Haz is actually cool and big brained despite all the memes and goofyness surrounding him. And even though I converted from atheism to EO and moved away from marxism in many regards, I still like him and watch him sometimes. It's really cool to see this video happen considering my own views/progression. Looking forward to watching this!
As a sympathizer to Marxism and a Christian, I’ve felt the connection between them, but never could find a way to think or articulate it. You’ve provided that in a way that makes sense. Thank you.
Very intriguing observations. A few responses: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries there emerged a movement known as British Idealism. I think this group complicates the picture of 'Anglo-saxon metaphysics'. The British Idealists have been almost forgotten by modernity (except for a few analytic arguments such as Bradley's Regress and McTaggart's analysis of time) and their metaphysical approach to philosophy has fallen by the wayside as analytic philosophy discarded that approach. I think that McTaggart in particular should be re-examined as materialism is being understood by more and more as inadequate. // When you said 'God is ultimate otherness' that made me smile. I often get into discussions with non-dualists and sometimes use that phrase as a point of discussion. // I think there are difficulties with Marxism beyond what you mentioned; e.g. its materialism, historicism, and economic reductionism. But it's always good to reconsider a view that has had such huge historical impact. // Thanks for posting this.
Read hegel and the hermetic tradition by Glenn Magee. The counter enlightenment happened after the catholic reaction to the enlightenment via Rousseau and Hegel and Marx flipping hegel on his head. And now we have actualized realities....that are false.
Impressive. As an Orthodox Christian it's not I think there for I am but we commune there for we are. I am a Father because I have a son.. I am a son because I have a mother. I find my person-hood in the other. I am a live because we have the Holy life giving Holy Trinity. I am who I am in the reflection of the other. Very cool
a lot of philosophers are gnostics, the more you read them you realize this they also often copy each other's homework. many when talking about physics because they copy each other end up making Aether theories no cap. God as a substance, god as your mind, god as the universe, etc. But never God as he was intended in the Abrahamic tradition. The funny thing is that even still the Abrahamic god that made us in his image makes more sense than the god philosophers have come with. The heretic virus of Gnosticism has infected philosophy & Academia for a loooong time.
@@miguelatkinsonNah it's like the iq bell curve meme you start thinking it makes sense then you think deeper and realize it doesn't make sense (midwit, athiest, new ager, satanist) then you come back and realize the one true God Jesus Christ is all that makes sense.
@@crater35 I am not exactly sure how true of analogy that is but I don't think most people would wind up looking believing the christian god to be" the one true god"
People have to understand that twitch debates are the political equivalent to Pro Wrestling matches, it's all just for publicity that gives publicity to the debaters AND online political sphere as a whole. The only subject matter worth listening to is when the camera is focused on a single person, pouring out ideas which agitate your mind into conclusions of agreement or disagreement
As I understand it, each Person of the Trinity is not actually wholly other from each other. As I recall, they are consubstantial. I actually agree with the idea that reality is a relational interconnected whole and we are not disconnected atoms. What I thought is less agreeable are some of the arguments used to support it. Towards the end, you mentioned that there must be a first giver and said giver cannot give what it does not have, therefore communion must exist within the first giver. One problem I have with this is that this leads to an infinite regress. If communion exists within the first giver, and as you yourself have said must have distinction, then where does the communion for those distinct Persons come from? Additionally, it doesn't quite follow that the first giver cannot give what it doesn't have, therefore it must have communion inside itself. Take for example the universal of red-ness. It can give the colour of red to its particular instantiations, yet we wouldn't say that red-ness itself possesses the colour red. It is rather the source of all instantiations of red-ness. I could quite conceivably say that this "first giver" of yours is simply Communion itself (so the relation of communion itself). Therefore, it itself doesn't possess communion, because being in communion involves possession of Communion itself. Yet Communion itself is just... Communion itself. You also made the argument that knowing involves knowing something other than yourself. I don't think this quite follows. It seems quite conceivable to me that you can indeed know about yourself. Self-reflection exists. However, even with this, you can still argue for the relational nature of reality. Plotinus IMHO does it quite elegantly by simply pointing out that the very act of knowing involves a logical distinction between the knowing subject and the known object. In other words, the knower enters into a relation with the known.
I’m so glad I found this channel! You opened my eyes! I’m very new to Christianity in general. But I have a question: Can the communal God be something other than or beyond the Trinity that well or even better serve the purpose of grounding the necessity of community? If so, does that mean we can devise new theological principles to accommodate the communal agenda?
I believe the Bible and God already laid the grounds for principles and laws. All we have to do is have a government and the people willing to have the nation be as close as possible to his way.
Human beings can only express themselves through behaviour. We have no privileged access to another person’s consciousness. This is the basis of deception and secret-keeping. Even when you look into the eyes of your wife, you will see a barrier that is insurmountable, in that you will never really know exactly what she feels and thinks; and you will never fully be able to commune with her. It is therefore conceivable that all others are just automatons with no internal experience. Also, we dream. Dreams are experiences in which we see things, and truly believe they’re real, when they’re not. It is therefore conceivable that all of our waking experiences are like dreams, and that we perceive only falsehoods. Saying “but Descartes ate” isn’t a counterexample.
Even if we were able to read minds, we could never know if our mind readings are accurate. Our senses lie to us all the time. Hell, there instances of senses lying so much that it contradict reality others experience (Talking about hallucinations.). We can never even know if other people are sentient (Hopefully they are because the idea of we being someone completely alone is horrific.).
Have you read Giovanni Gentile? He has a very interesting perspective on the monistic cogito, differentiated from standard Christian ontology despite his self still being Christian; his conception of God is sort of like the Islamic 'superordinate one', but technically not the same (and as such, it bypasses your critique. For what it's worth though, even though I disagree with you, I do think your critique is quite novel/clever. You are certainly intelligent.).
I like your speech, but you have not said anything of the place that God has in the thought of Descartes. For some, the Cartesian recourse to God is merely a rethorical strategy either to give a superflous theological legitimacy to its intuitive self-certainties and mathematical truths or to conjure the corrosive power of malign genius. But there are other who have taken seriously his appeal to God. The truth is that when Descartes talks about the idea of perfection and he notices that this idea couldn't have been made by himself, he's breaking that self-relating enclosure and acknowleding someone/something bigger than himself that, notwithstanding, indwells or leaves a trace in him. I know that, for this reason, Augusto Del Noce has seen Descartes as the emblem of another kind of modernity, distinct from that immanentist which has prevailed, because here you have a subject which is open to trascendence. And to that of Descartes, Del Noce adds the name of Malebranche, Vico, Vincenzo Gioberti and Antonio Rosmini, who followed the same line. It is not by chance that Levinas, a thinker completely committed to replacing ontology, understood as that logic of self-enclosure and alienating objectification, with a thought (ethics) that is truly open to otherness and gives it the primacy it deserves, had great sympathy for this passage from Descartes in which the cogito is as if pregnant with a cogitatum greater than itself, bearing a trace of the Infinite while being a finite creature. I simply wanted to add these comments to enrich the discussion if possible. In any case, I love your channel and admire your sensitivity and your intelligence.
You should read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Shows how marxism is about self creation as the Creator is contingent upon the created. At one ment where the Maker cannot exist without the thing created. For wothout that which is created there is no creator.
Descartes is still right. There's nothing we can be certain about other than the existence of our own sentient. We see the world through our senses, theses senses could lie to us. We can never truly know how accurate our senses are. Also, pretty sure he's not remotely saying that things cannot exist outside of himself. He probably did and does assume that things exist outside of himself just like we all do. But he is 100% correct in saying that this assumption can never be proven to be true. "But you can't have certainty only if you define certainty as synonymous with self-relation what can be enclosed within the mind" Certainty has a fairly clear cut definition. You are just defining it in a way such that agreements between people is synonymous with certainity. In buddhism there are two forms of faith, one is the faith in a method to find the truth, the other is the faith in thing to be true itself. Pretty much everything in abrahamic religions are built on the latter form of faith. You just assume assume in god with little to no rational. Also, you say truth cannot exist without commune but it does even with within christianity. The god is not communal (Three people who share the same brain isn't a communal btw). The god has all truths within himself. Also the whole statement about how in order for relationship to occur there need to be some superior being without any relationship is the wildest and most pseudo intellectual claim I heard. Relationships are just like every experience a side effect of our brain. It not some magical concept that need another being to create. "How can the first relation give something it does not have ?" God is all powerful. How this is even a question ?
@@sw3783 are you using solipsism to refer to the philosophy or the adjective of being selfish ? I found no reasonable criticisms for the idea that we can only be certain of our mind itself existing. What are the criticism of this idea outside of idiotic criticisms like "well, Descartes still has to eat" ?
@@sw3783 Are you genuinely misreading the argument or are you trying to miss the argument to troll ? The argument Descartes made and I am making isn't that everyone or everything outside the mind doesn't exist but rather it is impossible to be certain of their existence. Obviously any person who experience this reality whether it is true or not have to make some core assumptions and one of them is that this reality actually exists and our senses aren't fully lying. An assumptions everyone who make on the internet is that the user who they talk to isn't bot. You might be a bot but I am gonna assume otherwise. What descartes is saying is such a simple and self evident idea that most people can and will understand it and see it as reasonable. People like haz and this youtuber has gone to the deep end of philosophy and philosophical jargon that they forgotten the basic facts of our situation, That we truly cannot know. Whether you find that to be depressing or contradictory to other philosophies you have is irrelevant.
@@sw3783 I don't care what type question you are trying to present, you certainly misrepresented my position and I can call that out. "Let's start with identifying paradoxes. Your statement, "we truly cannot know," suggests both knowing and not knowing simultaneously, which is logically contradictory." No it doesn't. Again, this is just going to the deep end of philosophy to debunk very clear cut things. "We truly cannot know" specifically talks about things outside the mind. You cannot know for certain what's happening outside of the mind but you can know that you don't know. It isn't contradictory. Mill's argument from analogy makes far too many assumptions to be reliable (That similiar behavior means they are sentient and our senses aren't lying). I don't really see the relevance of "to be is to be perceived" because It's just moving the goal post. I am arguing that you can't know for certain about reality outside the mind and your come back for it is that reality is the mind. I don't see the relevance regarding no private language argument either. For anatta, the argument Descartes presents and anatta aren't contradictory. No one is arguing for some unchanging essence about the self.
@@sw3783 Both of your questions are debunked by quoting my previous comment. "I don't care what type question you are trying to present, you certainly misrepresented my position and I can call that out. " I am clearly talking about you and your questions, not Socrates. ""We truly cannot know" specifically talks about things outside the mind." You can call it a paradox however you want, but that doesn't make it a paradox. Please, learn to read.
How does this apply to Marxism specifically? Doesn't Fascism and other non-Marxian collectivism also say no person exists alone and meet the criterion of what you call Marxism, a philosophy of humanity?
@@telosbound totally wasn't expecting that. what drove you to read it? + what do you mean by communal ontology and what is the philosophic school backing up such an understanding? latest ontological and metaphysical understanding is the Deleuzian ontology of difference, and it definitely doesn't fit the christian tradition.
Haz is actually cool and big brained despite all the memes and goofyness surrounding him. And even though I converted from atheism to EO and moved away from marxism in many regards, I still like him and watch him sometimes. It's really cool to see this video happen considering my own views/progression. Looking forward to watching this!
Haz is a lot more intelligent and well-read than the public gives him credit for.
He's extremely well-read
Haz is alot more intelligent
telosbound: Orthodox Christian analysis beyond the visible light spectrum.
Good video, you should link up and talk with Haz on stream, I think he and the community would be interested in your perspective.
As a sympathizer to Marxism and a Christian, I’ve felt the connection between them, but never could find a way to think or articulate it. You’ve provided that in a way that makes sense. Thank you.
Read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition
Marx flipped him on his head but fundamentally used the same frame.
Ive been a floater in both your communities for a while now, weird to see them coming together like this. Real respects real I guess.
“The Islamic god is the ultimate Cartesian cogito”
This stuff is why I subbed 🔥
Very good 👍
Looking forward to a Collab. Gonna be based
Very intriguing observations. A few responses: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries there emerged a movement known as British Idealism. I think this group complicates the picture of 'Anglo-saxon metaphysics'. The British Idealists have been almost forgotten by modernity (except for a few analytic arguments such as Bradley's Regress and McTaggart's analysis of time) and their metaphysical approach to philosophy has fallen by the wayside as analytic philosophy discarded that approach. I think that McTaggart in particular should be re-examined as materialism is being understood by more and more as inadequate. // When you said 'God is ultimate otherness' that made me smile. I often get into discussions with non-dualists and sometimes use that phrase as a point of discussion. // I think there are difficulties with Marxism beyond what you mentioned; e.g. its materialism, historicism, and economic reductionism. But it's always good to reconsider a view that has had such huge historical impact. // Thanks for posting this.
Read hegel and the hermetic tradition by Glenn Magee.
The counter enlightenment happened after the catholic reaction to the enlightenment via Rousseau and Hegel and Marx flipping hegel on his head.
And now we have actualized realities....that are false.
Truly one of the videos of all time
Impressive. As an Orthodox Christian it's not I think there for I am but we commune there for we are. I am a Father because I have a son.. I am a son because I have a mother. I find my person-hood in the other.
I am a live because we have the Holy life giving Holy Trinity.
I am who I am in the reflection of the other.
Very cool
Unforgettable collabe
a lot of philosophers are gnostics, the more you read them you realize this they also often copy each other's homework.
many when talking about physics because they copy each other end up making Aether theories no cap. God as a substance, god as your mind, god as the universe, etc. But never God as he was intended in the Abrahamic tradition. The funny thing is that even still the Abrahamic god that made us in his image makes more sense than the god philosophers have come with.
The heretic virus of Gnosticism has infected philosophy & Academia for a loooong time.
Because the god in the abramanic tradition doesn't really make alot of sense when you start thinking about things deeply
@@miguelatkinsonNah it's like the iq bell curve meme you start thinking it makes sense then you think deeper and realize it doesn't make sense (midwit, athiest, new ager, satanist) then you come back and realize the one true God Jesus Christ is all that makes sense.
@@crater35 I am not exactly sure how true of analogy that is but I don't think most people would wind up looking believing the christian god to be" the one true god"
@@crater35 Nope. It doesn't make sense and never will. Buddhist monks knew for a long time abrahmic religions make no sense and they were right.
Hi, hope you try making a relation between ortodox christianity and husserl's transcendental phenomenology, if there is any.
People have to understand that twitch debates are the political equivalent to Pro Wrestling matches, it's all just for publicity that gives publicity to the debaters AND online political sphere as a whole. The only subject matter worth listening to is when the camera is focused on a single person, pouring out ideas which agitate your mind into conclusions of agreement or disagreement
Great drip
It would be interesting about your opinions about the Jay Dyer vs Haz debate. Heard a few minutes, and wow did that conversation ever breakdown.
As I understand it, each Person of the Trinity is not actually wholly other from each other. As I recall, they are consubstantial.
I actually agree with the idea that reality is a relational interconnected whole and we are not disconnected atoms. What I thought is less agreeable are some of the arguments used to support it.
Towards the end, you mentioned that there must be a first giver and said giver cannot give what it does not have, therefore communion must exist within the first giver. One problem I have with this is that this leads to an infinite regress. If communion exists within the first giver, and as you yourself have said must have distinction, then where does the communion for those distinct Persons come from?
Additionally, it doesn't quite follow that the first giver cannot give what it doesn't have, therefore it must have communion inside itself. Take for example the universal of red-ness. It can give the colour of red to its particular instantiations, yet we wouldn't say that red-ness itself possesses the colour red. It is rather the source of all instantiations of red-ness. I could quite conceivably say that this "first giver" of yours is simply Communion itself (so the relation of communion itself). Therefore, it itself doesn't possess communion, because being in communion involves possession of Communion itself. Yet Communion itself is just... Communion itself.
You also made the argument that knowing involves knowing something other than yourself. I don't think this quite follows. It seems quite conceivable to me that you can indeed know about yourself. Self-reflection exists. However, even with this, you can still argue for the relational nature of reality. Plotinus IMHO does it quite elegantly by simply pointing out that the very act of knowing involves a logical distinction between the knowing subject and the known object. In other words, the knower enters into a relation with the known.
I’m so glad I found this channel! You opened my eyes! I’m very new to Christianity in general. But I have a question: Can the communal God be something other than or beyond the Trinity that well or even better serve the purpose of grounding the necessity of community? If so, does that mean we can devise new theological principles to accommodate the communal agenda?
I believe the Bible and God already laid the grounds for principles and laws. All we have to do is have a government and the people willing to have the nation be as close as possible to his way.
I like the beard EQ.
Human beings can only express themselves through behaviour. We have no privileged access to another person’s consciousness. This is the basis of deception and secret-keeping. Even when you look into the eyes of your wife, you will see a barrier that is insurmountable, in that you will never really know exactly what she feels and thinks; and you will never fully be able to commune with her. It is therefore conceivable that all others are just automatons with no internal experience.
Also, we dream. Dreams are experiences in which we see things, and truly believe they’re real, when they’re not. It is therefore conceivable that all of our waking experiences are like dreams, and that we perceive only falsehoods.
Saying “but Descartes ate” isn’t a counterexample.
Even if we were able to read minds, we could never know if our mind readings are accurate. Our senses lie to us all the time. Hell, there instances of senses lying so much that it contradict reality others experience (Talking about hallucinations.). We can never even know if other people are sentient (Hopefully they are because the idea of we being someone completely alone is horrific.).
Very interesting video
Have you read Giovanni Gentile? He has a very interesting perspective on the monistic cogito, differentiated from standard Christian ontology despite his self still being Christian; his conception of God is sort of like the Islamic 'superordinate one', but technically not the same (and as such, it bypasses your critique. For what it's worth though, even though I disagree with you, I do think your critique is quite novel/clever. You are certainly intelligent.).
I like your speech, but you have not said anything of the place that God has in the thought of Descartes. For some, the Cartesian recourse to God is merely a rethorical strategy either to give a superflous theological legitimacy to its intuitive self-certainties and mathematical truths or to conjure the corrosive power of malign genius. But there are other who have taken seriously his appeal to God. The truth is that when Descartes talks about the idea of perfection and he notices that this idea couldn't have been made by himself, he's breaking that self-relating enclosure and acknowleding someone/something bigger than himself that, notwithstanding, indwells or leaves a trace in him.
I know that, for this reason, Augusto Del Noce has seen Descartes as the emblem of another kind of modernity, distinct from that immanentist which has prevailed, because here you have a subject which is open to trascendence. And to that of Descartes, Del Noce adds the name of Malebranche, Vico, Vincenzo Gioberti and Antonio Rosmini, who followed the same line.
It is not by chance that Levinas, a thinker completely committed to replacing ontology, understood as that logic of self-enclosure and alienating objectification, with a thought (ethics) that is truly open to otherness and gives it the primacy it deserves, had great sympathy for this passage from Descartes in which the cogito is as if pregnant with a cogitatum greater than itself, bearing a trace of the Infinite while being a finite creature.
I simply wanted to add these comments to enrich the discussion if possible. In any case, I love your channel and admire your sensitivity and your intelligence.
Hmm, I think, therefore, I disagree! ❤
You should read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.
Shows how marxism is about self creation as the Creator is contingent upon the created. At one ment where the Maker cannot exist without the thing created. For wothout that which is created there is no creator.
Haz is based
Descartes is still right. There's nothing we can be certain about other than the existence of our own sentient. We see the world through our senses, theses senses could lie to us. We can never truly know how accurate our senses are. Also, pretty sure he's not remotely saying that things cannot exist outside of himself. He probably did and does assume that things exist outside of himself just like we all do. But he is 100% correct in saying that this assumption can never be proven to be true.
"But you can't have certainty only if you define certainty as synonymous with self-relation what can be enclosed within the mind"
Certainty has a fairly clear cut definition. You are just defining it in a way such that agreements between people is synonymous with certainity.
In buddhism there are two forms of faith, one is the faith in a method to find the truth, the other is the faith in thing to be true itself. Pretty much everything in abrahamic religions are built on the latter form of faith. You just assume assume in god with little to no rational.
Also, you say truth cannot exist without commune but it does even with within christianity. The god is not communal (Three people who share the same brain isn't a communal btw). The god has all truths within himself.
Also the whole statement about how in order for relationship to occur there need to be some superior being without any relationship is the wildest and most pseudo intellectual claim I heard. Relationships are just like every experience a side effect of our brain. It not some magical concept that need another being to create.
"How can the first relation give something it does not have ?"
God is all powerful. How this is even a question ?
Also "reality only exist as a commune" is such a wild claim.
@@sw3783 are you using solipsism to refer to the philosophy or the adjective of being selfish ? I found no reasonable criticisms for the idea that we can only be certain of our mind itself existing. What are the criticism of this idea outside of idiotic criticisms like "well, Descartes still has to eat" ?
@@sw3783 Are you genuinely misreading the argument or are you trying to miss the argument to troll ? The argument Descartes made and I am making isn't that everyone or everything outside the mind doesn't exist but rather it is impossible to be certain of their existence. Obviously any person who experience this reality whether it is true or not have to make some core assumptions and one of them is that this reality actually exists and our senses aren't fully lying. An assumptions everyone who make on the internet is that the user who they talk to isn't bot. You might be a bot but I am gonna assume otherwise.
What descartes is saying is such a simple and self evident idea that most people can and will understand it and see it as reasonable. People like haz and this youtuber has gone to the deep end of philosophy and philosophical jargon that they forgotten the basic facts of our situation, That we truly cannot know. Whether you find that to be depressing or contradictory to other philosophies you have is irrelevant.
@@sw3783 I don't care what type question you are trying to present, you certainly misrepresented my position and I can call that out.
"Let's start with identifying paradoxes. Your statement, "we truly cannot know," suggests both knowing and not knowing simultaneously, which is logically contradictory."
No it doesn't. Again, this is just going to the deep end of philosophy to debunk very clear cut things. "We truly cannot know" specifically talks about things outside the mind. You cannot know for certain what's happening outside of the mind but you can know that you don't know. It isn't contradictory.
Mill's argument from analogy makes far too many assumptions to be reliable (That similiar behavior means they are sentient and our senses aren't lying). I don't really see the relevance of "to be is to be perceived" because It's just moving the goal post. I am arguing that you can't know for certain about reality outside the mind and your come back for it is that reality is the mind. I don't see the relevance regarding no private language argument either.
For anatta, the argument Descartes presents and anatta aren't contradictory. No one is arguing for some unchanging essence about the self.
@@sw3783 Both of your questions are debunked by quoting my previous comment.
"I don't care what type question you are trying to present, you certainly misrepresented my position and I can call that out. "
I am clearly talking about you and your questions, not Socrates.
""We truly cannot know" specifically talks about things outside the mind."
You can call it a paradox however you want, but that doesn't make it a paradox.
Please, learn to read.
How does this apply to Marxism specifically? Doesn't Fascism and other non-Marxian collectivism also say no person exists alone and meet the criterion of what you call Marxism, a philosophy of humanity?
It’s a video about Haz, all Marxism is thrown out the window
Marxists will rarely have God at the top of the commune. And if they do, they get auto kicked over to the right.
Wait isn’t this the
guy who claims to be a “Libertarian Stalinist”? 😂😂
Problem?
Based?
Based!
And?
That’s not necessarily a bad thing
is that fanged noumena in the background
@@telosbound totally wasn't expecting that. what drove you to read it?
+ what do you mean by communal ontology and what is the philosophic school backing up such an understanding?
latest ontological and metaphysical understanding is the Deleuzian ontology of difference, and it definitely doesn't fit the christian tradition.