It's always weird to me when you see a thinker like Jorjani who is willing to go so far out in speculation (I wouldn't have it any other way) and who has a world view that includes all kinds of hidden technologies, hidden scientific principles, metaphysics that reach beyond the realm of even any conceivable speculative future science, a belief that things like "trickster gods" shape reality on levels inconceivable by our minds, and yet when he imagines the way forward and the problems that must be faced and prepared for he goes straight back to nuts and bolts physicalist minutiae - "well if people got psi powers, imagine the legal difficulties!!!". Like, come on dude, are you serious? You believe the world is some kind of semi-idealist metaphorical struggle of archetypal forces beyond our comprehension and you're first thought on the implications of people developing the ability to influence and interact with the world via consciousness is "but... what if my neighbor remote views my mail?????" and your solution for how to handle it is "install windows 2026 in my brain. Anyone who doesn't do it will be so dumb they won't be able to compete!" It's weird how he just completely fails to take seriously the obvious implications of the assumptions of his ontology. If the world is anything like he thinks it is (and I imagine it may be), then people developing psi abilities would signal the beginning of changes so far beyond anyone's ability to predict or even imagine what they could be that it's not even worth thinking about. All you can do is have faith that your own nature aligns with whatever archetypal stream you would hope to flow in when the time comes. Traditionalism vs transhumanism is just a meaningless team-sports sideshow just like every other ideological debate. Useless. He's still one of the only people actually talking about interesting things though so I'll keep tuning in to his interviews, idk.
I agree, he is insightful and infuriating in equal doses. I will also say that he has this scatter gun approach whenever he is dealing with a subject that really doesn't go beyond the surface, not to mention this obviously Persian bias that attributes everything of value to them, even though they have no serious philosophers or works from antiquity until Islam came, which absurdly he claims was the trojan invention of Salman the Persian - a very peripheral figure in Islamic history. He even turns the clearly monotheistic Zarathustra into a prophet of his heraclitean ontology even though he is a strong influence on the Abrahamic faiths he so abhors. He thinks that when the Buddha says liberation involves moving beyond good and evil, that this means amoralism, whereas he meant moral actions are a necessary but non-sufficient cause of Nirvana. Also his fiction is absolutely terrible. He is good promethean fuel for thought though, he can have that.
Antiquarian history and tradition is the issue. Critcal and monumental history focus on taking the progressive things from traditions to build up the future while antiquarian history is typically regressive. There is no reason to be stuck to the past and to certain ideologies why not just be critical thinkers
Research the guy before you make a whole video on him!! He isn't against traditions in general but more against the type of traditions that are dominating and regressing the world and have been for a long time. Jason has the same view on history and traditions as nietzsche.
If you knew anything, you would know the difference between traditions and the 'traditionalist school' of Guenon, Schuon and co. He thinks their philosophy will usher in a hierarchical regressive world. You are saying nothing.
Traditionalism is a retrospective fantasy. The traditionalists were dilettantes and philosophically illiterate by and large. They distorted the traditions they spoke about. For instance Guenon denied the fact that the Dharmic traditions taught reincarnation and even tried to correct leading orientalist scholars on the subject. Coomaraswamy denied Plato and Plotinus believed in an individuated soul that undergoes transmigration in spite of all the evidence. It’s funny how virtually no two traditionalists can agree on what the “primordial tradition” is. “Tradition” is nothing but a guise to lend one’s own idiosyncratic, personal beliefs weight and authority. Their scholarship is horrendous and eclectic. One can best understand traditionalists as people afraid to stand own their own and defend their views rationally on their own merits. They need some ambiguous “primordial tradition” or reified absolute to hide behind and give them authority. Jorjani’s critique is valid
It's always weird to me when you see a thinker like Jorjani who is willing to go so far out in speculation (I wouldn't have it any other way) and who has a world view that includes all kinds of hidden technologies, hidden scientific principles, metaphysics that reach beyond the realm of even any conceivable speculative future science, a belief that things like "trickster gods" shape reality on levels inconceivable by our minds, and yet when he imagines the way forward and the problems that must be faced and prepared for he goes straight back to nuts and bolts physicalist minutiae - "well if people got psi powers, imagine the legal difficulties!!!". Like, come on dude, are you serious? You believe the world is some kind of semi-idealist metaphorical struggle of archetypal forces beyond our comprehension and you're first thought on the implications of people developing the ability to influence and interact with the world via consciousness is "but... what if my neighbor remote views my mail?????" and your solution for how to handle it is "install windows 2026 in my brain. Anyone who doesn't do it will be so dumb they won't be able to compete!" It's weird how he just completely fails to take seriously the obvious implications of the assumptions of his ontology. If the world is anything like he thinks it is (and I imagine it may be), then people developing psi abilities would signal the beginning of changes so far beyond anyone's ability to predict or even imagine what they could be that it's not even worth thinking about. All you can do is have faith that your own nature aligns with whatever archetypal stream you would hope to flow in when the time comes. Traditionalism vs transhumanism is just a meaningless team-sports sideshow just like every other ideological debate. Useless. He's still one of the only people actually talking about interesting things though so I'll keep tuning in to his interviews, idk.
I agree, he is insightful and infuriating in equal doses. I will also say that he has this scatter gun approach whenever he is dealing with a subject that really doesn't go beyond the surface, not to mention this obviously Persian bias that attributes everything of value to them, even though they have no serious philosophers or works from antiquity until Islam came, which absurdly he claims was the trojan invention of Salman the Persian - a very peripheral figure in Islamic history. He even turns the clearly monotheistic Zarathustra into a prophet of his heraclitean ontology even though he is a strong influence on the Abrahamic faiths he so abhors. He thinks that when the Buddha says liberation involves moving beyond good and evil, that this means amoralism, whereas he meant moral actions are a necessary but non-sufficient cause of Nirvana. Also his fiction is absolutely terrible. He is good promethean fuel for thought though, he can have that.
Brilliantly summarised !
Antiquarian history and tradition is the issue. Critcal and monumental history focus on taking the progressive things from traditions to build up the future while antiquarian history is typically regressive. There is no reason to be stuck to the past and to certain ideologies why not just be critical thinkers
he is way smarter you than you in general
Sounds like a voice filter to me,
Research the guy before you make a whole video on him!! He isn't against traditions in general but more against the type of traditions that are dominating and regressing the world and have been for a long time. Jason has the same view on history and traditions as nietzsche.
If you knew anything, you would know the difference between traditions and the 'traditionalist school' of Guenon, Schuon and co. He thinks their philosophy will usher in a hierarchical regressive world. You are saying nothing.
@SG-gq2rf fair enough but to my other point why can't we be critical thinkers. Why do we have to be stuck in a regressive fixed view of the cosmos.
@@SG-gq2rftraditionalist have a fixed "perfect" view of the cosmos. Everything is always changing!!
You have said very little here, and with a lot of pride.
I can hear Dr. Jorjani laughing and shaking his head if he ever heard this
Traditionalism is a retrospective fantasy. The traditionalists were dilettantes and philosophically illiterate by and large. They distorted the traditions they spoke about. For instance Guenon denied the fact that the Dharmic traditions taught reincarnation and even tried to correct leading orientalist scholars on the subject. Coomaraswamy denied Plato and Plotinus believed in an individuated soul that undergoes transmigration in spite of all the evidence. It’s funny how virtually no two traditionalists can agree on what the “primordial tradition” is. “Tradition” is nothing but a guise to lend one’s own idiosyncratic, personal beliefs weight and authority. Their scholarship is horrendous and eclectic. One can best understand traditionalists as people afraid to stand own their own and defend their views rationally on their own merits. They need some ambiguous “primordial tradition” or reified absolute to hide behind and give them authority. Jorjani’s critique is valid