After Socrates: Episode 16 - Kierkegaard, Jesus and Suffering
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this episode, John and Christopher explore the philosophical connections between Socrates and Kierkegaard, discussing the role of paradox, irony, and the self. They delve into Kierkegaard's stages of life - aesthetic, ethical, and religious - and his critiques of Christendom and societal expectations. The conversation also covers Kierkegaard's complex relationships with love and society, his I-Thou relationship with God, and the resolution of paradox in human existence. Throughout the discussion, Chris and John emphasize the profound nature of dialogos, the ontological claim about Christ as the Logos, and the challenges of discussing sin and its associations.
00:00 - Introduction
00:58 - Section 1: Socratic Paradox and Kierkegaard's Stages of Life
10:12 - Section 2: Kierkegaard's Critique of Christendom
20:03 - Section 3: Kierkegaard's Suffering
30:00 - Section 4: Kierkegaard's Struggle with Society and Love
40:15 - Section 5: Lingering Connection and the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical
50:00 - Section 6: Kierkegaard's I-Thou Relationship with God and the Resolution of Paradox
01:00:08 - Section 7: Dialogos, Shifting Modes of Identification, and the Concept of Sin
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
Good title for Good Friday!
TG4GF
I hope your Sermon went well PVK 👍
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I’m looking forward to your take on this if you do one Paul!
I hope to hear your words on these episodes Paul. For some of us, conversations like this are a bridge in.
I would like to talk to you again at some point about Kierkegaard.
I’ve thought about our conversation since we had it and it’s affected me deeply.
I love you Paul.
The bond here is incredible; from the beginning of this project; through all the mini series; it is these two who have stuck me so strongly. A friendship that I am so glad to see happen. It’s not the propositional that draws me but the looks they give. The sensitivity they have toward the conversation is what draws me. Authentic. Pure, and heartfelt. I will give my life to that kind of relationship.
Fun fact: Regina went on to live an interesting and fairly long life (82), sailing across the ocean to the Danish West Indies (present day: US Virgin Islands) where she married the governor who had been a tutor of hers in her youth.
"Suffering oneself", wow! I never heard that before but it resonates very strongly. Thanks!
I don't choose the body or situation I am born into but I am not a victim. I suffer myself in the body and situation I find myself. I can seek to improve both but there is a place for exploring/embracing/relishing the possibilities of serving God within these limits.
Seeing as Christopher drew so heavily on The Sickness unto Death throughout his talk, I think it is only right to quote how Kierkegaard ends that book: "The formula for that state in which there is no despair at all: in relating itself to itself and in wanting to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power which established it. Which formula in turn, as has frequently been remarked, is the definition of faith."
I'm loving these conversations between John and Chris. As others said too, it's evident how much both of them appreciate being in conversation with each another and, besides the content itself of what they're pronouncing, seeing that human dynamic is a very positive thing.
In terms of something else, I'd like to explore how to take the different stages and their transitions into our daily practices. I feel, for one, that the practice of asking oneself "who am I" could integrate some Kierkegaardian knowledge.
The first three minutes blew my mind into ordered I see standing and accepting of the paradox that is my deep religious Informed by my culture and community of Ukrainian Catholic belief but my constant forging I to new frontiers of knowledge and exploration I feed a quest along a path that threads my being along through life .
Uploaded the moment I opened my browser - What a joy! Can't wait to hear this Dialogue continued. Socrates and Kierkegaard would be pleased!
indeed
Wow! What a gut punch about infinitizing yourself. Very good stuff. Thank you two for another incredible dialogue.
Kierkegaard's stages really seem to converge nicely with the child, the adult, and the sage.
This is a wonderful connection, thank you 🙏
Chris has been great during these Kierkegaard episodes. As an avid Kierkegaard reader myself, some of his points have been very helpful. John, as always, is a great listener and partner in dialogos. Thanks gentlemen
Great episode as always, I will say that it goes from a dialogue to seeming that Christopher is monologuing what and how he prepared to speak beforehand
That's me in the audience "Wooo Amen, yes yes yes. Thank you Jesus". Soooo deeeep in the muddddd. phew wee! I can't believe I made it through this in one go 😅. Oh lordy, there was no need for more takeaways hh ... Thank you both for making this free to access. Happy Egg Hunting to all. Pageau has a stash hhh.
This is the best and most nuanced discussion of Kierkegaard I have heard. Fabulous.
An episode I’ve been waiting for, John. Thank you for a great conversation! I’ve been following each episode and truly you have inspired me; to become enlightened! But like Socrates. To follow his path. Truly John, for those who listen, you have given us a gift. How could one follow the enlightened path without himself first catching on fire?
This series is truly amazing work; I do not think I have experienced such joy and acceptance with life prior to attempting to understand Socrates. Thank you John
For the people who handle Dr. Vervaeke's YT channel: As of today (9 April 2023), episodes 14 & 16 are missing from the After Socrates playlist
Keep up the good work everyone 👍🙏
Thx! I will get in this.
Beautiful discourse! "i don't Know" is the simple essence of the "midwifery" of the Neo-Platonic Phantasy. This contemplative practice and its internal psychology brings forth unfolds, manifests... is the feminine, the Divine Mother the vehicle through whom the through-relation of the Self is unfolded in all subtle worlds.... - a cloathing, a psychical vestment - a new weaving - that orients and elevates us toward Being... We may dare to say it is the Divine Phantasy who always is in Potentia...
Wonderful video, very fluid conversation. Christopher’s expressions and cadence are incredible, communication skills at a level that’s just awe-inspiring. And you were sharp as always, John! Always impressed with your ability to track not just what the other person is saying, but the whole philosophical and literary context behind their train of thought. You two set a great example of how to engage in dialogue.
Brilliant. Respect & thanks from Tracy in Wales.
Thanks Tracy! Hope you are well.
Been waiting in anticipation for this conversation ever since last week! Thank you John!
It is so helpful to be listening to Kierkegaard's and Socrates approaches to paradox in the evening, and during the day James Lindsay's talks about Leftist Dialectic; the former seeking paradox to participate more fully with Reality, the latter aiming to reduce paradox to escape Reality.
These two episodes have also helped with better understanding of where uncle Al was coming from, in his writings and practices of Tao and paradox as a way to become aware of Reality; or Hillman looking 'from underneath' in depth psych
Dreaming has become more paradoxical as well
Excited to watch this one! Good Friday to you, John.
"what particular character is being lived out" reminds me of guests on the channel connecting it seems different objects of the individual with a practice that in turn connects to the larger world. Japanese kinetic movement, wilderness replenishing of sensory array, breathing and meditation, language and knowledge as built objects to be connected to, and so on. Thanks for the video.
Brilliant! Thank you Chris & John🙏
A good conversation and good introduction to Kierkegaard - thank you for that;
If I were to be critical in an aspirationally uplifting manner, I would have loved to see you delve (more?)into his exploration of martyrdom; that of Socrates, that of Christ and that of his own such as he saw it - and how this relates to what faith is to him: being called to action (leap) by the longing.
With how much you spoke of his life, I am surprised you never got around to mentioning his fondness of walking; much like Nietzsche he very much so stressed the importance of a healthy body in order to have a lot of thoughts come to you and to help disgest those.
Lastly, I must say Kierkegaard’s references to, commentary on and fondness of Diogenes tend to go underappreciated although with the constraint of having a not too long conversation, I dont blame you at all for not going there.
Loving you and Christopher in these dialogues!
Very helpful talk - worth seeing again
Very timely!
My uncle said to me when I was little that there are people who understand and also people who stand under.
Brilliant.
You guys kill me! But it's ecstasy. Thank you so much.
Perfect for Good Friday
I feel that we all do this, if we notice our complexes. We often, especially the poetic and intuitive types, create different masks. Different personalities for different purposes. But to affix yourself to one line, the highest possible self, you have to learn some way to silence those other voices. And die/dive INTO yourself. This often requires more SILENCE on certain things than others rather than an inflation of the one. I silence this other aspect of my personality, to raise up this one that means more to me. The part that stays constant, means something regardless of my mood. Oh how mood changes us so, from moment to moment.
Being in right relationship with.
Dialog; practice.
Dialogos; participate.
Would we see John and Christopher dive into some Jung as well? I know that Christopher is also very knowledgeable and enthusiastic on that front.
isn’t it the wisdom that we eventually find from questioning ourselves that allows us to transcend the ‘universal’ law of ethics?
I propose an additional musical theme for this episode, Orff’s setting of “In Trutina” from the Carmina Burana:
“In trutina mentis dubia
fluctuant contraria”
caspar david friedrich wanderer above the sea of fog reminds me of kierkegaard
At 50 min the one-d by the One being careful of time and the shared identity rescuing this seems like an initial downward emanation as symmetrical time from which the universe as hyperobject was something new, asymmetric or having a rate of time. This becoming rates, as different object arrangements, with the relational between. Self as relational between objects and different objects combined as a human individual with different rates of time that can be focused on rather dizzyingly as a process or allowed as a spectrum without committing. The shared identity a rising above a limited spectrum to share in the larger one in a heart to heart connection of objects that the self can twine around.
To think these people wake up everyday like you and me and they go to work as well, except their work is... this
what was the last letter to Regina called?
🔥⚡️
Enantiodromia-The line between medicine man and madman.
50:32 Why do we assume an "I/Thou" relationship? Is the "I" in that assertion the self-narrative we have cobbled together from self-selected experience/memory? We are only "distended" if we continue to assert this I-as-self-narrative theory.
If, instead, we do not assert our "I'ness" as this separative bundle of memory, reality shines forth as-it-is. We then follow that injunction well: "Be still and know that I Am." In this state of non-separative non-assertion, we attain what the pyrrhonists called ataraxia (state of equanimity). I find so much of philosophy to be assertions, when Truth/God shines most brightly in a state of non-assertion.
I think the "I" is important. Even in your statement of what is true, you are assuming the I/Thou relationship. I think you are in your language conflating the natural knowledge that there is an I as opposed to you, two different altars of experience or minds, and the notion of an ego or a self that cobbles together a narrative and some concept of inflated self-identity from this. I think you'd agree to the I/Thou relationship if you think of I, not as ego or self, but as true self, which finds your identity in being in a relationship to Truth/God. In your example, you are the one who is sitting in non-assertion receiving what is shining brightly, and Truth/God, is the Thou who shines most brightly and is disclosing that light to you. The I/Thou relationship is simply recognizing that, for instance, I do not know what it is like to be a bat, and we might 'one' in the sense that we are both of the same being, but ultimately that bat's consciousness is still not present to me. There is a principle in philosophy called the principle of identity which just roughly means that p=p. I only know what it is like to exist as being in myself, this body, this mind, this state of consciousness, etc., And have no ability to know what it is like to be God, or you, or the bat. So the I/Thou relationship, is not a dualistic picture, if that's what you have a problem with, to where one is putting objects against each other and denying their unity, believing that God is 'out there', for instance. But it is just an obvious and natural truth that I am not identical to everything else, insofar as I do not know what it is like to be a tree, bat, you, God, etc. Even the quote you brought up, "Be still and know that I Am" there is one person who is called to being still in another's I Am-ness, so to speak. This is not to deny unity, of course, it is just to follow with St. Teresa who heard God say, "“Soul, you must seek yourself in Me, and in yourself seek Me.” There is a unity, but nevertheless there is one who is being called, guided, and another who is calling and guiding for her to rest in Himself as one. I also agree, that propositions can make things hard some times, but it seems to me that if non-assertion is taken seriously then its animalistic. It is precisely because we do assert certain things that an individual in meditative non-assertiveness can focus on the natural reality of being, this is a good meditative principle, but it cannot be extrapolated across everything otherwise we would never even realize that we ought to focus on Being Itself, or God. We would just do whatever instincts prevailed. Propositions are necessary at some level; otherwise, we don't have a religion, spirituality, or mysticism, we just have insanity to where whatever object of sense experience catches our attention we brainlessly follow after it. Propositions are necessary as sign posts to tell us what or perhaps Who to look upon, in order to be still. Even the Buddhist will say to his disciple to "watch the one who watches" to let him know what to do. And by the way, I don't think you'd disagree with this stuff, as I mentioned you implicitly affirm the I/Thou relationship, I'm just clarifying the language. I think I would agree with the essence of everything you're saying, but I'm clarifying the language so that you can see the I/Thou relationship better so that you may get more from the video. God bless
Hmmm sounds like Chris Langans CMTU .. ‘All’ is consciousness writ large experiencing itself by consciousness writ micro
One criterion that makes someone hard to please is that his experiences by others's avert desire were making complicated attempts, and such things are carried out by language and not only that, so another things about the someone's personality was not known when saying "hard to please", I think beyond what normativity is on it, we need to appreciate as the someone told, if it is in the form of rationality. Who is hard to please is sometimes...
The things unrespectful or love exist in religion too, and it is connected by human being's affairs, obscruity also happened in the community. Kierkegaard's critics focus on different aspects of each statements in his book, so relative understanding is recommended in ethical thinking. This does not work is not the origin of it, declensive commitment is so.
The relationship between men and women are similarly, in daily manner, it is case by case, and aftermath or posthumous manner, things are text-archiving and it is reproductive in historical texts, controversial manner sometimes look like neutral but its consequence is very often otherwise.
What is familiarly expectful is the issue, practice is so. Kierkegaard is good writer. I think it is not the matter of specific nature of philosophizing, "usage" or "ultimate crisis condition" that other existential therapists say, Jaspers or its school say.
The conversation in this video is good example to talk about this issues, free association is also this means helpful for people who have perplexed experiences.
I expect Dr.Vervaeke and his fellows, but here is something beyond apparent talk, so I put these replies as looking verbose three replies.
48:37
Learned ignorance and called
Followers of A I might be interested to know that ChatGBT now has a much better understanding of Vervaeke's approach than it did a few months ago.... Frightening!?
For example I asked it whether his ideas about the participation of the objective world in the construction of meaning implies that the universe itself is intelligent. Here is its answer:
ChatGBT: The idea that the objective world is actively participating in the meaning-making process does suggest a certain level of intelligence or agency on the part of the environment. However, it is important to note that this does not necessarily imply that the objective world possesses the same kind of intelligence or consciousness as humans do.
Instead, the view that the objective world participates in the co-creation of meaning suggests a more subtle and nuanced understanding of intelligence, one that recognizes that intelligence can take many different forms and is not simply the product of brains or conscious agents.
For example, even simple organisms like bacteria are capable of responding to their environment in complex ways, and this can be seen as a form of intelligence. Similarly, ecological systems exhibit complex, adaptive behavior that involves the interaction of a wide range of different organisms and environmental factors.
From this perspective, the idea that the objective world participates in the meaning-making process suggests that there is a kind of distributed intelligence or agency at work, rather than a centralized intelligence located in any one entity. This is a complex and challenging idea that challenges many traditional assumptions about the nature of intelligence and consciousness, and it is still a matter of debate in both philosophical and scientific circles.
So the ethical in some way blocks the way to the "ultimate". For me not only this is a misconception but also a dangerous idea.
Got to be alright to be wrong.
This is it happy Good Friday also consider speaking to a Ukrainian Catholic or orthodox priest sometime peace be with you hater gunna hate
Please sit down with Dr. Jordan Peterson or his colleague Dr. John Vervaeke
🌚☄️❤️💫
Scaramouche
1952
I feel that you guys are talking about something really important but sadly I can't connect with it
I am Peter Pan and I am Captain Hook.
Paradox - finite and infinite. Swanns way, story about lover in the past and then talking about the infinite in that the trappings of the past have disappeared and are only fragments abstracted from the senses, as an example. A form of waking up from the dream.
Aesthetic to the ethical - from potential in imagination to actual, committing to a cultural good.
Aesthetic stage - act in the mode of possibility, creating a world of exploration. Infinitnised oneself but lose oneself. Lost yourself in time in the hope that you found yourself here. Enclosed in a bubble of possibilities. Transcendent over earth. And losing time actually. Losing freedom even when they think they are gaining freedom.
Ethical - commitment to finite truths, universal criterion of living that is less than ultimate. To necessity, finitude before the universal. Can result in idolatry. Marriage - from aesthetic to ethical. Tries to find salvation in the law. Completely self enclosed as it's worst without consideration of the beyond.
Religious - Burden of suffering that could not be ignored, had to be confronted. Not suffering as an aesthetic indulgence. Suffering as a coming into consciousness. Suffering induces aporia to get rid of illusions that modally confuse. By suffering u can become conscious of the nature of existence and thereby allow yourself to turn to that 'right' existence.
Self - inherently relational (I thou) and aspirational to God for kirkegaard. Resolves the paradox through God that knows them through One. Made One by the One.
All the above is done dialogically/through suffering rather than a synthesis. Use the two lenses to see through these into something deeper.
Dialectic into dialogos:
Aesthetic - what u plan to say/wish to say
Ethics - what is by necessity said
Religious - aporia, no longer identified with self, identified with centre of process that is unfolding. Shifts to logos.
A adult once realises he is in error ethically can decide to dig down and refuse, to play out his own ego out, as a reaction, because he is offended that he is so off the mark and needs to change.
Socratic dialogues allow for appreciation for ignorance
Religious - allows for faith and truthfulness beyond the propositional
Child's reaction to sin: denial, anger, embracing it. Adults do this too
Notice shifts in Identities and roles when doing dialogos - aesthetic, ethical, religious
Don't like this guys aura, sorry John.
I feel that too! But I've moved to another room or blanked the screen and just listened to what he has to say and I'm blown away by the content!
@@reitsmacbkdw you’re right, the content is great either way, good perspective thank you
@@shogun9450 Maybe once once I learn to "suffer myself" I will have to learn to "suffer another"