J. L. Schellenberg has a great essay in Axiology Beyond Monotheism where he explores fictionalist accounts of religion, conjoined with ultimism. Very interesting stuff
@@wet-read Ultimism is Schellenberg's minimalist position which claims that there there is some kind of ultimate transcendent reality (not necessarily immaterial or personal). Part of his contributions to philosophy of religion is approaching religion from an almost evolutionary perspective: humanity is developmentally immature when it comes to religious ideas and practices. E.g. current religions seem to have poor understandings of x, y, z, or face moral critiques. Yet critiques of current religions do not entail that religion itself is problematic, as religion is in a developmentally premature stage (think about how it might grow in the coming millennia). As such, he explores non-cognitive and fictionalist understandings of religion. However, he wises to preserve some kind of common denominator or cognitive element, which is his minimalist 'ultimism'. It is an interesting line of thought, particularly when thinking about possible future avenues of religion.
Just beginning the video right now. Excited to watch because personally because lately I’ve been wanting to hear more about hypotheses like what I’m going to call “inert deism” because I don’t know the actual term (if it exists), but essentially that there was some “first mover” entity but one which either chooses not to directly interact in the natural world, or maybe which sacrificed itself to become the universe, or otherwise doesn’t have an affect on the natural world. Just created the universe and let it run on its own. Don’t often hear talk of such ideas, people often go “all of nothing” (no entity or theism) so I hope something similar to idea gets touched upon somewhere in the video. Either way, excited to watch! Keep it up with the videos man, I just discovered you not long ago and I love the way you think and explain things. Lately I’ve been watching your non-religion related videos, I just started on your Bayes’ theorem. Great video and I have to give you lots of thanks for covering so many topics in the long format videos. I love them, hope you don’t give up the long format stuff 😁
I think the issue for me if that there need to be some believe to bring meaning to the ritual ; if I would do a ritual for the spirit of the forest I need to believe in the spirit of the forest in some ways, otherwise it's just inauthentic. I don't think people just "do things" without belief. And quantum voodoo won't do the job. Another issue is that apparently having costly commitments is an important factor for the success of a religious group (cf. Religion for breakfast), but without strong beliefs I don't know how religious naturalists would justify having such commitments.
I agree. I like Dr. Steinhart's philosophical ideas, but his arguments for "why" I should engage in pagan rituals were laughable to me. When I left Christianity, I looked into neo-paganism, New Age, and the like, but ultimately I couldn't take any of it seriously. It seemed to be just a bunch of silly superstitions at best, or a bunch of LARPers at worst. Either way, it seemed extremely goofy to me. The sophisticated philosophical paganism of the ancient Greek and Roman elite is long dead. That said, I think it's possible that a new religion could be formed, based on the actual truths we've discovered through natural science, which could have authentic rituals which would be based on the things we actually believe.
Joe, can you do a video with Michael Heumer talking about his argument for reincarnation and a soul. He is an atheist to my knowledge. Id want to see your objections to his arguments.
I don't think the Dr. Steinhart understands QM with regard to how interaction and causality are the same thing. In a pilot wave interpretation there is still complete deterministic physical causation and everything is to some degree entangled because the entire universe is in relativity corrected direct local contact. Causality, interaction, is just the passing around of degrees of entanglement relationship within the isolated physical system of the entire universe. Y'all should check out Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics by Jean Bricmont for a more detailed explanation.
to sum up my limited understanding of eric (i've read some of his papers many years ago + his nietzsche book): i'd say he is a radical mathematical platonist who believes in actual infinities. space and time come 'later' (if you can use that word coherently). he takes the ''One'' of plotinus and strips away any implication of unembodied gods, leaving a kind of non-sentient divine simplicity as the cause of everything (something like ed feser's neoplatonic proof). i'm not sure i agree with his take on homeric gods being naturalistic (sure they have bodies, buts its implied in homer and hesiod that they are temporary forms that spirits can take on at will). i think he might be confusing epicurus with homer. even plato is too mystical to be a naturalist imo
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...
I think Eric was a bit confused about Qbits, "information" and the holographic principle -- he called it "hallucination." I would recommend James Fodor's videos responding to Michael from Inspiring Philosophy on this topic, where he points out that this holographic idea does not entail the world is some sort of computer or hallucination.
Hi Joe, I'm aware of your many criticisms of Feser's 5 proofs. If you don't mind satisfying my curiosity, taking all criticisms into account, which one of the five proofs works best in your opinion?
Good question; I would say that, of the five arguments, the Augustinian proof has the fewest problems. (Note, though, that it still has many problems, which I detail in my book and my video on the proof! Also, if you’d like the book, email me and I may be able to help🙂)
@@MajestyofReason That's really sweet :-) is it the existential inertia one published by springer? Looks juicy. I usually read their math publications, they're really first rate. If I may ask a little follow-up question, I heard you mention that one of Feser's strengths was to express the ideas of others (with which I pretty much agree). Is there any work on that area that you would consider almost above criticism? What about his intro to the philosophy of mind? And Aristotle's revenge? Thanks a lot for your precious time
On the issue of definitions of religion fitting Christianity in particular... That is probably because Latin Christianity gave rise to the very concept of religion as something that can be compartmentalized out of culture, politics, etc. The rise of secularism and the separation of religion is entirely Christian.
@@Raydensheraj You actually didn't listen to the first 10 mins of this video? The entire idea of the religious and secular being compartmentalized are created through Christianity... From Augustine (City of God), Gregory the Great, Martin Luther (Two Kingdoms), Roger Williams etc. This is why the idea of this separation didn't exist in ancient civilization and is not endemic to anywhere outside the West.
I think the materialistic, physicalistic world is "magical" in a lot of interesting ways: 1. Consciousness exists, somehow. If we can discover how it works, who knows what else could be conscious? The idea of "spirits" or conscious systems beyond human brains is perfectly possible. 2. The substance of your consciousness is the material world, and when you die, the material world will continue to be conscious in other forms. In this sense, nothing of real value is lost when you die other than your specific memories and biology (which were always in flux). In this sense, reincarnation is functionally real as the substance of your consciousness will continue after death. 3. The fact morality and justice wouldn't be enforced by some sort of god would put the "spiritual duty" upon individuals to work hard to promote peace, love, and freedom amongst human beings in a special, significant way. 4. Complex systems in nature or in human organizations can have "spirits" of their own: "Amazon" or "Microsoft" as companies are made of many individuals but as a whole can be an oppressive force that gives and takes, with individuals having to "appease" them to get what they want (learning to work through their support systems, for example). They feel personal, they feel intelligent, and treating them as if they are some sort of life-form all on their own can be intellectually (and even legally, in cases where businesses are treated like people) unavoidable. Other examples might include "Capitalism," or specific applications. 5. There's too much to talk about in the way of AI, but it's certainly interesting how we can create these entities that train off of human knowledge to create new personalities. They are sort of like spirits, or even demons, in a pretty concrete sense.
Hi, Joe. I have a sincere question for you: if space and time came into existence after the Big Bang, how could there have been an initial part of the universe before that? (I think saw your article a while ago Saying that would be no problem. I don't know where he is anymore). Does this part e exist before time and space itself?
@@robertosilveira3936 my understanding is that there is no ''before'' the birth of time, because that would assume time before time. not sure about the notion that time is an illusion, that's more about b-theory (there is no moving present-tense, just earlier-than and later-than relations between moments).
@Roger Interesting, now I understand better. It just comes to my mind that it doesn't make much sense to talk about a time before time and all that, So if space did not exist, where exactly would the initial state be? But I think I'm understanding better when I keep in mind that the initial state is necessary and time and space is not.
@@kevinmcdonald6560 I think I understand more or less. But that's exactly what doesn't fit in my head: it doesn't make sense to talk about time before time, so it wouldn't make sense to have an initial state even before time itself because being "initial" presupposes the existence of time...
I think it depends on what one takes “fictionalism” to consist in. If it just means engaging in the relevant rituals without believing certain related tenets, then sure, he’d count as a fictionalist then. But I don’t think that’s the sort of fictionalist he’s accusing of hypocrisy🙂
No, no...can't stand platonists, lol! They really shouldn't read physics because it does make them lose their minds. It really irks me when they clearly don't understand a concept, or understand it at the level of the Matrix movies, but that doesn't stop them from spreading misinformation about it. I've gotten used to new age types doing it, but now philosophers too?! Common...people will take it seriously. For example: the holographic universe hypothesis does not mean stuff is an illusion. It only means the information about all the stuff can be found at the boundary, the same way the information about stuff in the black hole is contained at the event horizon. Also, what is up with this; there's no spacetime just because it's emergent? In that case there's no you either. Smh
Could you have a debate with Christopher Langan? He might give you some meaningful information. Also you are the silliest and happiest philosopher I've ever seen. Some people joke around saying things like: "I didn't knew that Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is a philosopher." Also what is your favorite music?
@@MajestyofReason Thank you for the answer! So are you planning on debating Christopher Langan? He says that he could win basically any debate (I agree with him). I'm curious how would you respond, how would you attack his views.
An interesting discussion, but I ultimately think Dr. Steinhart is giving rituals too much credit. Seems to me abundantly clear that they are mere superstitions that don't accomplish anything. At best, perhaps there were once rituals that were effectual, but like a cargo cult, the essence of the practices has been lost, so we're left with only the empty aesthetics. But again, I don't think there's any good reason to believe that they were ever effectual.
Every reference to religious practice in this video just feels wrong. Have any of you spent any time around religious people from either a) countries who were not completely effected by the Enlightenment or b) non-Anglo countries? If you had, you would realize that virtually all of your understanding falls apart. There is no talk here of the truly public and communal nature of religion. And no, there is no religious movement in the Anglosphere which is either public or communal. Also, culture!? Language!!?? True and old religious cannot be understood without taking into account the inextricable relationship between religion, culture, language, and tradition; practiced in a public and communal form. Also, place! A religious or ancestral connection to land that has religious significands? What did the Enlightenment do to you people? All of it is so foreign to you. American Calvinists are probably the closest thing for you people, but there dont practice publicly/communally. There is not connection to language or culture! Tradition? That keeps being denied by sola scriptura! And, they are terrestrial nihilists! So they hate the world and nature. What a sad state. Paganism is dead. Every contemporary example of it is a fake and sad imitation. A great study would be on the Afrikaners/Boers from South Africa(yes yes, Apartheid we know, but this is not of interest in studying how they live their daily lives). They never completely took on the enlightenment. So they are truly religious. Their Calvinism, up until the end of the second Boer war was not very theological but much more of a folk religion. Only after the Union did they theological aspects become 'sophisticated'. That is to say, most of their Christian understanding and worship was tied to and explained through nature and nature worship. Even after all the theological development, this has never gone away. Virtually all of them are right wing/conservative, ecological nutcase, communal(not collectivist or individualist), Christians. This combination is very foreign to the American. And they are not nihilist Christians like most of the Christians of the west. Also, all of them are obsessed with language. Have you ever heard of such a thing? If i walked around and asked random Americans about their favorite words, they would think im crazy. Not only would the average Afrikaner give you a list of his favorite words on the spot, virtually every Afrikaner(subconsciously) develops a unique pattern of speech. The Anglosphere need to remember that religions used to be all-encompassing, taking in every aspect of life. Philosophy and theology cannot do this. It's not possible. Naturalism as religion can succeed, but not in the matter any of you will try. Sad.
Religion is allways god-of-the-gaps, the god is always invented to explain something for which the naturalistic explanation is not immediately obvious. We nolonger worship a god of thunder and we nolonger sacrifice virgins to the gods to guarantee a good harvest because we know about crop rotation and different soils etc. Knowledge is power and it's easy to make stuff up and pretend that you know things. This is how cult leaders are made. I accept that religion is a thing that will allways exist, but it's important to rememeber that it 's all made up and that people are willing to kill eachother over what they think somebody else believes. In science the worst things that happen is a heated debate about the evidence. In religion people kill eachother in the name of the god. that alone should make you vomit, but apparently we should discuss wether we could maybe combine make-up-sh8t with nature. This is why I like phylosophy but dispise philosophers.
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
You need to listen more carefully. Nowhere was god used as a replacement for missing explanation. Your binary way of thinking is hopelessly naive. Technology is not neutral and matter is just not just there for manipulation by autonomous subjects. Normativity is always needed before tech is deployed which would involve philosophy at least ethics at any rate.
My favorite part was when they compared the theories. (I'm commenting without having watched it yet).
Classic Oppy moment
Insightful, interesting, and enjoyable conversation! Thanks for hosting Joe!
This was great. I love letting Oppy's discourse just absorb into me in those Aussie dulcet tones. More like this please.
Joe Schmoe at it again with an absolute banger
_That is to say_
J. L. Schellenberg has a great essay in Axiology Beyond Monotheism where he explores fictionalist accounts of religion, conjoined with ultimism. Very interesting stuff
It sounds interesting indeed! I've never heard of "ultimism" before. Is it accessible to non-specialists?
@@wet-read Ultimism is Schellenberg's minimalist position which claims that there there is some kind of ultimate transcendent reality (not necessarily immaterial or personal).
Part of his contributions to philosophy of religion is approaching religion from an almost evolutionary perspective: humanity is developmentally immature when it comes to religious ideas and practices. E.g. current religions seem to have poor understandings of x, y, z, or face moral critiques. Yet critiques of current religions do not entail that religion itself is problematic, as religion is in a developmentally premature stage (think about how it might grow in the coming millennia). As such, he explores non-cognitive and fictionalist understandings of religion. However, he wises to preserve some kind of common denominator or cognitive element, which is his minimalist 'ultimism'. It is an interesting line of thought, particularly when thinking about possible future avenues of religion.
Just beginning the video right now. Excited to watch because personally because lately I’ve been wanting to hear more about hypotheses like what I’m going to call “inert deism” because I don’t know the actual term (if it exists), but essentially that there was some “first mover” entity but one which either chooses not to directly interact in the natural world, or maybe which sacrificed itself to become the universe, or otherwise doesn’t have an affect on the natural world. Just created the universe and let it run on its own. Don’t often hear talk of such ideas, people often go “all of nothing” (no entity or theism) so I hope something similar to idea gets touched upon somewhere in the video. Either way, excited to watch!
Keep it up with the videos man, I just discovered you not long ago and I love the way you think and explain things.
Lately I’ve been watching your non-religion related videos, I just started on your Bayes’ theorem. Great video and I have to give you lots of thanks for covering so many topics in the long format videos. I love them, hope you don’t give up the long format stuff 😁
Yay! This is amazing! I wish Eric's book would come out in paperback so I could buy it 😅
There’s a similar book, Atheistic Paganism, for free on his website linked in the description🙂
glad you brought up the wave function realism stuff
I think the issue for me if that there need to be some believe to bring meaning to the ritual ; if I would do a ritual for the spirit of the forest I need to believe in the spirit of the forest in some ways, otherwise it's just inauthentic. I don't think people just "do things" without belief. And quantum voodoo won't do the job.
Another issue is that apparently having costly commitments is an important factor for the success of a religious group (cf. Religion for breakfast), but without strong beliefs I don't know how religious naturalists would justify having such commitments.
I agree. I like Dr. Steinhart's philosophical ideas, but his arguments for "why" I should engage in pagan rituals were laughable to me. When I left Christianity, I looked into neo-paganism, New Age, and the like, but ultimately I couldn't take any of it seriously. It seemed to be just a bunch of silly superstitions at best, or a bunch of LARPers at worst. Either way, it seemed extremely goofy to me. The sophisticated philosophical paganism of the ancient Greek and Roman elite is long dead.
That said, I think it's possible that a new religion could be formed, based on the actual truths we've discovered through natural science, which could have authentic rituals which would be based on the things we actually believe.
Joe, can you do a video with Michael Heumer talking about his argument for reincarnation and a soul. He is an atheist to my knowledge. Id want to see your objections to his arguments.
Two of my favorite atheists having a conversation. Joe, you are a legend for organizing this 😆
Seyowww yeh roight compare the theories!
its PROFESSOR Graham
does anyone know what name of the headset does Graham Oppy uses? thanks!
I don't think the Dr. Steinhart understands QM with regard to how interaction and causality are the same thing.
In a pilot wave interpretation there is still complete deterministic physical causation and everything is to some degree entangled because the entire universe is in relativity corrected direct local contact.
Causality, interaction, is just the passing around of degrees of entanglement relationship within the isolated physical system of the entire universe.
Y'all should check out Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics by Jean Bricmont for a more detailed explanation.
to sum up my limited understanding of eric (i've read some of his papers many years ago + his nietzsche book): i'd say he is a radical mathematical platonist who believes in actual infinities. space and time come 'later' (if you can use that word coherently). he takes the ''One'' of plotinus and strips away any implication of unembodied gods, leaving a kind of non-sentient divine simplicity as the cause of everything (something like ed feser's neoplatonic proof).
i'm not sure i agree with his take on homeric gods being naturalistic (sure they have bodies, buts its implied in homer and hesiod that they are temporary forms that spirits can take on at will). i think he might be confusing epicurus with homer. even plato is too mystical to be a naturalist imo
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
I think Eric was a bit confused about Qbits, "information" and the holographic principle -- he called it "hallucination." I would recommend James Fodor's videos responding to Michael from Inspiring Philosophy on this topic, where he points out that this holographic idea does not entail the world is some sort of computer or hallucination.
What a coincidence, I've just listened to your discussion with Eric on the 'Crusade Against Ignorance' channel yesterday. This will be interesting.
Steinhart is wild!
Well this one was… bizarre. But I loved it!
Hi Joe, I'm aware of your many criticisms of Feser's 5 proofs. If you don't mind satisfying my curiosity, taking all criticisms into account, which one of the five proofs works best in your opinion?
Good question; I would say that, of the five arguments, the Augustinian proof has the fewest problems. (Note, though, that it still has many problems, which I detail in my book and my video on the proof! Also, if you’d like the book, email me and I may be able to help🙂)
@@MajestyofReason That's really sweet :-) is it the existential inertia one published by springer? Looks juicy. I usually read their math publications, they're really first rate. If I may ask a little follow-up question, I heard you mention that one of Feser's strengths was to express the ideas of others (with which I pretty much agree). Is there any work on that area that you would consider almost above criticism? What about his intro to the philosophy of mind? And Aristotle's revenge? Thanks a lot for your precious time
On the issue of definitions of religion fitting Christianity in particular... That is probably because Latin Christianity gave rise to the very concept of religion as something that can be compartmentalized out of culture, politics, etc. The rise of secularism and the separation of religion is entirely Christian.
No. It's entirely enlightenment philosophers and the scientific revolution putting a big boot on the neck of Christianity.
@@Raydensheraj You actually didn't listen to the first 10 mins of this video? The entire idea of the religious and secular being compartmentalized are created through Christianity... From Augustine (City of God), Gregory the Great, Martin Luther (Two Kingdoms), Roger Williams etc. This is why the idea of this separation didn't exist in ancient civilization and is not endemic to anywhere outside the West.
I think the materialistic, physicalistic world is "magical" in a lot of interesting ways:
1. Consciousness exists, somehow. If we can discover how it works, who knows what else could be conscious? The idea of "spirits" or conscious systems beyond human brains is perfectly possible.
2. The substance of your consciousness is the material world, and when you die, the material world will continue to be conscious in other forms. In this sense, nothing of real value is lost when you die other than your specific memories and biology (which were always in flux). In this sense, reincarnation is functionally real as the substance of your consciousness will continue after death.
3. The fact morality and justice wouldn't be enforced by some sort of god would put the "spiritual duty" upon individuals to work hard to promote peace, love, and freedom amongst human beings in a special, significant way.
4. Complex systems in nature or in human organizations can have "spirits" of their own: "Amazon" or "Microsoft" as companies are made of many individuals but as a whole can be an oppressive force that gives and takes, with individuals having to "appease" them to get what they want (learning to work through their support systems, for example). They feel personal, they feel intelligent, and treating them as if they are some sort of life-form all on their own can be intellectually (and even legally, in cases where businesses are treated like people) unavoidable. Other examples might include "Capitalism," or specific applications.
5. There's too much to talk about in the way of AI, but it's certainly interesting how we can create these entities that train off of human knowledge to create new personalities. They are sort of like spirits, or even demons, in a pretty concrete sense.
Love the jersey. #COYG
Hi, Joe. I have a sincere question for you: if space and time came into existence after the Big Bang, how could there have been an initial part of the universe before that? (I think saw your article a while ago Saying that would be no problem. I don't know where he is anymore). Does this part e exist before time and space itself?
Space has no beginning, time is an illusion.
@@CMVMic could you explain this better to me? I'm really trying to understand both sides.
@@robertosilveira3936 my understanding is that there is no ''before'' the birth of time, because that would assume time before time. not sure about the notion that time is an illusion, that's more about b-theory (there is no moving present-tense, just earlier-than and later-than relations between moments).
@Roger Interesting, now I understand better. It just comes to my mind that it doesn't make much sense to talk about a time before time and all that, So if space did not exist, where exactly would the initial state be? But I think I'm understanding better when I keep in mind that the initial state is necessary and time and space is not.
@@kevinmcdonald6560 I think I understand more or less. But that's exactly what doesn't fit in my head: it doesn't make sense to talk about time before time, so it wouldn't make sense to have an initial state even before time itself because being "initial" presupposes the existence of time...
Sounds like Eric Steinhart is describing his practice as pagan fictionalism, but also says fictionalism is bad because it’s hypocritical? 🤔
I think it depends on what one takes “fictionalism” to consist in. If it just means engaging in the relevant rituals without believing certain related tenets, then sure, he’d count as a fictionalist then. But I don’t think that’s the sort of fictionalist he’s accusing of hypocrisy🙂
“I’ve made poor life choices.” 😂
No, no...can't stand platonists, lol! They really shouldn't read physics because it does make them lose their minds.
It really irks me when they clearly don't understand a concept, or understand it at the level of the Matrix movies, but that doesn't stop them from spreading misinformation about it. I've gotten used to new age types doing it, but now philosophers too?! Common...people will take it seriously.
For example: the holographic universe hypothesis does not mean stuff is an illusion. It only means the information about all the stuff can be found at the boundary, the same way the information about stuff in the black hole is contained at the event horizon.
Also, what is up with this; there's no spacetime just because it's emergent? In that case there's no you either. Smh
Could you have a debate with Christopher Langan?
He might give you some meaningful information.
Also you are the silliest and happiest philosopher I've ever seen. Some people joke around saying things like: "I didn't knew that Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is a philosopher."
Also what is your favorite music?
My favorite music is actually FIFA music - usually of the genre at the end of my videos in my Bonus Soccer playlist🙂
@@MajestyofReason Thank you for the answer!
So are you planning on debating Christopher Langan? He says that he could win basically any debate (I agree with him).
I'm curious how would you respond, how would you attack his views.
An interesting discussion, but I ultimately think Dr. Steinhart is giving rituals too much credit. Seems to me abundantly clear that they are mere superstitions that don't accomplish anything. At best, perhaps there were once rituals that were effectual, but like a cargo cult, the essence of the practices has been lost, so we're left with only the empty aesthetics. But again, I don't think there's any good reason to believe that they were ever effectual.
I am sorry but I can't take this guy seriously.
Every reference to religious practice in this video just feels wrong. Have any of you spent any time around religious people from either a) countries who were not completely effected by the Enlightenment or b) non-Anglo countries? If you had, you would realize that virtually all of your understanding falls apart.
There is no talk here of the truly public and communal nature of religion. And no, there is no religious movement in the Anglosphere which is either public or communal. Also, culture!? Language!!?? True and old religious cannot be understood without taking into account the inextricable relationship between religion, culture, language, and tradition; practiced in a public and communal form. Also, place! A religious or ancestral connection to land that has religious significands?
What did the Enlightenment do to you people? All of it is so foreign to you.
American Calvinists are probably the closest thing for you people, but there dont practice publicly/communally. There is not connection to language or culture! Tradition? That keeps being denied by sola scriptura! And, they are terrestrial nihilists! So they hate the world and nature. What a sad state.
Paganism is dead. Every contemporary example of it is a fake and sad imitation.
A great study would be on the Afrikaners/Boers from South Africa(yes yes, Apartheid we know, but this is not of interest in studying how they live their daily lives). They never completely took on the enlightenment. So they are truly religious. Their Calvinism, up until the end of the second Boer war was not very theological but much more of a folk religion. Only after the Union did they theological aspects become 'sophisticated'. That is to say, most of their Christian understanding and worship was tied to and explained through nature and nature worship. Even after all the theological development, this has never gone away. Virtually all of them are right wing/conservative, ecological nutcase, communal(not collectivist or individualist), Christians. This combination is very foreign to the American. And they are not nihilist Christians like most of the Christians of the west.
Also, all of them are obsessed with language. Have you ever heard of such a thing? If i walked around and asked random Americans about their favorite words, they would think im crazy. Not only would the average Afrikaner give you a list of his favorite words on the spot, virtually every Afrikaner(subconsciously) develops a unique pattern of speech.
The Anglosphere need to remember that religions used to be all-encompassing, taking in every aspect of life. Philosophy and theology cannot do this. It's not possible.
Naturalism as religion can succeed, but not in the matter any of you will try. Sad.
Religion is allways god-of-the-gaps, the god is always invented to explain something for which the naturalistic explanation is not immediately obvious. We nolonger worship a god of thunder and we nolonger sacrifice virgins to the gods to guarantee a good harvest because we know about crop rotation and different soils etc.
Knowledge is power and it's easy to make stuff up and pretend that you know things. This is how cult leaders are made.
I accept that religion is a thing that will allways exist, but it's important to rememeber that it 's all made up and that people are willing to kill eachother over what they think somebody else believes.
In science the worst things that happen is a heated debate about the evidence. In religion people kill eachother in the name of the god. that alone should make you vomit, but apparently we should discuss wether we could maybe combine make-up-sh8t with nature.
This is why I like phylosophy but dispise philosophers.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
You need to listen more carefully. Nowhere was god used as a replacement for missing explanation. Your binary way of thinking is hopelessly naive.
Technology is not neutral and matter is just not just there for manipulation by autonomous subjects. Normativity is always needed before tech is deployed which would involve philosophy at least ethics at any rate.
@@thotslayer9914, what is the hard problem in metaphysics?
@@thotslayer9914, that's largely a SEMANTIC quandary. ☝️
Someone doesn't understand theisn.