@@HankSemoreButz ABsolutely Amen , so please watch the video ,i sent below . We need The Teaching of The One and True Apostolic Churhc in order to get to know The truth Amen Not like i am against the person that made the channel ,,Santus'' , actualy i really appreciate his videos and the work he puts in these i really respect , but i also can not deny The preserved Fullness of The Teaching of the Apostols of CHRIST and This Teachings are in The Orthodox CHURCH This is really important , so please study extremely carefull and detailed the matter , God bless and guide all that may read and listen to this comment Amen !!!
@reviewspiteras Do not be too sad, the accounts surrounding his last dying statements and wishes are many and very inconsistent. Some claimed he refused to denounce Satan at his death bed, some claim he DID receive his rights from a priest and converted to Christianity, others claimed what the commenter has stated. It’s all so contradictory and confusing that I honestly think we will never know what really happened.
St Dom Bosco say than he see Voltaire in Heaven because he regret his sin in the last moment. If the prest can give a sacrement for any reason, Jésus himself give it because he is the great prest.
When that Baron said that we only needed "common sense" to discover morals truths made me laugh because common sense is too subjective to arrive to moral truths by itself. In India it was common sense to burn the widow with her husband, it aztec civilization and cananite civilization it was common sense to do human sacrifice. Common sense is only good if guided by a source of actual goodness aka God
Relativism may have a point. The trouble is that relativists abstain from judgment while they fight wars all over the world to fix other countries' morals.
@@mmyr8ado.360Jean-Jacques Rousseau had quite the history of getting into fights, including his most famous beatdown by Voltaire. I always say that the Noble Savage idea was just Rousseau's excuse for him being a complete jackass.
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896ah yes, the only moral truth moral relativists hold to, "How dare you judge other cultures?" as if that itself is not a judgement on a cultures culture to judge other cultures
As a frenchman, i am so glad we had Chateaubriand after the Révolution to Debunk all the shit of Voltaire in "Génie du Christianisme". Thank god Voltaire is in the Panthéon, it must be a torture for him to hear everyday the bells of Saint-Étienne-du-Mont.
And you should be glad that you also have Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald,which rebutted all those Rousseaunian nonsense about mythical pacts and virtues of being in a Stone Age. Sadly they are not sufficiently known in their own country. Another example that no one is prophet in his own country and between his own.
@@matheuspinho4987 Most of philosophy and mysticism circles around the same idealistic motives, with very few thinkers looking beyond the same old merry-go-round.
Aristotle and St. Aquinas also wrote that goodness is not inherently increased based on how much it is desired/how many desire it, nor is it inherently increased by pleasure resulting from the good, nor because of how much the good is needed, and that an honorable good (*bonum honestum*), which can be enjoyed for its own sake, and a common good (*bonum commune*), a good which can be shared by others without scarcity are always the highest forms of Good. St. Aquinas, unlike Aristotle, wrote that humans can never ultimately be satisfied with finite things; ultimately the source of true satisfaction is the infinite God.
I'm satisfied with finite things. I guess I just proved this Aquinas fellow wrong. The "God" of the Bible is the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.
@miguelatkinson the human heart is made for pleasure, whether it be good, infinite spiritual pleasure of knowing God or from sin. You, in commenting this, fulfilled your need for intellectual pleasure. I'm always frustrated when I see Buddhists proclaim their views online because they never go to lengths to explain anything, they don't see the need to proselytize. It's like they're purposely taunting you with needlessly saying "you're wrong".
The Enlightenment was largely sparked by Aristole and Aquinas' ideas. The anglo-enlightenment especially. John Locke's Natural Law theory is extremely similar to Aquinas'
Not at all Thomas gave us Aristotle. Ayn Rand moved beyond the mysticism with her philosophy. Using the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks. Hume was a mystic, and Kant was a Mystic that attacked reason.
Because of this evil thing, my country (Brazil) lost the Jesuit education, lost the Royal Union with Portugal and lost the Empire (the best phase of our country).
I wanted to make the Linkara joke too, lol. But yes, Lucifer translates to 'Light-bearer' (Lux [light] + Ferare [to bear], if my rusty Latin does not fail me).
There is no morality. Good and evil do not exist. What is real is violence, power, and fear. All Christianity does is pervert the natural order of things with Hell being the violence and God being the power. In reality it is we who are the violence and power. Morality is simply a fear of each other. What you regard as "evil" is just mental illness. Back when this stuff was being thought up they didn't even know what the brain was for. When the mummified the pharaoh they just threw that away. Just watch how any other social animals interact. When one disrupts the order of the group someone slaps it in line. Humans have stuff like fines and jail for that now but it is still the same thing the other animals do.
Thomas Aquinas's ideas largely helped spark the Enlightenment lmao what the fuck are you talking about. The Enlightenment ideas that built the west, based in John Locke were extremely similar to Aquinas in so many ways. You obviously haven't read much Locke or much Aquinas if you don't see the strong similarities. And if you haven't read John Locke then it's reckless and arrogant for you to voice an opinion on the Enlightenment. John Locke was the single most influential Enlightenment figure and he was a Christian who thought very much like Aquinas.
Proof? Y'all talking all this shit with 0 evidence. Humanity was quite moral and prosperous after the Enlightenment up until the Enlightenment was rejected then mankind fell into a hedonistic dark age.
@@Libertus-wv9xe This isn't just about America, its about all of the western nations. Anytime you take God out of the equation, it will be followed by its logical conclusion to hedonistic self-destruction. The idea of morality coming from God is denied by the Enlightenment, and when mankind decides to steer their own ship, sooner or later they'll lose regard for anything beyond their own gratification. The Constitution was not built on Enlightenment values, as it referenced God and the self-evident, unalienable human rights bestowed upon us by God many times. In short, the Enlightenment simply convinced mankind that it knew what was best, and when you are entirely convinced of your own rationale and your own beliefs, you do not grow and do not look to anything higher than yourself. This creates an innate selfishness that brings out the worst in humanity, either over time or immediately, depending on how long it takes for the foolishness of the idea to spread across enough people.
@@Libertus-wv9xe Enlightenment values like breaking all your treaties with the Native Americans, chattel enslavement of millions of Africans, going to war abroad under false pretenses, etc.
@@Libertus-wv9xe It was a false philosophy used to destroy Christendom. It led to the catastrophe of the French Revolution, and all later ideological revolutions. From it the ideologies of the 20th century directly originate. Communism, fascism, and demo-liberalism.
Their error was trying to codify Christian dualism without God or Jesus. Fun fact, the Enlightenment was in large part, a reaction to the Thirty Years' War, a religious conflict that had been Europe's longest and most destructive single war, and would remain such until nearly three centuries after it ended.
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896 the enlightenment is also wrong about that also since the 30 year war being a “religious war” is so surface level. If it was truly about Protestant vs Catholics than why did the French Catholics join sides with the Protestants against the catholic Austrians? You’d think that because they’re both Catholics would mean they would join sides but nope. It was a highly political war disguised as a religious war. War is never as simple as it seems.
@@vannchansenany10d32 The French have always been a bit of a renegade nation, for starters. The Thirty Years' War would not be the last religious conflict where France would basically stab the Catholic Church in the back for political gain. Moreover, one of the major issues that kept the war going was that when a ruler might make peace with another, a third or fourth might then proceed to invade just because a territory's ruler did not subscribe to the correct version of Christianity. Indeed, one of the major terms of the Peace of Westphalia was that Europe's rulers recognised national sovereignty, where whoever ruled a territory, not some church or particularly pious outsider, got to decide all that territory's policies. If anything, it was the political doctrine of national sovereignty as codified at Westphalia that permanently curbed the power of the Catholic Church. After 1648, the Catholic Church could no longer actively interfere in countries' affairs. Besides, the Thirty Years' War severely battered the basic Christian idea that Right and Good would always have the Glorious Victory over Wrong and Evil, what with the longest and most destructive war Europe had known ending in what amounted to a stalemate.
The first arguments for modern moral fallacy; we know what's good from bad because it's "logical" to us to know what is good and what is bad. History would prove them wrong, in lack of awareness of their own position and upbringing in a society that has an objective moral basis as the example for good and bad.
nice fail. Christian morality is demosntrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little moreo than might equals right
You don't even require history all you need is to bring up something the culture considers controversial or complex and then watch people stumble all over themselves.
Stuff like this is why the American thinkers imo were better than the European ones overall and especially better than the French. People like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams recognized that having religion was necessary for good morals and thus a well-functioning society (though they were naive about the benefits of separating church from State) and we see how successful the American Revolution was compared to the absolute disaster of the French Revolution. I don't like everything in the American Constitution but since 1787 America has had only one Republic and one Constitution whereas France is on its what, 5th Republic? The Americans clearly thought much better longterm than the France (though its a shame that they've gone so downhill since then)
Yeah sure the "elighment" brought benefits, but it aslo set back Hummanity in ways people don't want to confront such as the idea of racial hierarchys, social Dawrinisn, seeing the past as a "dark age", hyper individualism,and etc. People always like to look at the past with disdain but ignore all the terrible crap in our "perfect" mondern world.
@miguelatkinsonif somone says "God's morals" on a Christian TH-camr's comment section, and you want to use this "argument(?)", there is something wrong with you.
If the Bible is the revelation of "God's morals" then that explains why the history of Christianity is written in blood. The morals of the main character in that work of fiction are atrocious.
08:00 seems to miss Kant’s point on the universality. If everyone preferred adultery to fidelity, it would destroy marriage as a concept, and thus the human race, and of course people would typically rather exist than not exist. Same to those who prefer war over peace. The point is that if everyone were faithful, compassionate, and honest, you would have a flourishing harmonious society, whereas if everyone were adulterous, selfish, and dishonest, it would be chaos and even the people who desire that would suffer.
Exactly this. Lying is bad because if everyone lied, the claim to say the truth is no longer there. Without this claim however, you cannot lie (as a lie needs this claim to work) and thus lying destroys the fundamental principle that it needs to work. So you cannot make it universal without destroying it. This makes it imorral, not what effect it would have to society. I feel sad for this forced dichotomy between Kant and the Church. Especially since if you really look into it, Kant just bases morality on reason (and we know that God can be found within reason).
You should look up Julius Caesar's description of Germans and German culture in _The Gallic Wars_ Essentially, war _was_ their culture. Everything they did and valued as a society were done so that they could more effectively wage war.
@@ianweir3608 To base the entire notion of germanic culture on a book Caesar wrote to promote his career and the idea of conquest of the germania is a bit ... wacky to say the least. It was a very tribal community with more rough elements than what we see as ideal but to say they only lived for war is like saying vikings were only brutal killer like in the movies. Norse culture is so much more than this.
@TheAzonnali not really. Every culture has a basis (ours is greco-roman philosophy and Christian ethics - at least it was, we've strayed quite a bit from that latter part) . And the vikings were very similar to the pagan Germans. Their primary goal was to die a glorious death in battle. The way you got to their version of heaven was dying in warfare. And even Valhalla is literally just feasting and fighting on repeat for eternity. Like it or not, _The Gallic Wars_ is the best contemporary description of pagan German culture that we have, and it is very level handed. It glorifies the Germans more than anything. It's obvious from your response that you haven't read it at all, so why denigrate it? You know full well that you have no idea what you're talking about. But don't mind me. If you're not willing to read the source material for yourself, then no one is going to make you. Go ahead and teach people about things you don't know about.
@@ianweir3608 Is that really different from Rome tho? Their entire economy was dependent on war, the reason Commodus was so hated is because his ending of foreign wars tanked the Roman economy.
@timothytremblay7763 who determines what the “Real Jesus preached” is? When you throw out Christ’s Church and Sacred Tradition, you throw out the “Real Jesus” for a phony, man-made one.
Unfortunately, the Mainline Churches treat the Enlightenment as a norm of absolute truth, and claim that we must accept higher criticism as the only legitimate method of biblical scholarship due to the Enlightenment. However, not all Enlightenment leaders were anti-Christian. George Berkeley (pronounced BAHRK-lee, though Berkeley, California was named after him) was a devout faithful Christian.
If the church had conducted its affairs in a moral fashion there would have been no need for an Enlightenment. Alas it didn't, thus opening the door for further error.......
The Enlightenment started in monasteries are church universities well before it became mainstream. The same ancient philosophers that inspired Enlightenment thought were studied and admired by monks hundreds of years before the Enlightenment. Christian intellectuals generally associated ancient greek philosophy with Christianity saying that they ethically align. The Greek philosophers were always seen as being the highest good you could be without being a believer. Thats why in Dantes inferno they were in the 1st circle of hell. So the ideas that sparked the Enlightenment were typically admired by intellectual members of the church long before the Enlightenment happened. Thomas Aquinas especially. You could almost call Aquinas an Enlightenment figure. He was saying many of the big ideas that blew up in the Enlightenment way before hand. This youtuber just isn't that educated. He is just good at sounding like he is educated and cherry picking examples that support his bias. But he doesn't understand history well at all.
Before I sub to the channel, is there ever anything regarding talmudic judaism and what it is to christianity and christians? I'm asking cause I scrolled down the main page, saw some similar stuff regarding Islam but nothing about those who waged war against Christ with relentless hatred for the past 2000 years.
The most depraved collection of bile masquerading as religion anywhere in the world. This was the false tradition that Christ condemned. In particular, the Mishnah.
I feel like Kant was done a disservice, here. Wasn't the universal applicability he was describing not about desire, but practice? Lying and stealing can't be universally practiced, and neither can things like adultry or war. I think the critique you quoted was clearly misunderstanding Kant. That said, universal application is a PRETTY STRONG idea, but it has limitations. It isn't a replacement for God, but it touches upon Christ's words to "do unto others as you would have them to unto you;" to "love your neighbor as yourself."
@@williamgreenfield9991 Or maybe, only maybe, because it justified their selfishness? Which is synonymous for sin. They just denied it! Like the french revolution. Killing like 3 times more than all the inquisition (and similar processes in the Protestant areas)? However, which one of those crimes and numbers have you been told of? Or the 3 big Atheists/Occultists in the 20th century?! How many hundred Millions did Hitler, Stalin and Mao kill?! So, why do you condemn Christianity then? Maybe, because you love your sin more? More than God?! Well, then exactly the sin which carried "enlightenment" seems to be evident in you?
Might be well to refer to neo Thomism as well so that the insights of more contemporary philosophers, schooled in philosophica perennia, can be applied to today’s specific moral questions.
This is sort of related I guess - the book Dominion by Tom Holland helps to show how Western countries were built on Christian values. Recommended by InspiringPhilosophy 😊
have generally viewed the Enlightenment as a period replete with thought - evolving along with (as well as revolving around) the burning questions/issues/struggles of that particular age - moral ambiguity, injustice, hypocrisy, and the realization of self-fulfillment among all classes of people. what is the greatest good and how to achieve it? As perhaps the most pertinent, overarching, realistic, far more appropriate - and the most vital subject of all - being the Love of God - conveniently went missing from the discussion - we have come to arrive at the present.
Strange how God gave commandments on not working on Sabbath but forgoto to say "don't own other humans as property". I guess he needed slaves at the time. Almost as if slaveowners wrothe the Torah an not God.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 The 13th Amendment allows slavers for crimes. he Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Bing search
I hear this argument a lot, mostly, actually entirely, from Catholics. If the enlightenment was immoral you need to examine the immorality of the Catholic Church, or any other church, that existed at the same time. The enlightenment primary said each person had the right to think for themselves.
While it's true that we have a natural inclination towards the natural order of (divine) virtue, we must not forget who gave that to us. Because if we forget that crucial fact and resolve that virtue is merely the conclusion that we arrive to upon introspection or "whatever is best for the collective", this can very easily be hijacked. "What's best for the collective" can be very easily misconstrued into something terrible for all of the individuals within the collective. And sometimes we are wrong in what we think, granted I think that given enough time and contemplation, most people would agree with our God given values because that's how we are wired to be. But that's just it, they are GOD GIVEN, technically you could arrive there by realizing the benefits these values have on the individual and collective, but without the anchoring influence of the belief in a higher power, morality can seem very relative. Because then you start to perceive it as "perceptions in the mind" (as David Hume put it) and then it can be easily manipulated by certain forces atheists philosophers are incapable of accounting for. But then again, maybe they were accounting for that.
Moral nihilism of Hume is a methaethical position that explains nature of moral statements. Methaethical statements are a matter of "is", not a matter of "ought". He did not want to construct some new moral system, he explained how existing morality works. Essentialy morality is a feeling that can not be deduced rationally or derived empirically. Same is with Voltaire. Meanwhile enlightement philosophers like Locke and Montesquie advocated for natural rights
the Bible - ' .... God's Law is written on the hearts of men.' as His created being, man perceives and is thereby enabled to comprehend His Purpose through coming to love God and cherish His Law. The source of morality within and among men is God alone.
The bulk of the Enlightenment never endorsed moral relativism. Whether christian or deist most Enlightenment thinkers had Christian and platonic or stoic ethics.
Idk why so many kids on the internet think the Enlightenment was all about moral relativism. Its just not true. Nobody bothers doing research they all just copy each other and repeat the same bullshit.
I don't understand you kids, why do you all act like you're well educated and make claims like you've studied this stuff when you go good and well that you haven't. I'm willing to bet you havent read a single book written by a single Enlightenment figure.
You have no idea what you are talking about. "City of God" was a work by St. Augustine and was written long before the Enlightenment philosophers came along. Voltaire said that Augustine lived a life of perpetual self-contradiction.
Is Thomas Aquinas your confirmation Saint? I’m asking because you reference him in basically every video here and barely mention other Saints as much as him. I mean no negativity, I’m genuinely curious.
I enjoyed the video, especially the art. But truthfully, you have not done justice to any of these men. I would rather like, however, a more comprehensive analysis, that would be quite good. Thank you.
I think Voltaire’s argument is more Utilitarian while Kant’s is Deontological. Voltaire is focusing on social cohesion while Kant is laying down principles for universally applicable moral action.
Christianity posits that each human is a flawed child of God, and our life’s goal is to strive to be closer to God even though we can never breach the gap. This provides a starting point of humbleness & a lifelong effort to discover, improve & strive. For me, this is the only basis to morality that provides any chance at allowing for a “good” outcome. So atheists ridicule my faith for not being true, but what is more true than this?
Thank you for the great video! Good commentary and beautiful immagery. One point I would like to add: In some places, the logic of refuting the enlightenment ideas was not fully clear to me/ the presented arguments were not extensive enough, in my opinion. For example when you refuted the idea that morality can be explained without God: Here the logic doesnt seem sound to me; you said that the view of tge philosopher doesnt make sense, because of materialism, i.e. with a materialistic world view you can not contemplate nature and come to moral principles by such a contemplation. I dont understand tge reasoning here, because it seems to me the latter doesnt necessarily follow from the former. I hipe my criticism becomes clearer when you rewatch this part of the video. Keep up the good work! All the best
Kreeft's critique of the categorical imperative betrays an obviously incomplete understanding of how this works. The categorical imperative may be flawed, but anyone with even a natural implicit understanding of consequentiality would understand why we would not want everyone to be adulterers. And the religion you promote also fails to resolve these problems, as those who claim to hear God's voice disagree and splinter into an ever-growing cacophony of contradicting theologies.
You do realize the "Enlightenment" began when Adam and Eve ate from the tree in the midst of the garden with which God commanded not to eat. These men, mankimd as as a whole, continue in circular reasoning in an attempt rationalize our way out that it wasn't our fault we disobey the one command he had given because it was God’s fault for putting the tree there in the first place and/or the serpent (satan) was actually the one who had saved us from an oppressive God in wanting us to remain ignorant a.k.a. unenlightend. Gnosticism and Hermeticism have been around since the beginning of the fall. The other thing is we are trying to "kiss and makeup" to God by thinking that if we do good work, we will be accepted by God. That didn't go well for Cain, I might add, for the work of his own hands was not sufficient in his sacrifice to God. Abel knew willingly offering the life's blood of the perfect spotless lamb ( the typology of Jesus Christ) is the only means of atonement.
God putting a curse on all future humanity because Adam and Eve did exactly what he knew they would do in the garden was the epitome of injustice. Good thing the story is entirely fictitious.
The Enlightenment did much better. All historians pretty much agree that the church moved humanity BACK in time. The Romans were MUCH more advanced. Then as soon as the greco-roman ideas came back in the Enlightenment then we advanced more in a couple hundred years than the rest of history combined. If anything the Enlightenment was TOO productive
@@ramonacosta2647lol what else is there. You either believe in reason and logic or dogmatism and theocratic or totalitarian control of speech, thought, markets etc. I cant understand how anyone rejects the Enlightenment. Its basically saying "I think logic is bad"
@@Libertus-wv9xe That is simply false. When the Western Roman Empire fell, it fell with everything and at all levels: economic, commercial, religious, political and even educational. The latter can be seen, for example, in the written culture that was created at the beginning of the empire. If you look at the writing of the late empire you will see that the level of calligraphy on stone almost returned to an elementary level, the level of literacy was drastically reduced and there was even a deterioration in its pottery. All this before the Church was even legalized in the empire. The economy, due to conflicts and the end of the spoils economy (remember that one of the problems of the Roman Empire is that it fed its economy through the spoils it obtained in conquests and, once it stopped conquering, its entire economy was devalued) caused absolutely everything to explode. This, together with the barbarian colonizations, meant that a stable economy could not be maintained or restored. To illustrate by linking written culture: once the Alans, Vandals, Suevi and Visigoths devastated Hispania, the peninsula was left in complete chaos. The first writing tablets that we know of in the Iberian Peninsula after the Roman Empire were produced just when Recaredo officially gave Catholicism as the official religion of the entire peninsula, unifying it as the religion of the kingdom. The Church did precisely the opposite of what you say: it took an empire in ruins and tried to maintain it in the best way it could. Let us also remember that no more than 2-3 centuries after the end of the empire an ice age arrived and the Muslims arrived, together with conflicts in Eastern Europe and problems with maritime trade due to new commercial hegemonies. The reasons why there was such a bad time in Europe were due to reasons external to the capabilities of the Church: historical, political, economic and even climatic reasons. If we know anything about the Roman Empire, it is precisely because of the ruins and documents that the Church kept, trying to recover the well-known Roman "liberal arts" through scholasticism and rewriting parchment manuscripts by Greek and Roman authors. Even so, did it commit its excesses? Yes, it did. Was its intention to keep the population in a time of darkness? Absolutely not. In fact, I repeat, if we know anything about the ancient world, it is thanks to the Church. On the contrary, the Enlightenment took the opposite path. Everything that the Church had been building for millennia was destroyed, humiliated and annihilated without any compassion. From philosophy, doctrine, culture or even the lives of Christians as in the genocide of the Vendée in the French Revolution. And let us not think that there was a confrontation against Christian philosophy in the form of arguments against the existence of God or against ontology, aesthetics..., no, they simply turned their backs on the Church and carried on as if it did not exist until the mid-nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The intentions of the Enlightenment may have been legitimate, and many of their complaints about the Church as well, but the background of the whole conflict was nothing more than the arrogance of a few enlightened by Divine Reason who wanted to make a Europe to their measure. And so they did, we live in revolutionary Europe.
One thinks hearing this of what Zarathustra "spoke to his heart: 'Could it be possible! This old saint has not yet heard in his forest that God is dead!'" There are a thousand good old holy men and a hundred good old scriptures we could go back to, but it's silly today to call for it. How many people of different faiths have held out their holy book to me and said, "All the answers are in here!" We Christians live in the modern world and must not talk falsely now, for the hour is getting late.
Consider dropping a like or comment, God bless!
Freemasons. A Freemason is automatically excommunicated.
Every single work of Hume's is on the Index. Others mentioned here are infamous as well, if not so much.
Jesus was and is the answer
th-cam.com/video/mgOVeP5PQXY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z5LDaeHN1NxPUaZi
@@HankSemoreButz ABsolutely Amen , so please watch the video ,i sent below . We need The Teaching of The One and True Apostolic Churhc in order to get to know The truth Amen Not like i am against the person that made the channel ,,Santus'' , actualy i really appreciate his videos and the work he puts in these i really respect , but i also can not deny The preserved Fullness of The Teaching of the Apostols of CHRIST and This Teachings are in The Orthodox CHURCH This is really important , so please study extremely carefull and detailed the matter , God bless and guide all that may read and listen to this comment Amen !!!
Voltaire craved having a priest come to give him last rites, when he was dying. His "friends" refused, kept priests away.
That is so sad, I am so sorry for Voltaire even if I don't agree with his philosophy
I've heard different things on this topic, I've heard this story, as well as a story that a priest did come but Voltaire just wanted to mess with him.
@reviewspiteras Do not be too sad, the accounts surrounding his last dying statements and wishes are many and very inconsistent. Some claimed he refused to denounce Satan at his death bed, some claim he DID receive his rights from a priest and converted to Christianity, others claimed what the commenter has stated. It’s all so contradictory and confusing that I honestly think we will never know what really happened.
St Dom Bosco say than he see Voltaire in Heaven because he regret his sin in the last moment.
If the prest can give a sacrement for any reason, Jésus himself give it because he is the great prest.
@@lechasseurdedahuthmm I find myself not convince by this at all
When that Baron said that we only needed "common sense" to discover morals truths made me laugh because common sense is too subjective to arrive to moral truths by itself. In India it was common sense to burn the widow with her husband, it aztec civilization and cananite civilization it was common sense to do human sacrifice. Common sense is only good if guided by a source of actual goodness aka God
Relativism may have a point. The trouble is that relativists abstain from judgment while they fight wars all over the world to fix other countries' morals.
Baron's common sense" ties will with the noble savage myth.
@@mmyr8ado.360Jean-Jacques Rousseau had quite the history of getting into fights, including his most famous beatdown by Voltaire. I always say that the Noble Savage idea was just Rousseau's excuse for him being a complete jackass.
Christianity is ENTIRELY based on human sacrifice. And if you think murdering your own son is "actual goodness" I feel sorry for you.
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896ah yes, the only moral truth moral relativists hold to, "How dare you judge other cultures?" as if that itself is not a judgement on a cultures culture to judge other cultures
As a frenchman, i am so glad we had Chateaubriand after the Révolution to Debunk all the shit of Voltaire in "Génie du Christianisme".
Thank god Voltaire is in the Panthéon, it must be a torture for him to hear everyday the bells of Saint-Étienne-du-Mont.
Vivement la destruction du panthéon et la fin de l'idolâtrie révolutionnaire. Et vive Chateaubriand !
*God
Vive la France Catholique et Royale, la Vraie France.
From a Catholic brother in Spain 🇪🇸🤝🏻⚜️
@@SirGeorgeofWorcestershire Long live the House of Bourbon ! 🇪🇸🤝🏻🏳⚜
And you should be glad that you also have Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald,which rebutted all those Rousseaunian nonsense about mythical pacts and virtues of being in a Stone Age. Sadly they are not sufficiently known in their own country. Another example that no one is prophet in his own country and between his own.
Everything "modern" is a rebranding of the sophists debunked by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle centuries ago
True
"debunked" 😂😂😂
Nothing is ever debunked, only shelved.
Trueeeee
@@matheuspinho4987 Most of philosophy and mysticism circles around the same idealistic motives, with very few thinkers looking beyond the same old merry-go-round.
Aristotle and St. Aquinas also wrote that goodness is not inherently increased based on how much it is desired/how many desire it, nor is it inherently increased by pleasure resulting from the good, nor because of how much the good is needed, and that an honorable good (*bonum honestum*), which can be enjoyed for its own sake, and a common good (*bonum commune*), a good which can be shared by others without scarcity are always the highest forms of Good. St. Aquinas, unlike Aristotle, wrote that humans can never ultimately be satisfied with finite things; ultimately the source of true satisfaction is the infinite God.
Buddhism refutes your last point
@miguelatkinson That is why Buddhism is false.
I'm satisfied with finite things. I guess I just proved this Aquinas fellow wrong. The "God" of the Bible is the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.
@miguelatkinson the human heart is made for pleasure, whether it be good, infinite spiritual pleasure of knowing God or from sin. You, in commenting this, fulfilled your need for intellectual pleasure.
I'm always frustrated when I see Buddhists proclaim their views online because they never go to lengths to explain anything, they don't see the need to proselytize. It's like they're purposely taunting you with needlessly saying "you're wrong".
The Enlightenment was largely sparked by Aristole and Aquinas' ideas. The anglo-enlightenment especially. John Locke's Natural Law theory is extremely similar to Aquinas'
The Enlightenment and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Not at all Thomas gave us Aristotle. Ayn Rand moved beyond the mysticism with her philosophy. Using the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks. Hume was a mystic, and Kant was a Mystic that attacked reason.
>Ayn Rand
Lmao
@@Liberty-Jamie you made such horrible examples for the enlightenment that made me hate that movement even more
@@Liberty-Jamie Hume, Kant and Ayn Rand, truly the epithome of a healthy philosophy...
@@igorlopes7589 I didn't say Hume and Kant. Did I? I said Ayn Rand. If you don't think objectivism is healthy then please state why?
Because of this evil thing, my country (Brazil) lost the Jesuit education, lost the Royal Union with Portugal and lost the Empire (the best phase of our country).
Voltaire was the woke hipocrite of its time: atacks the society he is in, but as no problem dinning with the powerful and benefiting from it.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
@@williamgreenfield9991most obsessed goobermunch award 🏅
@@williamgreenfield9991 you really love spamming the chats huh
"We should improve society somewhat."
"Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent."
@@Brick_Eater_he didn’t have to cozy up with the rich and powerful
The Enlightenment, from its name, was brought by The Light Bearer.
Linkara?
Lucifer.
The unholy "light" of Lucifer deceiving the world
I wanted to make the Linkara joke too, lol. But yes, Lucifer translates to 'Light-bearer' (Lux [light] + Ferare [to bear], if my rusty Latin does not fail me).
What rabid superstition still plagues civilisation despite all its progress! People still believe in the Anti-Christ? Or the Almighty? Oh my
Without God you cannot come to any true morality. God is the imbodiment of morality.
Buddhism,Jainism,Taoism and Confucianism basically refute your point
@miguelatkinson except they can't ground the concepts of good and evil as they are all essentially relativist at core.
There is no morality. Good and evil do not exist. What is real is violence, power, and fear. All Christianity does is pervert the natural order of things with Hell being the violence and God being the power. In reality it is we who are the violence and power. Morality is simply a fear of each other. What you regard as "evil" is just mental illness. Back when this stuff was being thought up they didn't even know what the brain was for. When the mummified the pharaoh they just threw that away. Just watch how any other social animals interact. When one disrupts the order of the group someone slaps it in line. Humans have stuff like fines and jail for that now but it is still the same thing the other animals do.
@miguelatkinsonthose are not refutations. Those are different or opposing stances.
NOT REFUTATIONS
@miguelatkinsonyou chose all teh wrong religions for this comment
St. Thomas Aquinas...Pray for us.
Thomas Aquinas's ideas largely helped spark the Enlightenment lmao what the fuck are you talking about. The Enlightenment ideas that built the west, based in John Locke were extremely similar to Aquinas in so many ways. You obviously haven't read much Locke or much Aquinas if you don't see the strong similarities. And if you haven't read John Locke then it's reckless and arrogant for you to voice an opinion on the Enlightenment. John Locke was the single most influential Enlightenment figure and he was a Christian who thought very much like Aquinas.
Do not let the technological progress deceive you.
The so called "Enlightenment" is the greatest dark age in known history.
Proof? Y'all talking all this shit with 0 evidence. Humanity was quite moral and prosperous after the Enlightenment up until the Enlightenment was rejected then mankind fell into a hedonistic dark age.
Back when America followed the constitution built in Enlightenment values, we were a very strong country. No historians can deny that.
@@Libertus-wv9xe This isn't just about America, its about all of the western nations. Anytime you take God out of the equation, it will be followed by its logical conclusion to hedonistic self-destruction. The idea of morality coming from God is denied by the Enlightenment, and when mankind decides to steer their own ship, sooner or later they'll lose regard for anything beyond their own gratification. The Constitution was not built on Enlightenment values, as it referenced God and the self-evident, unalienable human rights bestowed upon us by God many times.
In short, the Enlightenment simply convinced mankind that it knew what was best, and when you are entirely convinced of your own rationale and your own beliefs, you do not grow and do not look to anything higher than yourself. This creates an innate selfishness that brings out the worst in humanity, either over time or immediately, depending on how long it takes for the foolishness of the idea to spread across enough people.
@@Libertus-wv9xe
Enlightenment values like breaking all your treaties with the Native Americans, chattel enslavement of millions of Africans, going to war abroad under false pretenses, etc.
@@Libertus-wv9xe
It was a false philosophy used to destroy Christendom.
It led to the catastrophe of the French Revolution, and all later ideological revolutions. From it the ideologies of the 20th century directly originate. Communism, fascism, and demo-liberalism.
Challenge: Enlightenment thinkers try not to say something is “self evident”
Difficulty Level: Impossible
Their error was trying to codify Christian dualism without God or Jesus.
Fun fact, the Enlightenment was in large part, a reaction to the Thirty Years' War, a religious conflict that had been Europe's longest and most destructive single war, and would remain such until nearly three centuries after it ended.
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896
the enlightenment is also wrong about that also since the 30 year war being a “religious war” is so surface level. If it was truly about Protestant vs Catholics than why did the French Catholics join sides with the Protestants against the catholic Austrians? You’d think that because they’re both Catholics would mean they would join sides but nope. It was a highly political war disguised as a religious war. War is never as simple as it seems.
@@vannchansenany10d32 The French have always been a bit of a renegade nation, for starters. The Thirty Years' War would not be the last religious conflict where France would basically stab the Catholic Church in the back for political gain.
Moreover, one of the major issues that kept the war going was that when a ruler might make peace with another, a third or fourth might then proceed to invade just because a territory's ruler did not subscribe to the correct version of Christianity. Indeed, one of the major terms of the Peace of Westphalia was that Europe's rulers recognised national sovereignty, where whoever ruled a territory, not some church or particularly pious outsider, got to decide all that territory's policies. If anything, it was the political doctrine of national sovereignty as codified at Westphalia that permanently curbed the power of the Catholic Church. After 1648, the Catholic Church could no longer actively interfere in countries' affairs.
Besides, the Thirty Years' War severely battered the basic Christian idea that Right and Good would always have the Glorious Victory over Wrong and Evil, what with the longest and most destructive war Europe had known ending in what amounted to a stalemate.
Its funny that we grow up with their fallacies as truths, its "self evident", its "common sense", but I never knew why
@@Onlyafool172
You are right. Only, I think it is not funny at all, as it harms all souls.
The first arguments for modern moral fallacy; we know what's good from bad because it's "logical" to us to know what is good and what is bad. History would prove them wrong, in lack of awareness of their own position and upbringing in a society that has an objective moral basis as the example for good and bad.
nice fail. Christian morality is demosntrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little moreo than might equals right
You don't even require history all you need is to bring up something the culture considers controversial or complex and then watch people stumble all over themselves.
respect for taking the burden of reading midwitery in order to critique it
I agree. Who would you consider above the curve?
@smug9471 people who don't disregard having a coherent epistemology like Hegel
Stuff like this is why the American thinkers imo were better than the European ones overall and especially better than the French.
People like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams recognized that having religion was necessary for good morals and thus a well-functioning society (though they were naive about the benefits of separating church from State) and we see how successful the American Revolution was compared to the absolute disaster of the French Revolution.
I don't like everything in the American Constitution but since 1787 America has had only one Republic and one Constitution whereas France is on its what, 5th Republic? The Americans clearly thought much better longterm than the France (though its a shame that they've gone so downhill since then)
Yeah sure the "elighment" brought benefits, but it aslo set back Hummanity in ways people don't want to confront such as the idea of racial hierarchys, social Dawrinisn, seeing the past as a "dark age", hyper individualism,and etc. People always like to look at the past with disdain but ignore all the terrible crap in our "perfect" mondern world.
It's like a lamp taking down the fences, thinking it will be free, only to be captured by wolves.
Enlightenment philosophers say We dont need Gods morals, we just need reason. At the same time using Gods morals as their base.
Question what are exactly "God's Morals" is it the sharia Law or the Asha 610 commandments
The morals of the Bible are atrocious. "God" is the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.
@miguelatkinsonif somone says "God's morals" on a Christian TH-camr's comment section, and you want to use this "argument(?)", there is something wrong with you.
If the Bible is the revelation of "God's morals" then that explains why the history of Christianity is written in blood. The morals of the main character in that work of fiction are atrocious.
Have you ever heard the Socrates?
"Common sense." There's your problem fella, it ain't so common.
"Common sense" in a room full of idiots is idiocy. The term literally just mean "the prevailing notion", the idea of "sense" that is most common
08:00 seems to miss Kant’s point on the universality. If everyone preferred adultery to fidelity, it would destroy marriage as a concept, and thus the human race, and of course people would typically rather exist than not exist. Same to those who prefer war over peace. The point is that if everyone were faithful, compassionate, and honest, you would have a flourishing harmonious society, whereas if everyone were adulterous, selfish, and dishonest, it would be chaos and even the people who desire that would suffer.
Exactly this. Lying is bad because if everyone lied, the claim to say the truth is no longer there. Without this claim however, you cannot lie (as a lie needs this claim to work) and thus lying destroys the fundamental principle that it needs to work. So you cannot make it universal without destroying it. This makes it imorral, not what effect it would have to society.
I feel sad for this forced dichotomy between Kant and the Church. Especially since if you really look into it, Kant just bases morality on reason (and we know that God can be found within reason).
You should look up Julius Caesar's description of Germans and German culture in _The Gallic Wars_
Essentially, war _was_ their culture. Everything they did and valued as a society were done so that they could more effectively wage war.
@@ianweir3608 To base the entire notion of germanic culture on a book Caesar wrote to promote his career and the idea of conquest of the germania is a bit ... wacky to say the least.
It was a very tribal community with more rough elements than what we see as ideal but to say they only lived for war is like saying vikings were only brutal killer like in the movies. Norse culture is so much more than this.
@TheAzonnali not really. Every culture has a basis (ours is greco-roman philosophy and Christian ethics - at least it was, we've strayed quite a bit from that latter part) . And the vikings were very similar to the pagan Germans. Their primary goal was to die a glorious death in battle. The way you got to their version of heaven was dying in warfare. And even Valhalla is literally just feasting and fighting on repeat for eternity.
Like it or not, _The Gallic Wars_ is the best contemporary description of pagan German culture that we have, and it is very level handed. It glorifies the Germans more than anything.
It's obvious from your response that you haven't read it at all, so why denigrate it? You know full well that you have no idea what you're talking about. But don't mind me. If you're not willing to read the source material for yourself, then no one is going to make you. Go ahead and teach people about things you don't know about.
@@ianweir3608 Is that really different from Rome tho? Their entire economy was dependent on war, the reason Commodus was so hated is because his ending of foreign wars tanked the Roman economy.
It’s time to return to Catholicism. The Once and Future Kingdom!
Just the Real Jesus preached anywhere and in any building or denomination. Yeshua Savior is wherever two or more are gathered in My Name.
@@timothytremblay7763 No thanks, you can keep your liberal, protestant utopia. I'll stick with the one true Church.
@@timothytremblay7763There is no denomination in Christianity
@timothytremblay7763 who determines what the “Real Jesus preached” is? When you throw out Christ’s Church and Sacred Tradition, you throw out the “Real Jesus” for a phony, man-made one.
@@timothytremblay7763 my last comment mysteriously disappeared so I'll reiterate, ONE TRUE CHURCH
Unfortunately, the Mainline Churches treat the Enlightenment as a norm of absolute truth, and claim that we must accept higher criticism as the only legitimate method of biblical scholarship due to the Enlightenment. However, not all Enlightenment leaders were anti-Christian. George Berkeley (pronounced BAHRK-lee, though Berkeley, California was named after him) was a devout faithful Christian.
Every lier needs a scapegoat
Do you mean the “Endarkenment”?
If the church had conducted its affairs in a moral fashion there would have been no need for an Enlightenment. Alas it didn't, thus opening the door for further error.......
The Enlightenment started in monasteries are church universities well before it became mainstream. The same ancient philosophers that inspired Enlightenment thought were studied and admired by monks hundreds of years before the Enlightenment. Christian intellectuals generally associated ancient greek philosophy with Christianity saying that they ethically align. The Greek philosophers were always seen as being the highest good you could be without being a believer. Thats why in Dantes inferno they were in the 1st circle of hell.
So the ideas that sparked the Enlightenment were typically admired by intellectual members of the church long before the Enlightenment happened. Thomas Aquinas especially. You could almost call Aquinas an Enlightenment figure. He was saying many of the big ideas that blew up in the Enlightenment way before hand. This youtuber just isn't that educated. He is just good at sounding like he is educated and cherry picking examples that support his bias. But he doesn't understand history well at all.
Parable of the wheat and tares....
Before I sub to the channel, is there ever anything regarding talmudic judaism and what it is to christianity and christians?
I'm asking cause I scrolled down the main page, saw some similar stuff regarding Islam but nothing about those who waged war against Christ with relentless hatred for the past 2000 years.
Talmud claims Jesus Christ is boiling in hell in a cauldron of excrement, and that Mother Mary was a harlot.
The most depraved collection of bile masquerading as religion anywhere in the world. This was the false tradition that Christ condemned. In particular, the Mishnah.
Yeah, yeah, ain‘t nobody got time for that
youtube deleted my comment for sharing what the Talmud says
I don't think so, because there's a LOT to break down about the Talmud
the solution is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I feel like Kant was done a disservice, here. Wasn't the universal applicability he was describing not about desire, but practice? Lying and stealing can't be universally practiced, and neither can things like adultry or war. I think the critique you quoted was clearly misunderstanding Kant.
That said, universal application is a PRETTY STRONG idea, but it has limitations. It isn't a replacement for God, but it touches upon Christ's words to "do unto others as you would have them to unto you;" to "love your neighbor as yourself."
I believe the ultimate question is why the masses followed the message the philosophers of the period of logic or "Enlightment" spread.
Because the masses are dumb and ruled by envy.
Maybe because it made more sense than the absurdities of the Christian religion.
@@williamgreenfield9991
Or maybe, only maybe, because it justified their selfishness? Which is synonymous for sin. They just denied it! Like the french revolution. Killing like 3 times more than all the inquisition (and similar processes in the Protestant areas)? However, which one of those crimes and numbers have you been told of?
Or the 3 big Atheists/Occultists in the 20th century?! How many hundred Millions did Hitler, Stalin and Mao kill?!
So, why do you condemn Christianity then? Maybe, because you love your sin more? More than God?! Well, then exactly the sin which carried "enlightenment" seems to be evident in you?
Because the masses believe what they're told to believe, have you seen them lately?
@Melkorleo103
Well, they simply may have been deceived?
Adam Smith also revolutionized economics even if he wasnt rivht about everything
Voltarie really said "moral is what is good for society". If I asked him what is good he would probably say "that which is moral" lol.
Might be well to refer to neo Thomism as well so that the insights of more contemporary philosophers, schooled in philosophica perennia, can be applied to today’s specific moral questions.
True (im 4 seconds into the video)
Not moral failure, bloodthirsty monstrosity we still bleed for.
Someone asked me once if I was a Christian, I said no but I believe in their principles.
Will you make a video on the Principle of Sufficient Reason?
This is sort of related I guess - the book Dominion by Tom Holland helps to show how Western countries were built on Christian values. Recommended by InspiringPhilosophy 😊
Thank you.
I feel like most peoples talking about the greatness of post 17th century philosophy never read their actual books
Life is subjective and objective all at the same time. Like with geometry problems, the answer depends on what angle you are looking at it from.
Say Sanctus, what do you say about doing an interview with Wesly Huff
Baron was d'Holbach's title, not his first name... which was Paul (Paul Henri Thiry).
Looks promising
have generally viewed the Enlightenment as a period replete with thought - evolving along with (as well as revolving around) the burning questions/issues/struggles of that particular age - moral ambiguity, injustice, hypocrisy, and the realization of self-fulfillment among all classes of people. what is the greatest good and how to achieve it? As perhaps the most pertinent, overarching, realistic, far more appropriate - and the most vital subject of all - being the Love of God - conveniently went missing from the discussion - we have come to arrive at the present.
Great video. Have you read anything by Patrick Deenan?
What's that song in the intro?
God gave us the Ten Commandments.
Have you actually read the Bible? The ten commandments are given more than once, and they differ.
No, He gave those to the Jews and they didn't follow them.
Strange how God gave commandments on not working on Sabbath but forgoto to say "don't own other humans as property". I guess he needed slaves at the time. Almost as if slaveowners wrothe the Torah an not God.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 Another moral failure of "God".
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 The 13th Amendment allows slavers for crimes. he Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Bing search
I hear this argument a lot, mostly, actually entirely, from Catholics.
If the enlightenment was immoral you need to examine the immorality of the Catholic Church, or any other church, that existed at the same time.
The enlightenment primary said each person had the right to think for themselves.
These videos are really well done, I just wish you could continue making videos on the early church fathers 😅
14:03 But then, how do suicidal people (who don't wish to maintain themselves in existence) have that inclination (and therefore natural requirement)?
While it's true that we have a natural inclination towards the natural order of (divine) virtue, we must not forget who gave that to us. Because if we forget that crucial fact and resolve that virtue is merely the conclusion that we arrive to upon introspection or "whatever is best for the collective", this can very easily be hijacked. "What's best for the collective" can be very easily misconstrued into something terrible for all of the individuals within the collective. And sometimes we are wrong in what we think, granted I think that given enough time and contemplation, most people would agree with our God given values because that's how we are wired to be. But that's just it, they are GOD GIVEN, technically you could arrive there by realizing the benefits these values have on the individual and collective, but without the anchoring influence of the belief in a higher power, morality can seem very relative. Because then you start to perceive it as "perceptions in the mind" (as David Hume put it) and then it can be easily manipulated by certain forces atheists philosophers are incapable of accounting for. But then again, maybe they were accounting for that.
The Enlightenment's philosophy and its consequenses...
Yet the Solution stands.
David Hume after a lifetime of criticizing the Christian faith: “I am in flames!!!!!”
This channel is a gold mine! Thank you and God bless you!
Great video. God bless you brother!
What is song at beginning?
Moral nihilism of Hume is a methaethical position that explains nature of moral statements. Methaethical statements are a matter of "is", not a matter of "ought". He did not want to construct some new moral system, he explained how existing morality works. Essentialy morality is a feeling that can not be deduced rationally or derived empirically. Same is with Voltaire.
Meanwhile enlightement philosophers like Locke and Montesquie advocated for natural rights
the Bible - ' .... God's Law is written on the hearts of men.' as His created being, man perceives and is thereby enabled to comprehend His Purpose through coming to love God and cherish His Law. The source of morality within and among men is God alone.
An enlightened mind to moral relativism and subjectivism is a false enlightenment.
The bulk of the Enlightenment never endorsed moral relativism. Whether christian or deist most Enlightenment thinkers had Christian and platonic or stoic ethics.
Idk why so many kids on the internet think the Enlightenment was all about moral relativism. Its just not true. Nobody bothers doing research they all just copy each other and repeat the same bullshit.
The "Enlighment" wanted a City of God but without Him.
Proof?
Cite evidence that John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison rejected God.
I don't understand you kids, why do you all act like you're well educated and make claims like you've studied this stuff when you go good and well that you haven't. I'm willing to bet you havent read a single book written by a single Enlightenment figure.
You have no idea what you are talking about. "City of God" was a work by St. Augustine and was written long before the Enlightenment philosophers came along. Voltaire said that Augustine lived a life of perpetual self-contradiction.
You messed up kant a bit. He doesnt just have one rule, he has two. The second that you missed was to treat others as ends in themselves.
I just stumbled upon your channel and love it so far🙂
Ach przyjdzie czas, przyjdzie czas, przyjdzie czas!
Kiedy naszych wrogów będzie las!
I love your videos. I would love to see someone try to debate this, and how you would respond.
Is Thomas Aquinas your confirmation Saint? I’m asking because you reference him in basically every video here and barely mention other Saints as much as him.
I mean no negativity, I’m genuinely curious.
So true
Turning one's back on culture, history and tradition in favor of bland, sterile snootiness. #rejectmodernityreturntotradition
Jesus is Lord of the sabbath
It's the age of the darkness of thought, very far from enlightenment. True enlightenment is the light of christ ✝️
Thanks much for this video.
I enjoyed the video, especially the art. But truthfully, you have not done justice to any of these men. I would rather like, however, a more comprehensive analysis, that would be quite good. Thank you.
Isn't that the same thing as Kant's hypothetical imperative?
I think Voltaire’s argument is more Utilitarian while Kant’s is Deontological. Voltaire is focusing on social cohesion while Kant is laying down principles for universally applicable moral action.
Christianity posits that each human is a flawed child of God, and our life’s goal is to strive to be closer to God even though we can never breach the gap. This provides a starting point of humbleness & a lifelong effort to discover, improve & strive. For me, this is the only basis to morality that provides any chance at allowing for a “good” outcome. So atheists ridicule my faith for not being true, but what is more true than this?
Thank you for the great video! Good commentary and beautiful immagery. One point I would like to add: In some places, the logic of refuting the enlightenment ideas was not fully clear to me/ the presented arguments were not extensive enough, in my opinion. For example when you refuted the idea that morality can be explained without God: Here the logic doesnt seem sound to me; you said that the view of tge philosopher doesnt make sense, because of materialism, i.e. with a materialistic world view you can not contemplate nature and come to moral principles by such a contemplation. I dont understand tge reasoning here, because it seems to me the latter doesnt necessarily follow from the former. I hipe my criticism becomes clearer when you rewatch this part of the video.
Keep up the good work! All the best
Do you know the is-ought fallacy?
"For the good of society you ought to do as I say"
I knew there was a punch line😅
*The Moral failure of the FRENCH Enlightenment. The English Enlightenment invented Modernity.
Great content, keep it up! God bless
Kreeft's critique of the categorical imperative betrays an obviously incomplete understanding of how this works. The categorical imperative may be flawed, but anyone with even a natural implicit understanding of consequentiality would understand why we would not want everyone to be adulterers. And the religion you promote also fails to resolve these problems, as those who claim to hear God's voice disagree and splinter into an ever-growing cacophony of contradicting theologies.
Is ironic that we discuss this, as some of those thinkers may be in Hell right now.
Enlightenment is a consequence from the sins committed by absolutism
1:54
By this logic the nazis were justified in what they did
2:58 That's just stating what is, it isn't a justification
For your first point, that's exactly what moral relativism is
Naa 10:45 went insanely hard
Very good
Orthodoxy ❤
Voltaire is right though.
Phenomenal video!
Pax Tube, is that you?!
Incredible content! Thank you! ❤
Good stuff!!! 👍
10:45 SO TRUEEEEEEE
sums up the modern world
Enlightenment is a by product of divine simplicity
Well yeah, Thomistic divine simplicity makes God utterly unknowable which of course would lead to Deism.
y'all are nuts, lmao
Great reflection!
Kant analysis here is just dumb
You do realize the "Enlightenment" began when Adam and Eve ate from the tree in the midst of the garden with which God commanded not to eat. These men, mankimd as as a whole, continue in circular reasoning in an attempt rationalize our way out that it wasn't our fault we disobey the one command he had given because it was God’s fault for putting the tree there in the first place and/or the serpent (satan) was actually the one who had saved us from an oppressive God in wanting us to remain ignorant a.k.a. unenlightend. Gnosticism and Hermeticism have been around since the beginning of the fall.
The other thing is we are trying to "kiss and makeup" to God by thinking that if we do good work, we will be accepted by God. That didn't go well for Cain, I might add, for the work of his own hands was not sufficient in his sacrifice to God. Abel knew willingly offering the life's blood of the perfect spotless lamb ( the typology of Jesus Christ) is the only means of atonement.
God putting a curse on all future humanity because Adam and Eve did exactly what he knew they would do in the garden was the epitome of injustice. Good thing the story is entirely fictitious.
But the church did no better than the Enlightenment.... Thats a historic fact.
Often worse, and I'm no fan of the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment did much better. All historians pretty much agree that the church moved humanity BACK in time. The Romans were MUCH more advanced. Then as soon as the greco-roman ideas came back in the Enlightenment then we advanced more in a couple hundred years than the rest of history combined. If anything the Enlightenment was TOO productive
@@ramonacosta2647lol what else is there. You either believe in reason and logic or dogmatism and theocratic or totalitarian control of speech, thought, markets etc.
I cant understand how anyone rejects the Enlightenment. Its basically saying "I think logic is bad"
@ Logic existed long before the Enlightenment.
@@Libertus-wv9xe That is simply false. When the Western Roman Empire fell, it fell with everything and at all levels: economic, commercial, religious, political and even educational. The latter can be seen, for example, in the written culture that was created at the beginning of the empire. If you look at the writing of the late empire you will see that the level of calligraphy on stone almost returned to an elementary level, the level of literacy was drastically reduced and there was even a deterioration in its pottery. All this before the Church was even legalized in the empire. The economy, due to conflicts and the end of the spoils economy (remember that one of the problems of the Roman Empire is that it fed its economy through the spoils it obtained in conquests and, once it stopped conquering, its entire economy was devalued) caused absolutely everything to explode. This, together with the barbarian colonizations, meant that a stable economy could not be maintained or restored. To illustrate by linking written culture: once the Alans, Vandals, Suevi and Visigoths devastated Hispania, the peninsula was left in complete chaos. The first writing tablets that we know of in the Iberian Peninsula after the Roman Empire were produced just when Recaredo officially gave Catholicism as the official religion of the entire peninsula, unifying it as the religion of the kingdom.
The Church did precisely the opposite of what you say: it took an empire in ruins and tried to maintain it in the best way it could. Let us also remember that no more than 2-3 centuries after the end of the empire an ice age arrived and the Muslims arrived, together with conflicts in Eastern Europe and problems with maritime trade due to new commercial hegemonies. The reasons why there was such a bad time in Europe were due to reasons external to the capabilities of the Church: historical, political, economic and even climatic reasons.
If we know anything about the Roman Empire, it is precisely because of the ruins and documents that the Church kept, trying to recover the well-known Roman "liberal arts" through scholasticism and rewriting parchment manuscripts by Greek and Roman authors.
Even so, did it commit its excesses? Yes, it did. Was its intention to keep the population in a time of darkness? Absolutely not. In fact, I repeat, if we know anything about the ancient world, it is thanks to the Church.
On the contrary, the Enlightenment took the opposite path. Everything that the Church had been building for millennia was destroyed, humiliated and annihilated without any compassion. From philosophy, doctrine, culture or even the lives of Christians as in the genocide of the Vendée in the French Revolution. And let us not think that there was a confrontation against Christian philosophy in the form of arguments against the existence of God or against ontology, aesthetics..., no, they simply turned their backs on the Church and carried on as if it did not exist until the mid-nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
The intentions of the Enlightenment may have been legitimate, and many of their complaints about the Church as well, but the background of the whole conflict was nothing more than the arrogance of a few enlightened by Divine Reason who wanted to make a Europe to their measure. And so they did, we live in revolutionary Europe.
👍
Come back to the Catholic Church
One thinks hearing this of what Zarathustra "spoke to his heart: 'Could it be possible! This old saint has not yet heard in his forest that God is dead!'" There are a thousand good old holy men and a hundred good old scriptures we could go back to, but it's silly today to call for it. How many people of different faiths have held out their holy book to me and said, "All the answers are in here!" We Christians live in the modern world and must not talk falsely now, for the hour is getting late.