Another excellent video Iman by way of introduction to Perennialism/Traditionalism, which exists very much on the sidelines of the 'in vogue' philosophies of the modern era. I think the main reason it is criticised, or not accepted as valid, is due to the materialist mindset that requires empirical 'proof'' of any claim to truth, and which assumes the 'rational' faculty of mind to be the only way of knowing. This mindset cannot grasp the idea of other ways of knowing, specifically that of the 'Intellect', the intuitive faculty which opens out onto the supra-personal Transcendent realm of Being. At this supra-rational level Knowing and Being are one and the same experience.
19:59 The point at this bit is so wonderfully and lucidly spoken. You mentioned in another video once that one advantage in reading the Traditionalists is the well-written, academic language. It's clear that whilst reading the Traditionalists, as opposed to other philosophers, one gains a specific kind of rhetorical ability. Because of the subject's spiritual and sort of 'beautiful' nature, writings on the perennial philosophy always use such a poetical vocabulary. It puts one at an advantage compared to other lay-philosophers or students, etc., when it comes to writing about really anything that is abstract.
Thank you for this clear, cogent overview. I have found Schuon to be almost impenetrable; this is not a criticism of Schuon but an admission of my own limited capabilities. The books I have found most helpful are James Cutsinger's Advice to the Serious Seeker and Kenneth (Harry) Oldmeadow's Traditionalism. I pass these titles along for those who may share my difficulty. I hope that as I learn more, Schuon will be less opaque to me.
Excellent my friend. I am trying to approach the perennial philosophy from a Christian perspective on my own channel. I look forward to going through your content.
Thank you very much! I've been reading Guénon and Coomaraswamy for many years, and, although I recognize my lack of discipline, I must say these are the authors I always go back to, specially Coomaraswamy. My work is music composition, and most of it is related to traditional cosmologies. But this is a very lonley endeavor, as you can imagine, because the modern mentality rejects ideas such as truth, universal, even spirituality and tradition. But I am very happy to have found your channel, and will have a closer look at Schuon's writings. Cheers!
This was wonderful! I'm just starting to research perennial philosophy and already have come across so much misunderstanding of it. Another thing world religions have in common, unfortunately, is that all of them have a high percentage of literalists who believe that their path is the only correct one. For that reason I have never been able to settle down into one of the traditional religions. I'm hoping that perennialism will help me change that. Thank you for this nuanced overview!
Brother your intelligence and videos are what I wish I could be, amazing stuff and very important and enriching content. Thank you as this helps explain to me my own convictions in better detail
Salam, Phenomenal work akhi, it's a rarity in today's world to find such a content. Keep going on brother and post such contents consistently. Small token of appreciation Love & regards Hussain
I love your channel and share a lot of interests with you... thank you ! My personal ones : perrenial, panpsychism, atman, buddhism, souffism, jesus, meister ekhart, the Force of jedis,... and Little Prince ... my bible
Thanks for posting! Subscribed! Keep it up! There has been a lot of recent criticism about the different perennial schools of thought - some of which are “valid” whereas others are not. The main reason being that perennial ideas were used by different monotheists for polemical political purposes (at least according to Dan Attrell and Justin Sledge). As far as the more recent modern movement, I found that Schuon got too much attention. It’s not like his writings are nonsense because they’re actually quite amazing but there was too much emphasis on Islam with little to no emphasis on Christianity (maybe we have Ficino & Pico to thank for that) and some limited focus on Judaism, and Kabbalah (with a K) for which Leo Schaya’s works are the only ones available (they are both fantastic btw). Perennial ideas have been present for a long time imo and are intimately related to gnosis. And while some folks mention it, there is a dearth of real written works on that. The best proponent of this newer line of inquiry in the modern school is the late Algis Uždavinys who wrote of the Golden Chain in philosophy. Highly recommended! Besides Uždavinys, my personal favorites are Coomaraswamy, Burkhardt, & Guénon. Ultimately though, one needs to go beyond the reading into contemplation which is rather difficult for most modern souls, so hooked onto external reality and book knowledge. And there are few teachers , either by written or oral works , that “teach” contemplation . There are many connections to Neoplatonism however. Reading Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius (if you can find them) is helpful for the avid seeker.
Excellent video, thank you. It shocks me how few people know about the perennial philosophy, it’s literally the most important thing I’ve ever learned. Ps: I LOVE Huxley’s book on this topic. Currently on my 3rd reading and it’s even better than the first 2 times. Will check out Schuon for sure!
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad* (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
Thankyou for this video. i am reading Mark Sedgewick's book,'Traditionalism' (2023) The concept of the Universe being unlimited and eternal, is a common theme in many ancient religions, and modern scientific thinking is much inclined to talk of a Multiverse, the Big Bang, just being one of an infinite number. I am gonig to read Aldous Huxley's book on the subject, sounds really good.
I find your interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the sea as associated with the divine essence ecspecially interesting when I consider that for depth-psychology, the sea with it's depths is rather associated symbolically with the unconscious, I.e something that is "below" the ego and at least partially sub-induvidual. I am reminded of the Jungian "as above, so below" or "modern man can't see god becaouse he doesn't look low enough". I don't know what to make of all that. Also interesting, the neo-eurasianist Dugin, who largely seem to be a traditionalist of the same variant as Evola, essentially sees the modern west, i.e the "civilization of the antichrist", and "the civilization of the sea" as the exact same thing. For him, the civilization of the land is synonymous with "eternal Rome", the civilization of the heavenly olympic gods, and opposed by "eternal Chartage", the materealistic civlization of merchant princes and chthonic gods. I'd be interested to see Dugin's take on the symbolic meaning of the sea as interpreted here.
Prinnael Huxley philosophy v Marxism mystic spiritual leader in coffee kings mate's lol Connecticut's casino's Connecticut's Louisiana state Virginia Vegas casino's dating casino's Texas's Miami's mich st Pete coffeehouse chat St goodrows mystics coffee kings mate's casino
This 'Traditionalist' interpretation 'School' is slightly TOO 😹 Transcendent tHEistic 'Rose' biased . . . at least . . . for ‘moiMOI’ 😹 😎 RoseLotus 🙏 ☯
![A Problem With My Religion - (in defense of Perennialism) [Esoteric Saturdays]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SxWgOHNa-YU/mqdefault.jpg)
Another excellent video Iman by way of introduction to Perennialism/Traditionalism, which exists very much on the sidelines of the 'in vogue' philosophies of the modern era. I think the main reason it is criticised, or not accepted as valid, is due to the materialist mindset that requires empirical 'proof'' of any claim to truth, and which assumes the 'rational' faculty of mind to be the only way of knowing. This mindset cannot grasp the idea of other ways of knowing, specifically that of the 'Intellect', the intuitive faculty which opens out onto the supra-personal Transcendent realm of Being. At this supra-rational level Knowing and Being are one and the same experience.
I just discovered your channel. Really great stuff! Thank you.
19:59 The point at this bit is so wonderfully and lucidly spoken. You mentioned in another video once that one advantage in reading the Traditionalists is the well-written, academic language. It's clear that whilst reading the Traditionalists, as opposed to other philosophers, one gains a specific kind of rhetorical ability. Because of the subject's spiritual and sort of 'beautiful' nature, writings on the perennial philosophy always use such a poetical vocabulary. It puts one at an advantage compared to other lay-philosophers or students, etc., when it comes to writing about really anything that is abstract.
That was cool. More people need to talk about this. Thanks!
Thank you for this clear, cogent overview. I have found Schuon to be almost impenetrable; this is not a criticism of Schuon but an admission of my own limited capabilities. The books I have found most helpful are James Cutsinger's Advice to the Serious Seeker and Kenneth (Harry) Oldmeadow's Traditionalism. I pass these titles along for those who may share my difficulty. I hope that as I learn more, Schuon will be less opaque to me.
Excellent my friend. I am trying to approach the perennial philosophy from a Christian perspective on my own channel. I look forward to going through your content.
Amazing video. I discovered the perennial philosophy many years ago, and your video made my remember how important it was for me. Thank you.
do a library tour video
Thank you very much! I've been reading Guénon and Coomaraswamy for many years, and, although I recognize my lack of discipline, I must say these are the authors I always go back to, specially Coomaraswamy. My work is music composition, and most of it is related to traditional cosmologies. But this is a very lonley endeavor, as you can imagine, because the modern mentality rejects ideas such as truth, universal, even spirituality and tradition. But I am very happy to have found your channel, and will have a closer look at Schuon's writings. Cheers!
This was wonderful! I'm just starting to research perennial philosophy and already have come across so much misunderstanding of it. Another thing world religions have in common, unfortunately, is that all of them have a high percentage of literalists who believe that their path is the only correct one. For that reason I have never been able to settle down into one of the traditional religions. I'm hoping that perennialism will help me change that. Thank you for this nuanced overview!
Brother your intelligence and videos are what I wish I could be, amazing stuff and very important and enriching content. Thank you as this helps explain to me my own convictions in better detail
Awesomeness! Great video and intro to the subject. Pastor and psychotherapist here, love the content.
Salam,
Phenomenal work akhi, it's a rarity in today's world to find such a content.
Keep going on brother and post such contents consistently.
Small token of appreciation
Love & regards
Hussain
I love your channel and share a lot of interests with you... thank you ! My personal ones : perrenial, panpsychism, atman, buddhism, souffism, jesus, meister ekhart, the Force of jedis,... and Little Prince ... my bible
Well done 👍
Great video brother!
Would be great if you included the books or authors you mentioned, couldn’t catch some of them
Thanks for posting! Subscribed! Keep it up!
There has been a lot of recent criticism about the different perennial schools of thought - some of which are “valid” whereas others are not. The main reason being that perennial ideas were used by different monotheists for polemical political purposes (at least according to Dan Attrell and Justin Sledge).
As far as the more recent modern movement, I found that Schuon got too much attention. It’s not like his writings are nonsense because they’re actually quite amazing but there was too much emphasis on Islam with little to no emphasis on Christianity (maybe we have Ficino & Pico to thank for that) and some limited focus on Judaism, and Kabbalah (with a K) for which Leo Schaya’s works are the only ones available (they are both fantastic btw).
Perennial ideas have been present for a long time imo and are intimately related to gnosis. And while some folks mention it, there is a dearth of real written works on that. The best proponent of this newer line of inquiry in the modern school is the late Algis Uždavinys who wrote of the Golden Chain in philosophy. Highly recommended!
Besides Uždavinys, my personal favorites are Coomaraswamy, Burkhardt, & Guénon.
Ultimately though, one needs to go beyond the reading into contemplation which is rather difficult for most modern souls, so hooked onto external reality and book knowledge. And there are few teachers , either by written or oral works , that “teach” contemplation . There are many connections to Neoplatonism however. Reading Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius (if you can find them) is helpful for the avid seeker.
Excellent video, thank you. It shocks me how few people know about the perennial philosophy, it’s literally the most important thing I’ve ever learned. Ps: I LOVE Huxley’s book on this topic. Currently on my 3rd reading and it’s even better than the first 2 times. Will check out Schuon for sure!
Great video. Dont hear enough about schuon online
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad* (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
Thankyou for this video. i am reading Mark Sedgewick's book,'Traditionalism' (2023) The concept of the Universe being unlimited and eternal, is a common theme in many ancient religions, and modern scientific thinking is much inclined to talk of a Multiverse, the Big Bang, just being one of an infinite number. I am gonig to read Aldous Huxley's book on the subject, sounds really good.
Lovely, Lovely 😻
WiseCompassionate
ShareOffering . . .
imanIMAN !!!
😻
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
🙏
wow dude u talk so smart haha thanks for the information
I find your interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the sea as associated with the divine essence ecspecially interesting when I consider that for depth-psychology, the sea with it's depths is rather associated symbolically with the unconscious, I.e something that is "below" the ego and at least partially sub-induvidual. I am reminded of the Jungian "as above, so below" or "modern man can't see god becaouse he doesn't look low enough". I don't know what to make of all that.
Also interesting, the neo-eurasianist Dugin, who largely seem to be a traditionalist of the same variant as Evola, essentially sees the modern west, i.e the "civilization of the antichrist", and "the civilization of the sea" as the exact same thing. For him, the civilization of the land is synonymous with "eternal Rome", the civilization of the heavenly olympic gods, and opposed by "eternal Chartage", the materealistic civlization of merchant princes and chthonic gods. I'd be interested to see Dugin's take on the symbolic meaning of the sea as interpreted here.
Related: 48 - The Perennial Philosophy ua-cam.com/video/X41SNCVCwc8/v-deo.html
❤❤❤❤❤
2 examinations of perennialism:
ua-cam.com/users/liveOW4mzl8vFOY?si=3afLATucf9TNYT6T
ua-cam.com/video/kCfhF1-kC0g/v-deo.htmlsi=mUoynKIrtc4Ia0S5
Via . . . PosiNegaCreaTransforma . . . Tiva 🙏
☯
RoseLotus 🙏☯
Paradoxical . . .
ImmanentTranscendent . . .
TransDual . . .
TransRational . . .
TransClusive . . .
DropOcean 🙏
RoseLotus 🙏
☯
To my understanding (no expert) seems perennial philosophy is pretty much mysticism.
Prinnael Huxley philosophy v Marxism mystic spiritual leader in coffee kings mate's lol Connecticut's casino's Connecticut's Louisiana state Virginia Vegas casino's dating casino's Texas's Miami's mich st Pete coffeehouse chat St goodrows mystics coffee kings mate's casino
What?
tldr perennial philosophy is just latent behavior analysis
This 'Traditionalist'
interpretation
'School'
is
slightly
TOO 😹
Transcendent
tHEistic
'Rose'
biased . . .
at least . . .
for
‘moiMOI’
😹
😎
RoseLotus 🙏
☯
Galatians 5:-22🚻🚻🗽💯👑 revelations 5:11/13 linked up with examples love is power and joy is wealth management mystics coffee