Roland Barthes (Makers of the Modern World)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ธ.ค. 2022
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
This is part of the Makers of the Modern World series in which I discuss the ideas of Roland Barthes including his view of mythology, the death of the author, and Marxism.
![ลักพาตัว เอาลูกเอิร์นกลับมา...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f4NVKlZ5qkk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for this series. I haven’t studied philosophy but I am very intrigued by it. I look forward to the next videos.
Thanks as always for these. I really appreciate the work you put into them.
This is a good exposition on someone not usually recognized even among those who lean towards postmodernity. Thanks.
This is off topic but I’m a young man who has just been recently introduced to Lutheranism. I have just been wondering how the repetitive intake of the Lord’s Supper works in conjunction with Sola Fide. What do you mean it is a mean of Grace? Do that mean it is something that we repeatedly have to do in order to be saved? Thank you for all that you do Dr. Cooper.
Do you mind if I take a stab?
My take is that the 'means of grace': word and sacraments, work in such a way that our faith is renewed and our union with Christ reinforced. Basically, before anyone can grasp the Lutheran approach to sacraments, you have to start with the Lutheran approach to grace.
Idk what your background is, but if you came out of the Reformed tradition, the idea of permanent/punctiliar regeneration is something that is hard to shake; in Lutheranism, grace is necessary all throughout the Christian life in order to preserve us in the state of Justification due to the fact that we can fall away in unbelief (as expressed through mortal/unrepentant sin). The sacraments are sure, external signs that guarantee the exchange of grace especially if we are struggling with our faith. Even if we aren't struggling with assurance, the sacraments work as rites of covenant renewal, all the same and so are necessary in order to remain united to the Covenant of salvation (externally, and inwardly).
This is not a law that must be kept in order to be saved, but rather a divine promise that is continually received through fellowshiping with God through His church -- in much the same way that God commands us to abide in His word (Bible), and insofar as we do we are being obedient in sanctification... BUT, the occassion of our obedience is simultaneously used as the means whereby the Holy Spirit works our salvation (Word of God is active). Therefore, a rite/action of ours can simultaneously be a 'good work' AND a means of salvation, BUT not be means of salvation BECAUSE it's a good work of obedience.
@@vngelicath1580 thank you so much for your response! I come from a Catholic background, so the idea of Eucharistic atonement in a sacrificial sense is also very difficult to shake (if you couldn’t tell 😂). I’m sorry to be slow to understand, I am very new to Lutheran theology. Is it the sacraments themselves that justify us? If they are, how much different are they from the Roman Catholic sacraments? Sorry again, and thank you!
@@andydrew1146 You're good, no worries.
So, yes. Depending on what you mean. The sacraments impart the 'grace of justification', but in a Lutheran/Protestant context, "Justification" has a unique meaning: our forensic righteousness in Christ for salvation, as distinct from intrinsic righteousness in sanctification by the power of the Spirit (which is also strengthened by the sacraments, but because we're Protestant, the two realities are distinct). Basically, if you understand Protestant Justification vs Sanctification, and then apply a Catholic view of the sacraments to that system, you'll get Lutheranism.
Justification, for Protestants, is the work of Christ (life, death, and resurrection) applied to the Christian by virtue of union with Christ -- thus, God's reward to Christ for His obedience is applied to us for our salvation. Thus, we are "justifed apart from works of the law" (us IN CHRIST)
Santification, is a result and not a cause of justification, and is the process of God's indwelling us and transforming us to conform to His image as a result of us being saved. (Christ IN US)
I like this series. de Saussure and Barthes were essential to my undergrad studies in linguistics, but I never tie them in with theology.
Back when Game of Thrones was popular, the annoying character who played the child-king in an interview said something along the lines, "well, that's a heteronormative question." I didn't know what exactly was going on at the time. All I had was some vague idea that the label was not a good sign.
Good as always Dr. Cooper!
I heard you say your last video on Saussure was the least watched of these, and at the end of this one that you hope people don't skip watching this one on Bart and I just have to say I've really appreciated your going in depth on some of these lesser known figures. I feel a lot of times people just go from Marxism to the Frankfurt school, to CRT today and it's been really cool to see some of the other intellectual strands that went into the making of our modern world. I personally will be watching each of these, particularly the ones on lesser known figures. Thanks for your hard work. Also if you do make this all into a book I'll definitely buy it. Lol
Good presentation. I never heard of this guy, but very interesting!
@dr Jordan Cooper as always another presentation excellently done. Unfortunately I don't know much about philosophy however it more thought provoking material to think over 💜✝️🛐
Thank you, Dr. Cooper! Now, how about a nice video on Charles Peirce and American Pragmatism? Or, more specifically, something on Peircian semiotics...? 🙏
It's a possibility.
@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you, Dr. Cooper! 👍🙂
Great video
That was superb...I have a BA and MA in English and I was trained to think of the author and his intent as irrelevant. I wonder if there us a school of literary theory that you think is pretty good. I mean post Aristotle and Plato. I wonder what you might think of Northrop Frye....really interesting discussion, look forward to more like this.
Thank you, never heard of this fellow.
THANKS !
Thank you dr. Cooper!
For an author to be only interested in the words is like a painter being interested only in the paint or sculptor being interested only in rock. These things are means, not ends in and of themselves (unless the artist is trying to tell me something about paint or rock). C.S. Lewis had something to say about this in "The Great Divorce", with an artist that ended up in hell. "Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from the love of the thing he tells, to the love of the telling till, down in Deep Hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him."
>political language is non-mythical
>all other language is mythical
>but everything is political
I don't get it
I follow Ferdinand Hapsburg on FB. If World War I ended differently he would be the heir today to the Austrian throne. He's a professional race car driver and he very much comes across in every way, dress, speech, mannerisms as just a regular guy. Austria Hungary is recent heritage for me and I wish my parents were alive because they would get a good laugh from seeing how the heir to Royalty looks and behaves in the 21st century.
You get ELCA readings of the texts of the Bible.
"The only non-mythical language is political". Obviously Barthes knew nothing about engineering or the sciences. Engineering and science rely on language that means specific things - or else your bridge falls down.
Well good thing he's a post-structuralist.
The acid is coming for engineering and science as well. James Lindsay spends a lot of time in New Discourse Podcast Episode 101 going through a published paper called "Glaciers, Gender, and Science: A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research".
The bridges are next.
Yes, science does depend on objective language. But again, science doesn't, at least modern science doesn't assign essence to material phenomena/matter.
The objective language is obtained by standardizing units, words and experiments, so all practitioners are to use same weights, length measurements, words and experimental set ups etc. But you cannot standardize things in social sciences, and never in metaphysics of abstract ideas , again, modern science doesn't assign essence.
Photon was a particle, then a wave, then a particle-wave, and tomorrow it might be something else, but the results/data from standardized experiments don't change, THEIR INTERPRETATION CHANGES. Which is kinda POST-MODERN lol.
Makes me wonder why overwhelming majority of the scientists are "leftists". Lol
Science is also mythological because it increases our power. That’s what techne does. Think about how science creates nuclear bombs, cars, etc. it’s all about supplementation/ pharmakon. That’s why the postmodernists are suspicious of science. Because scientists claim it’s just about “clear language” but then a city blows up. I think the post modern analysis is correct and we should acknowledge that science is a way for us to increase our power.
@@mariog1490 No, Science is a methodology, one of two techniques developed to evaluate truth claims about the world. In the scientific method, you create models about how the universe works ("theories"), usually mathematical, and then evaluate them to see how well they predict future events. A theory is considered "proven" when it successfully predicts future events and there are no situations that it cannot handle. (To "disprove" a theory, you just have to find a situation that breaks it. Usually this incorporates some aspect of the universe that the original theorist could not test against, and usually it involves some situation where certain things that previously were very close to zero and could safely be ignored are no longer so.)
Engineers then take the models of the universe developed by the scientist and use them to build things. If the models aren't correct, the thing either falls down or blows up, usually killing people in the process, so we take great care to make sure that the models are good and are used properly.
All of this is only "political" if one party doesn't care about people being killed by bad engineering!
The other technique for evaluating truth claim is the historical/legal method used by lawyers and scholars for evaluating eyewitness testimony and historical documents. The scientific method relies heavily on repetitive experimentation and statistical analysis. However, you can't bring back Napoleon and refight the battle of Waterloo to examine it from all sides, nor can you bring back a murder victim in court to get his point of view. So scholars and lawyers have developed other ways of sifting the truth from eyewitness testimony and for evaluating documents.
I can't stand ties because they make me feel miserably hot. But you do you, haha.
Eva in the Netherlands defending farmers rights to the ownership of their land holding three milk jugs. Her critics said those white milk jugs are not innocent... there is more to it than meets the eye.
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one who didn't like Ulysses.
I intensely dislike Tuxedos. Cowboy boots but with a shirt...Ralph Lauren, classic Oxford...
This lecture was very well done pastor. Your hardwork put in the lecture was quite visible. Now after finishing the whole series ( so far), it was very informative and insightful.
And apart from my trolling, I do share your disdain when modern philosophers insert class analysis everywhere and in everything.
But I don't think you present any strong critique of modern and post-modern ideas, apart from " because I am a lutheran...". This might have worked some centuries ago, but it is a non-argument for a modern man.
As much as I wish that you had any strong counter-arguments, you don't have any except citing authority of bible.
Same is the case with jordan peterson, while as he tries to present his criticism of post-modernist negation of grand narratives or truth claims, his own grand narrative is some neo-christian jungian reinterpretation of hebrew bible, and he begs his audience to believe in it for some pragmatic psychological reasons, which is not going to work.
You all are at loss of counter-arguments and counter narratives.
Now I am searching for a catholic rebuttal of modernity, if you know someone, please refer to me.
the catholic approach would not be different in principle, honestly