’t say “God why have you Forsaken me” because he felt abandoned. He was quoting ‘Psalms 22’ to comfort those beneath him watching him die.
That doesn't make any sense.
@@lockedin6699 It does, read the whole Psalm
Was it to comfort? The interpretation I get is that he quoted this line in Psalms 22 to prove to the Jewish scholars present that he was indeed the Messiah fullfilling this prophecy. He was addressing the very men who thought they would get rid of Jesus by sending him to death, by showing them their actions were actually proving Jesus right. Quoting the Psalms was a message that only these Jewish scholars could understand immediately, and likely humbled them after they realized what they just did, while the "dogs" (Roman soldiers) piercing him and people despising him just saw the expected suffering of a normal human.
Think its more powerful of the interpretation that he felt abandoned. That even Jesus had his doubts, even though he knew everything would be ok and he would rise again, the son of god himself questioning his faith of his father, is a much more powerful message to Christians struggling with faith than “Oh he was just making a reference.”
im gonna trust the church fathers and the philosophy PhD on this one
Beware of Anthropomorphism. God is not human.
why not? isn't that the point of the Incarnation? isn't that what the atonement is?
to quote Athanasius, "God became a man so that men could become gods."
Jesus was man. to deny that is a Christological heresy.
@@maxonmendel5757 Sounds like polytheistic nonsense garbed in philosophy. Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani? is a very human expression, it is not representative of Divine Speech. Does God really doubt His existence? This has got to be one of the most delusional notions entertained. Athanasius sounds like a Greek pagan Neoplatonist not an Abrahamic monotheist. Yes, Jesus(as) was a man, not God. To believe otherwise is violation of Abrahamic monotheism.
You have a lot to learn if you think the abrahamic God cannot enter creation.
ua-cam.com/video/yKoz9fY83RQ/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
www.youtube.com/@Bei-Abedan
When 2 word salad makers meet...