this guy is not serious, he is talking about postmodernism which is basically Nihilism - (questioning the validity of truth) meanwhile he is talking about the "truth of the bible" HELLO!!!! is that not contradictory? The whole point of Nihilism is to question the validity of grand narratives/meta narratives which means the bible is also questionable in its claims of being "true".... you cant mix religion and academia sorry mate! its ither one or the other... this dude sounds confused...
@rochroch2012 Podernism is not nihilism at all. Postmodernism doesn´t question the validity of truth. Furthermore it speaks for the fact that everyone has his personal truth or point of view. At least that´s what I have understood so far.
Why do SOME ppl consider bible to be the absolute truth ?? People should investigate other scriptures aswell rather than putting their beliefs on false hearsays that tend to malign other religious scriptures .. Moreover, I believe that we should consider and accept (not necessarily embrace ) diverse views and perspectives rather than resisting them .. We all have got the right to put forward our perspective, given that the viewpoint is for the betterment of the creation of God Almighty !
@chronic011 The Bible answers your question. The presupposition that the Bible is absolute Truth is a gift from God Himself, not a strong conviction that was arrived at through human effort alone. One might feel strongly that a new diet pill will let them loose 30 pounds in a week, but that's not the same thing. The only authentic preaching is done because God wants preaching to be done, not for one human to convince another of some idea.
why? was he a lesbian too? OH YEAH, THERE IS NO MENTION OF LESBIANISM IN ANY FORM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. JESUS NEVER SPOKE ABOUT SEX. AND HE WAS A HUMANIST REFORMER IN THE HELENISTIC AGE. IT'S ST. PAUL WHO WAS THE REAL EVANGELIST. YUCK!!! ALL THINGS ARE PERMITTED, BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE EXPEDIENT TO SALVATION. BE JUST AND FEAR NOT. ARE NOT THE ROMANS A BUNCH OF FASCISTS, AND THE HEBREWS STRUGGLING WITH DOGMA ANYWAY. WHICH WAY IS UP IN AN INEXACT WORLD OF WHIMS.I LOVE ECCLESIASTES AND PROVERBS.
I like listening to him talk are there any longer videos of him anywhere?
(and scanning over all the comment conversations, all I have to say is 500 characters is not ideal for significant debate of such matters. and we must not judge based on those 500 characters... ps. not aimed at anyone in particular)
since post modern thinkers believe that we cant believe anything in life or that we make up our own reality...I guess if you shown Postmodern thinker a photo of a palm tree their answer would vary wildly from "that's a photo of president lincon because its my reality and i can call it whatever i want" to "i dont know...."
If that is what PostModernism is then you gotta be retarded, stupid and unlogical to be a Postmodern thinker.
if post modern believers think that sceince has let us down then they can know say that the sky is black when it is REALLY BLUE and 2+2=unknown and debated. It seems to me that post modernism DEBATES ABOUT EVERYTHING IN LIFE....even a simple drawing of a circle would be debated by a post modern thinker.
I also dont think that you dont need to be spiritual to set moral norms.
A lot of philosophers have worked on the subject of morality and its functions in society, and have drawn strong conclusions about the emanation of morality through empathy and compassion for example.
A lot of philosophers offer answers to the questions they ask; otherwise, it would be all to easy to only ask questions. Spirituality is a more narrow scope that often leads to the all to easy conclusions of a mystic truth.
That is a good point, but the point is not wether we need spirituality or religion to set morals. Actually the bible says that God has written morals in our hearts... we call it a concience. The point is not how we get morals, but rather how can we keep them? We are at constant battle with what we do versus what know we should do. Our inability to be 100% selfless is what lead to our corruption and this separates us from God- we become our own God trying to change morals.
When you are taught compassion and empathy by peers in your surroundings, you become sensitive to what the other feels in particular moments or when he has a particular body language/behaviour.
Your brain actually reacts seing this and strenghtens your neuronal connections by immitating the action with micro-muscular movements. When people are happy it makes you become happy as well because you also release lesser quantities of the same "happiness hormone".
The abscence of morality can be explained by the lack care in the educational process, particularly when the peers are self-centered and acting egoisticly.
God is an easy get-away. Trying to push people into settling in mystic unreachable truth stops them from finding a truth on their own.
Sometimes it can be a hard path but I have a friend who has self-redeemed himself from all his excesses by simply finding a meaning to his existence. He is know one of the smartest self-made person is know.
@jfjweb It is very arrogant of you to consider that there is "one true moral". Thousands of culture have their own way of organising society, and you can't unwillingly condemn people for being what they are. If you accept that the Jewish God is the creator of moral sensitivity then you also have to admit the Jewish religion as being the only true belief and way of doing things. You have to say to the most populated countries of the world (India and China): "Sorry guys, your cultures are flawed".
Philosophy vs Biblical Principles. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. -Shakespeare. For the Word of God is living, and powerfully working, and sharper than every two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart; and there is no creature unrevealed before Him; but all things are naked and laid open to His eyes, with whom is our account. Heb 4:12
Post Modernistic followers are driven often but the devaluing of absolutes (thereby "thinking" they are breaking the boundaries & alternatively often releasing themselves from any moral obligations to partake in self indulgences guilt-free).
Spiritualists (any religion) understand that moral values transcend this current state we are in & prices are to be paid for transgressing against those moral values.
Spirituality is a recognition as the seat to the values of morality. In essence understanding that moralistic values are trancendant to the realm beyond our mortal lives.
In what ways have science, reason, and technology let us down? Our standard of living, our lifestyle, our understanding of nature, our life expectancy, are all constantly improving thanks to science.
Someone here is smart enough to realize postmodernism is only made of anti-scientific circular ideas that lead nowhere.
Classical science can very well describe objectively and accurately social phenomenons without having a political bias like women, gay, native and environmental "studies" have.
The era of science and rationality as not failed. You cannot say our whole society as failed based on two or three groups that shout stronger than the others. We are very functional as it is now.
@OLDmanOFscene24 I agree with you its absurd of the Post Modernists too say that the era of science and rationality has failed that is presumptive and ridiculous statment of them to make. What would they want us too go back the Dark Ages I don't think so? Their hypocrites who criticise but don't believe what they really say.
Indeed, post-modernism is big load of manure. The word may be valid for the "art" of nowadays but its sand in the eyes for scientists. Raymond Boudon, Mario Bunge and John Searle have destroyed postmodernism with flawless argumentation and have demonstrated the absurdity of this pseudo-science. It is easy to say all and nothing in social sciences where they easily blind naive students. I would recommend you to take a look at the Sokal Affair; you will find it hilarious Pr6871 XD
Chomsky on the writings of postmodernists like Foucault and Derrida: "what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish."
The failure here is in trying to encapsulate reason/technology as having had its day when t is really in its infancy. Technology is not our enemy and our greatest achievement
Okay but here is something to consider. Why does technology have to be against all people. Why can't it be gainst some, and used by others to control those few? See you are a victim of single variable thinking, and absolutism, either this or that, but in real life technology will not be our downfall...because we have alawys exist.
Okay but here is something to consider. Why does technology have to be against all people. Why can't it be gainst some, and used by others to control those few? See you are a victim of single variable thinking, and absolutism, either this or that, but in real life technology will not be our downfall...because we have alawys exist.
I reject your assessment of me outright. (In actual fact I doubt very much that you understand the basis of the argument!)And this is where you make a grievous error; technology is not against anyone or a few; technology is but a tool no different to a hammer or saw. What we choose to do with technology is what is at stake.
but some technology is bad, and that is the technology that is used to control and assert power unjustifiably so...it's conditional but none the less true.
Please define what is bad, and then define what Bad technology is. Is stem cell research bad, nuclear energy bad, defence technology bad ?please explain. Your argument is nested in pure absurdity. How can you accuse other people of absolutism when you are doing it yourself? Yet you still blame technology for irrevocable human attributes. Your argument is flawed beyond measure & I am surprised that you can't see this.
You have gone from the utterly absurd to the idiotic and in the process by your own admission & utterly child like replies proved me right . Now my simple minded amoeba, if you cant define bad how can you define Bad Technology? In addendum, what is a common man? Have you ever been to Pakistan? South America? Europe .. The notion of a what a common man is very different. and why man?? Why not woman or person?
Bad technology - when bad humans use bad technology - bad technology technology that can potentialy be used to harm because in every human case technology has been used for its most harmful effects and not its best.
You are so narrow minded that you should at least have the decency to admit that you have stepped into an area that is beyond your scope of understanding.
don't know what archtype is but I know what archetype is.... Calm down, theres no need to get upset, just feel glad that a fellow youtuber was able to provide you with some food for thought. If you have any friends(*cough*), then you can tell them that you learnt something today.
If you want make an argument don't attack people without foundation or perhaps you should click on the correct 'reply to' link because what you have described of me is completely erroneous.
To then regress back into theism and mystical belief as a form of resolute answer only leads to a stagnation of reason, rational thought and a closure of the mind to the ascertaining that everything must fall under the guise of a higher authority. Ie God.
I agree, this is a flawed argument... reason doesn't stop at some focal point in history & neither does technology. To evaluate technology or reason under some moral label just because it has been used as a tool for a dystopian end or mis-understood concept just highlights the inadequacy of humans to deal with challenging concepts of reason and rational thought.
When has reason let us down? Please give me one example.
You postmodernists are a bunch of ingrates, the enlightenment has given us more freedom, more knowledge and better living conditions than people could possibly have imagined 200 years ago. We live in a utopia compared to any other time and place in history, stop whining and show a little gratitude to the brilliant enlightenment minds which made this miracle possible.
What are you measuring a Utopian society by? If by western living conditions then you have a point but i think postmodernism highlights the cost this comes at. For example we have nuclear technology which can provide power it can also cause terrible destruction, Western living standards are amazing and health/life expectancy has made great improvements. Being from Australia I have a life expectancy of about 80, if I was from many African countries I would be having a mid life crises now at 22
Russian Communism, and German Nazism were built on reason, so was the aforementioned atomic bomb and the resulting arms race. reason can contradict itself. Read Leotard...he a better authority than I
It's because of the fact that society has become dependent on the advances of the Enlightenment. It's to say that what was meant to be a liberation from an institution became the institution itself.
Agreed. What people forget is that reason is based on a subjective framework that includes assumptions (that may not always hold true) and they privilege certain objects over others - what should be observed and how should it be valued. There is no objectivity because (1) we can't observe a single object from all positions simultaneously; (2) there is a limit to what we can measure at any given time about any single object . All reason is based on some subjective framework.
For god sake "god has come to us personally through the bible". Is that the ultimate oxymoron. I agree we are all here living longer healthier lifes because of science. This post mo is just a bunch of scared people who want their fantasy views of fairies and goblins to be taken as seriously as objective truth. It just arnt gunna happen.
I think the opposite, post modernists are people who believe that narratives are never true because they are only representations of on epersons view, and people are not individuals, but masses of consiousness, that is post modernism.
I'll help you out Oscar. Friedrich Nietzsche was the philosopher who declared "God is dead," in his famous volume Thus Spoke Zarathustra. If you read this volume (which Im quite sure you haven't), you'll see that Nietzsche said all sorts of things that would seem to imply fantastic things So the phrase "God is dead," in Nietzschean context is very elastic, and does not imply that God exists. Instead it implies that God existed for a very long time in the minds of the masses, and now he does not.
Maybe because it is wrong. The truth is that most people do believe in God. Even in the sense that Nick explained, it is true that people are in denial of God's existence and longing for us to know Him and love Him because He first loved us. That does not take away from the fact that God is living and active... Jesus said of those who seek to know God... "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." Matthew 7:8
God is dead doesn't mean "There is no God". Please read a book to understand. God is dead references what Nietzsche saw as the death of objective moral values and the spread of nihilism. Nietzsche wanted to stop such a spread. You argument for a creator though is awful. Just because the herd believes him doesn't make him existant. Also, using the Bible as 'evidence' is tautological as you're trying to prove the validity of theology. Please make good args kthnxbye.
Mr. The Awesome, actually the greatest argument for the existence of God is all of His creation. We are all without excuse to see the intricacy of the universe and think it is a meaningless accident. As for using the bible as evidence, I would agree. There is nothing in the bible that can prove God's existence or anything else for that matter, but we can learn a great deal about men of God who had a true and living experience with Him. That's why I quoted Matthew 7:8
Tautologies still stand. Also, with no relative standards to use to weigh intricacy, we can't say that this creation is intricate. For all we know, this could be very simple and boring universe but we're too stupid to know it.
Are you saying unless there is another god to compare with the creator of the universe, it is stupid to believe that there is a God? What about morals? Why do homo-sapiens have morals and yet all other animals, however intelligent, have never developed the same? Is this a fair comparison to determine intricacy?
No, my beef is with saying we are "intricate" when we have no other planets or systems to weigh.
Also, morals are expressions of emotions and survivalism. You can't a priori justify morals and use it to weigh. Also, we are assuming our morals are right, when they are just developed hedonism, survivalism, and slavery from the animal kingdom.
Actually, God is Dead first appeared in the book "The Gay Science". It doesn't specifically refer to "God" as a figure. But rather as a construct. What it really refers to is that if one let's say does something that says "I did x for God", it is an inauthentic act. The same is true if it were Love, Family, Country, Job ect. Nietzsche's motive was to remove any construct that negates responsibility. In that way Love, Family, Job, or anything can be "dead" according to Nietzsche.
That's absurd. Clearly, he is alluding to the Nietzschean concept of "God is dead." It is conceptual; that God is itself an outdated and useless thing in this day and age. It's an anachronism. Personally, I believe that the Jewish people, like all people, need to be revolutionary and vigilant in thought and outlook; we need to fight for social justice and a better world. Not dig into ancient beliefs, especially the ones responsible for blood libels, holocausts, pogroms, and witch-burnings.
How is "love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself", responsible for the atrocities you mentioned? Are these the ancient beliefs that you are referring to? If people humble themselves and seek God's forgiveness for their disobedience and accept His provision in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection, their actions should mirror your aspirations. If not, they have strayed away from following God and are subject to His judgment. The Jewish people are called to even more...
Sure, those are often touted as the greatest commandments. However, it's quite clear that many professing, honest Christians also look at the rest of the Bible, including the behavior of their deity, and his edicts. It's an honest belief in Christianity that fuels antisemitism. How could a Jew read the book of John and feel welcome? How can a Jew feel welcome among believers in a theology that asserts that 6 million of his/her murdered countrymen are burning in hell for not being Christian!?
You are making ridiculous statements with no evidence to back them up. If you are going to make such slanderous statements and expect to be able to continue to post here, think again.
The conventional understanding among Biblical Christianity is that Jesus meant that he was/is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes unto the father, but by him. Therefore, Jesus is the only way to heaven, and if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you will go to eternal torment after the Judgement.
Is this understanding correct?
As well, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness, as a Jew, this is a sensitive topic. I did not mean to appear so hostile.
Okay, here is the thing. I can understand why you think this is harsh or anti-semetic. Your understanding of it as you explained it is very superficial. Let me put it to you this way... What does God as described by the writers of the Tenach look like? He wiped out so many people in his judgment Jewish and Gentile alike. Does this make the God of the Jews anti-semetic?
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to condone what has been done in Jesus name through history. What I am saying is that Jesus is bringing the same message that the writers of the Tanach brought, that the world is fallen, by nature sinful, and needs God's forgiveness. It is controversial for Jesus to say He is the son of God, that He is God, and that He will lay down His life as an eternal sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. Controversial yes, but if it's true, then it's an act of grace.
It was also controversial that someone died who tried to keep the arc of the Lord from falling when it was transported. It was controversial for God to wipe out all the idolaters when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. It was controversial for God to allow Israel to go into captivity and allow the temple to be destroyed and even that there is no temple to offer sacrifice for atonement today. Jesus claimed to make the eternal sacrifice. Because He rose from the dead, that gives his claim credit.
Actually, as a secular Jew, I do believe that Judaism is harmful to the interest of the Jewish people. And so I would have to agree: the God of the Tanakh is murderous, barbarous, callous, and downright abusive of the Jewish people. However, as the slaughter of the Amalekites, Canaanites, Moabites, etc. indicates, he seems to have a bloodlust for more than just his "own" people.
Well, God has infinite power. I would simply give human beings freedom to believe as they wish, but deprive them of the ability to inflict suffering or unconsciously make decisions that would cause them tremendous suffering simply by mere mistake. My point is that if God were infinitely powerful, the issue of sin could be solved in such a perfect way that would neither violate human free will, but at the same time, avoid violence and suffering to the extent that it's morally questionable.
Do you really believe that God has infinite power? Do you believe He is just? I think this is one of the biggest challenges I face when I do look at the state of the world today and say to myself, if God is LOVE how can He allow for suffering? What do you think God expects of us so that we could keep from contributing to that suffering and how can that be achieved?
I do not believe in any particular God, nor the validity of Scripture. If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, then he is only just because he decided he was just.
However, yes, your point is valid, but this challenge is for me, one of so many that just makes Judaism and Christianity appear as folly to me. Basically, I think that the Jewish people need humanism and rationalism, not Judaism or Christianity.
It sounds like you are living in conflict of beliefs... you need to work out what you believe before you challenge other's beliefs. You said if the God of the bible exists... either He does or He doesn't. If you believe that He doesn't, how did you come to this conclusion?
@49thStreetBarricade If God existed then Post Modernism would be invalid because an existence of him her would be a grand narrative, which post modernists refute against. Anyway I think Post Modernism is a sham because its just a continuation of modernism in a slightly different guise that's all it is.
So to answer your question, we are all sinful and in need of forgiveness. Jesus did not come to condem anyone, but to live and die and raise from the dead so that we all could have that forgiveness. This is a message of hope, not damnation. Is there any other way to be forgiven according to the Tanach?
However postmodernism is just empty words. Most postmodernists dont personally NOT use hammer when hitting a nail cause its "strengthening the oppressive normativity" and using a shoe or the hand would be more postmodern. Its just a carreer of bullshitting others while living normal cause it works better in reality.
who says there is only "one way"? but there surely are better ways. they surely are more constructive and rigorously thought out solutions. we can find them in physics, biology, and economics. i'm pretty sure they aren't arrived at by readily assuming "that all structured ideas didn't work and doesn't work and that there is really no objective dominant idea". unless you assume that all truth is summed up in these quoted words of yours.lol
postmodernism has already lost credibility and is over after 'sokal's hoax'. let's go back to the business of proposing some more constructive and rigorously thought out solutions to the problems of the world we live in. assuming the truth of postmodernism is surely a non-starter in any discussions.
Every problem in the world can be solved better with one solution than with another. Postmodernism is the notion we should not use the best solution to problems cause that would be unfair to other solutions and for a postmodernist solving the problem is less important than suggesting lots of solutions with no need of working at all.
I would probably say that it is really more like a dissillusionment with the previous ideas. So rather than look at one system for an answer, perhaps it is best to find a "best of all worlds" approach. My guess is that since there are holes in every idea, just combine the ideas. But as we all know about any philosphy, it's only a beginning. But you had a good insight.
i suggest you read articles on the 'sokal affair' or alan sokal's and jean bricmont's book, 'fashionable nonsense', to value the importance of truth, rationality, clarity, and objectivity in writing about any academic topic. postmodernism is the enemy of these academic virtues without which we can never understand one another.
postmodernism is a form to destroy the agony structure in anxiety. playing with satire language. we need more postmodern literature to observe and absorb the ambiguity colors of our life. postmodern is very crucial form of literature now and forever.
postmodernism is like a bubble. you prick it and it will burst and is left with nothing but air. the hullabaloo of postmodernism is over. nobody takes it seriously anymore except cranks and crackpots from france and their naive followers.
postmodernism is basically an attempt to replace a strawman called 'grand narrative' with a metagrandnarrative which is postmodernism. nobody can escape the normativity of reason explanation. there is nothing grand narrative or modern about reason and normativity. i bet postmodernists have nothing to say about normativity without using reason explanation. you can't escape normativity, dude.
Postmodernism is not about any of those ideas. In fact, Postmodernism is really looking at all those things (democracy, communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.) as failures in it's attempts. It ultimately says that all structured ideas didn't work and doesn't work and that there is really no objective dominant idea.
"You do not choose to be natural. You do not choose to be Post modern. If you choose you are at least Modern. If you know you are choosing, you are Post Modern."
that is a jew could find spiritual salvation in jesus is one of the rare beautiful exceptions in the deconstructionist postmodern conversation. It is that conversation which reflects a society which allows you to be who you are. quit kveching!!!
REMODERNISM !!! Not Postmodernism.
MistahWagwan 1 month ago
Your Robbing a bank... Dressed as yourselves?
Tomthetechy28 2 months ago
Scam.
xxdiogenescynicxx 3 months ago
this guy is not serious, he is talking about postmodernism which is basically Nihilism - (questioning the validity of truth) meanwhile he is talking about the "truth of the bible" HELLO!!!! is that not contradictory? The whole point of Nihilism is to question the validity of grand narratives/meta narratives which means the bible is also questionable in its claims of being "true".... you cant mix religion and academia sorry mate! its ither one or the other... this dude sounds confused...
rochroch2012 5 months ago
@rochroch2012 Podernism is not nihilism at all. Postmodernism doesn´t question the validity of truth. Furthermore it speaks for the fact that everyone has his personal truth or point of view. At least that´s what I have understood so far.
yokyu2lea 4 months ago
Why do SOME ppl consider bible to be the absolute truth ?? People should investigate other scriptures aswell rather than putting their beliefs on false hearsays that tend to malign other religious scriptures .. Moreover, I believe that we should consider and accept (not necessarily embrace ) diverse views and perspectives rather than resisting them .. We all have got the right to put forward our perspective, given that the viewpoint is for the betterment of the creation of God Almighty !
chronic011 10 months ago
@chronic011 The Bible answers your question. The presupposition that the Bible is absolute Truth is a gift from God Himself, not a strong conviction that was arrived at through human effort alone. One might feel strongly that a new diet pill will let them loose 30 pounds in a week, but that's not the same thing. The only authentic preaching is done because God wants preaching to be done, not for one human to convince another of some idea.
expertcompsci 1 month ago
rubbish
XES101watchclub 11 months ago
why? was he a lesbian too? OH YEAH, THERE IS NO MENTION OF LESBIANISM IN ANY FORM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. JESUS NEVER SPOKE ABOUT SEX. AND HE WAS A HUMANIST REFORMER IN THE HELENISTIC AGE. IT'S ST. PAUL WHO WAS THE REAL EVANGELIST. YUCK!!! ALL THINGS ARE PERMITTED, BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE EXPEDIENT TO SALVATION. BE JUST AND FEAR NOT. ARE NOT THE ROMANS A BUNCH OF FASCISTS, AND THE HEBREWS STRUGGLING WITH DOGMA ANYWAY. WHICH WAY IS UP IN AN INEXACT WORLD OF WHIMS.I LOVE ECCLESIASTES AND PROVERBS.
rgaleny 1 year ago
hey, I'm a guy. I like cultural relative-ism. That's why I'm a LESBIAN. LOL.
rgaleny 1 year ago
@rgaleny, how do you think Jesus would respond to your comment?
JewsForJesus 1 year ago
The concepts of postmodernism can be used Against those who dont believe. .for example we can refer to the subjectivity of those who dont believe. .
yastunt 1 year ago
This isn't postmodernism. This is evangelical Christianity trying to "convert the Jews".
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 He talking sense then if his not a post modernist.
Professor6871 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
I like listening to him talk are there any longer videos of him anywhere?
(and scanning over all the comment conversations, all I have to say is 500 characters is not ideal for significant debate of such matters. and we must not judge based on those 500 characters... ps. not aimed at anyone in particular)
KaslarProductions 1 year ago
since post modern thinkers believe that we cant believe anything in life or that we make up our own reality...I guess if you shown Postmodern thinker a photo of a palm tree their answer would vary wildly from "that's a photo of president lincon because its my reality and i can call it whatever i want" to "i dont know...."
If that is what PostModernism is then you gotta be retarded, stupid and unlogical to be a Postmodern thinker.
856956sinewavetones 1 year ago
if post modern believers think that sceince has let us down then they can know say that the sky is black when it is REALLY BLUE and 2+2=unknown and debated. It seems to me that post modernism DEBATES ABOUT EVERYTHING IN LIFE....even a simple drawing of a circle would be debated by a post modern thinker.
856956sinewavetones 1 year ago
I also dont think that you dont need to be spiritual to set moral norms.
A lot of philosophers have worked on the subject of morality and its functions in society, and have drawn strong conclusions about the emanation of morality through empathy and compassion for example.
A lot of philosophers offer answers to the questions they ask; otherwise, it would be all to easy to only ask questions. Spirituality is a more narrow scope that often leads to the all to easy conclusions of a mystic truth.
OLDmanOFscene24 2 years ago
That is a good point, but the point is not wether we need spirituality or religion to set morals. Actually the bible says that God has written morals in our hearts... we call it a concience. The point is not how we get morals, but rather how can we keep them? We are at constant battle with what we do versus what know we should do. Our inability to be 100% selfless is what lead to our corruption and this separates us from God- we become our own God trying to change morals.
jfjweb 2 years ago
When you are taught compassion and empathy by peers in your surroundings, you become sensitive to what the other feels in particular moments or when he has a particular body language/behaviour.
Your brain actually reacts seing this and strenghtens your neuronal connections by immitating the action with micro-muscular movements. When people are happy it makes you become happy as well because you also release lesser quantities of the same "happiness hormone".
OLDmanOFscene24 2 years ago
The abscence of morality can be explained by the lack care in the educational process, particularly when the peers are self-centered and acting egoisticly.
God is an easy get-away. Trying to push people into settling in mystic unreachable truth stops them from finding a truth on their own.
Sometimes it can be a hard path but I have a friend who has self-redeemed himself from all his excesses by simply finding a meaning to his existence. He is know one of the smartest self-made person is know.
OLDmanOFscene24 2 years ago
@jfjweb It is very arrogant of you to consider that there is "one true moral". Thousands of culture have their own way of organising society, and you can't unwillingly condemn people for being what they are. If you accept that the Jewish God is the creator of moral sensitivity then you also have to admit the Jewish religion as being the only true belief and way of doing things. You have to say to the most populated countries of the world (India and China): "Sorry guys, your cultures are flawed".
OLDmanOFscene24 1 year ago
Philosophy vs Biblical Principles. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. -Shakespeare. For the Word of God is living, and powerfully working, and sharper than every two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart; and there is no creature unrevealed before Him; but all things are naked and laid open to His eyes, with whom is our account. Heb 4:12
csmdeg 1 year ago
Post Modernistic followers are driven often but the devaluing of absolutes (thereby "thinking" they are breaking the boundaries & alternatively often releasing themselves from any moral obligations to partake in self indulgences guilt-free).
Spiritualists (any religion) understand that moral values transcend this current state we are in & prices are to be paid for transgressing against those moral values.
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
1:50 "We are looking for spiritual fulfillment because we live in a society were reason and technology and philosophy have let us down..."
I think he through philosophy in there by mistake... cause a spiritual out look is a type of philosophical outlook too...
Anyway...
morganseathomson 2 years ago
Philosophy is a tool to asking more questions.
Spirituality is a recognition as the seat to the values of morality. In essence understanding that moralistic values are trancendant to the realm beyond our mortal lives.
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
In what ways have science, reason, and technology let us down? Our standard of living, our lifestyle, our understanding of nature, our life expectancy, are all constantly improving thanks to science.
AntidoteY 2 years ago
people die eating too much mcdonalds , science and technologie play a huge role in all of these fast food places... thats just an example.
rld33694 2 years ago
...sure, but science and technology at Hospitals is what saves people like that from heart attacks, diabetes, etc...
So again, how have science and technology genuinely let us down?
AntidoteY 2 years ago
Someone here is smart enough to realize postmodernism is only made of anti-scientific circular ideas that lead nowhere.
Classical science can very well describe objectively and accurately social phenomenons without having a political bias like women, gay, native and environmental "studies" have.
The era of science and rationality as not failed. You cannot say our whole society as failed based on two or three groups that shout stronger than the others. We are very functional as it is now.
OLDmanOFscene24 2 years ago
@OLDmanOFscene24 I agree with you its absurd of the Post Modernists too say that the era of science and rationality has failed that is presumptive and ridiculous statment of them to make. What would they want us too go back the Dark Ages I don't think so? Their hypocrites who criticise but don't believe what they really say.
Professor6871 1 year ago
@Professor6871
Indeed, post-modernism is big load of manure. The word may be valid for the "art" of nowadays but its sand in the eyes for scientists. Raymond Boudon, Mario Bunge and John Searle have destroyed postmodernism with flawless argumentation and have demonstrated the absurdity of this pseudo-science. It is easy to say all and nothing in social sciences where they easily blind naive students. I would recommend you to take a look at the Sokal Affair; you will find it hilarious Pr6871 XD
OLDmanOFscene24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky on the writings of postmodernists like Foucault and Derrida: "what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish."
bebopbopbebop 2 years ago
guns dont kill people people kill people the same goes for technology
dd7aa 2 years ago 7
The failure here is in trying to encapsulate reason/technology as having had its day when t is really in its infancy. Technology is not our enemy and our greatest achievement
rationalpower 2 years ago
Totally true, I agree with you not with my gut but with my mind.
factvfiction 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Okay but here is something to consider. Why does technology have to be against all people. Why can't it be gainst some, and used by others to control those few? See you are a victim of single variable thinking, and absolutism, either this or that, but in real life technology will not be our downfall...because we have alawys exist.
Isamright33 2 years ago
Okay but here is something to consider. Why does technology have to be against all people. Why can't it be gainst some, and used by others to control those few? See you are a victim of single variable thinking, and absolutism, either this or that, but in real life technology will not be our downfall...because we have alawys exist.
Isamright33 2 years ago
I reject your assessment of me outright. (In actual fact I doubt very much that you understand the basis of the argument!)And this is where you make a grievous error; technology is not against anyone or a few; technology is but a tool no different to a hammer or saw. What we choose to do with technology is what is at stake.
rationalpower 2 years ago
but some technology is bad, and that is the technology that is used to control and assert power unjustifiably so...it's conditional but none the less true.
Isamright33 2 years ago
Please define what is bad, and then define what Bad technology is. Is stem cell research bad, nuclear energy bad, defence technology bad ?please explain. Your argument is nested in pure absurdity. How can you accuse other people of absolutism when you are doing it yourself? Yet you still blame technology for irrevocable human attributes. Your argument is flawed beyond measure & I am surprised that you can't see this.
rationalpower 2 years ago
you can't define bad, but ask any common man and you surely know what it is fool.
Isamright33 2 years ago
You have gone from the utterly absurd to the idiotic and in the process by your own admission & utterly child like replies proved me right . Now my simple minded amoeba, if you cant define bad how can you define Bad Technology? In addendum, what is a common man? Have you ever been to Pakistan? South America? Europe .. The notion of a what a common man is very different. and why man?? Why not woman or person?
rationalpower 2 years ago
A common man - anyone but you
Bad technology - when bad humans use bad technology - bad technology technology that can potentialy be used to harm because in every human case technology has been used for its most harmful effects and not its best.
Isamright33 2 years ago
You are so narrow minded that you should at least have the decency to admit that you have stepped into an area that is beyond your scope of understanding.
rationalpower 2 years ago
Beyond my scope? Look up this word...archtype.
Isamright33 2 years ago
don't know what archtype is but I know what archetype is.... Calm down, theres no need to get upset, just feel glad that a fellow youtuber was able to provide you with some food for thought. If you have any friends(*cough*), then you can tell them that you learnt something today.
rationalpower 2 years ago
If you want make an argument don't attack people without foundation or perhaps you should click on the correct 'reply to' link because what you have described of me is completely erroneous.
rationalpower 2 years ago
wrong, what you said is malodorous
Isamright33 2 years ago
Then take that up with postmodernism, which certainly wasn't invented by anyone here.
CyborgNinja7 2 years ago
To then regress back into theism and mystical belief as a form of resolute answer only leads to a stagnation of reason, rational thought and a closure of the mind to the ascertaining that everything must fall under the guise of a higher authority. Ie God.
rationalpower 2 years ago
I agree, this is a flawed argument... reason doesn't stop at some focal point in history & neither does technology. To evaluate technology or reason under some moral label just because it has been used as a tool for a dystopian end or mis-understood concept just highlights the inadequacy of humans to deal with challenging concepts of reason and rational thought.
rationalpower 2 years ago
When has reason let us down? Please give me one example.
You postmodernists are a bunch of ingrates, the enlightenment has given us more freedom, more knowledge and better living conditions than people could possibly have imagined 200 years ago. We live in a utopia compared to any other time and place in history, stop whining and show a little gratitude to the brilliant enlightenment minds which made this miracle possible.
jacobins3000 3 years ago
I can't disagree with this.
MaBu888 3 years ago
What are you measuring a Utopian society by? If by western living conditions then you have a point but i think postmodernism highlights the cost this comes at. For example we have nuclear technology which can provide power it can also cause terrible destruction, Western living standards are amazing and health/life expectancy has made great improvements. Being from Australia I have a life expectancy of about 80, if I was from many African countries I would be having a mid life crises now at 22
danbrenno101 3 years ago
Russian Communism, and German Nazism were built on reason, so was the aforementioned atomic bomb and the resulting arms race. reason can contradict itself. Read Leotard...he a better authority than I
shipmanjd 3 years ago
It's because of the fact that society has become dependent on the advances of the Enlightenment. It's to say that what was meant to be a liberation from an institution became the institution itself.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
When has reason let us down?
-jacobins3000
Oh, I don't know... the atomic bomb?
DarrylWThomas 3 years ago
Agreed. What people forget is that reason is based on a subjective framework that includes assumptions (that may not always hold true) and they privilege certain objects over others - what should be observed and how should it be valued. There is no objectivity because (1) we can't observe a single object from all positions simultaneously; (2) there is a limit to what we can measure at any given time about any single object . All reason is based on some subjective framework.
DerangedRanger1 3 years ago
For god sake "god has come to us personally through the bible". Is that the ultimate oxymoron. I agree we are all here living longer healthier lifes because of science. This post mo is just a bunch of scared people who want their fantasy views of fairies and goblins to be taken as seriously as objective truth. It just arnt gunna happen.
factvfiction 2 years ago
I think the opposite, post modernists are people who believe that narratives are never true because they are only representations of on epersons view, and people are not individuals, but masses of consiousness, that is post modernism.
Isamright33 2 years ago
God died a while ago.
oscarmvela 3 years ago
By saying God died, you are admitting that He existed, but by the definition God cannot die. So which is it?
jfjweb 3 years ago
*sighs*
listen, Billy, I'm not about to get into the whole god or no god discussion so why don't you go read some non-christian books and leave me alone OK?!
Haha. Just kidding, as you can easely see I am a very easy going young man. No but seriously, do some research.
Yours truly: Oscar
XOXO
oscarmvela 3 years ago
I'll help you out Oscar. Friedrich Nietzsche was the philosopher who declared "God is dead," in his famous volume Thus Spoke Zarathustra. If you read this volume (which Im quite sure you haven't), you'll see that Nietzsche said all sorts of things that would seem to imply fantastic things So the phrase "God is dead," in Nietzschean context is very elastic, and does not imply that God exists. Instead it implies that God existed for a very long time in the minds of the masses, and now he does not.
NickBRocks3 3 years ago
Yeah, the whole "God is Dead" nitezsche quote is probably the most misinterpreted quote ever.
BnetTheAwesome 3 years ago
Maybe because it is wrong. The truth is that most people do believe in God. Even in the sense that Nick explained, it is true that people are in denial of God's existence and longing for us to know Him and love Him because He first loved us. That does not take away from the fact that God is living and active... Jesus said of those who seek to know God... "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." Matthew 7:8
jfjweb 3 years ago
God is dead doesn't mean "There is no God". Please read a book to understand. God is dead references what Nietzsche saw as the death of objective moral values and the spread of nihilism. Nietzsche wanted to stop such a spread. You argument for a creator though is awful. Just because the herd believes him doesn't make him existant. Also, using the Bible as 'evidence' is tautological as you're trying to prove the validity of theology. Please make good args kthnxbye.
BnetTheAwesome 3 years ago
Mr. The Awesome, actually the greatest argument for the existence of God is all of His creation. We are all without excuse to see the intricacy of the universe and think it is a meaningless accident. As for using the bible as evidence, I would agree. There is nothing in the bible that can prove God's existence or anything else for that matter, but we can learn a great deal about men of God who had a true and living experience with Him. That's why I quoted Matthew 7:8
jfjweb 3 years ago
Tautologies still stand. Also, with no relative standards to use to weigh intricacy, we can't say that this creation is intricate. For all we know, this could be very simple and boring universe but we're too stupid to know it.
BnetTheAwesome 3 years ago
Are you saying unless there is another god to compare with the creator of the universe, it is stupid to believe that there is a God? What about morals? Why do homo-sapiens have morals and yet all other animals, however intelligent, have never developed the same? Is this a fair comparison to determine intricacy?
jfjweb 3 years ago
No, my beef is with saying we are "intricate" when we have no other planets or systems to weigh.
Also, morals are expressions of emotions and survivalism. You can't a priori justify morals and use it to weigh. Also, we are assuming our morals are right, when they are just developed hedonism, survivalism, and slavery from the animal kingdom.
BnetTheAwesome 3 years ago
Actually, God is Dead first appeared in the book "The Gay Science". It doesn't specifically refer to "God" as a figure. But rather as a construct. What it really refers to is that if one let's say does something that says "I did x for God", it is an inauthentic act. The same is true if it were Love, Family, Country, Job ect. Nietzsche's motive was to remove any construct that negates responsibility. In that way Love, Family, Job, or anything can be "dead" according to Nietzsche.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
Many gods have died, about which god are you speaking about?
skavotajs5 3 years ago
That's absurd. Clearly, he is alluding to the Nietzschean concept of "God is dead." It is conceptual; that God is itself an outdated and useless thing in this day and age. It's an anachronism. Personally, I believe that the Jewish people, like all people, need to be revolutionary and vigilant in thought and outlook; we need to fight for social justice and a better world. Not dig into ancient beliefs, especially the ones responsible for blood libels, holocausts, pogroms, and witch-burnings.
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
How is "love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself", responsible for the atrocities you mentioned? Are these the ancient beliefs that you are referring to? If people humble themselves and seek God's forgiveness for their disobedience and accept His provision in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection, their actions should mirror your aspirations. If not, they have strayed away from following God and are subject to His judgment. The Jewish people are called to even more...
jfjweb 3 years ago
Sure, those are often touted as the greatest commandments. However, it's quite clear that many professing, honest Christians also look at the rest of the Bible, including the behavior of their deity, and his edicts. It's an honest belief in Christianity that fuels antisemitism. How could a Jew read the book of John and feel welcome? How can a Jew feel welcome among believers in a theology that asserts that 6 million of his/her murdered countrymen are burning in hell for not being Christian!?
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
You are making ridiculous statements with no evidence to back them up. If you are going to make such slanderous statements and expect to be able to continue to post here, think again.
jfjweb 3 years ago
John 14:6, "No one comes onto the father, but by me."
These are Jesus's words.
What do the Jews for Jesus believe happens to Jews who have not accepted their messiah?
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
Two things. First you have to tell me what Jesus meant by that. If you know then, I will answer your question.
jfjweb 3 years ago
Sure.
The conventional understanding among Biblical Christianity is that Jesus meant that he was/is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes unto the father, but by him. Therefore, Jesus is the only way to heaven, and if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you will go to eternal torment after the Judgement.
Is this understanding correct?
As well, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness, as a Jew, this is a sensitive topic. I did not mean to appear so hostile.
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
Okay, here is the thing. I can understand why you think this is harsh or anti-semetic. Your understanding of it as you explained it is very superficial. Let me put it to you this way... What does God as described by the writers of the Tenach look like? He wiped out so many people in his judgment Jewish and Gentile alike. Does this make the God of the Jews anti-semetic?
jfjweb 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to condone what has been done in Jesus name through history. What I am saying is that Jesus is bringing the same message that the writers of the Tanach brought, that the world is fallen, by nature sinful, and needs God's forgiveness. It is controversial for Jesus to say He is the son of God, that He is God, and that He will lay down His life as an eternal sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. Controversial yes, but if it's true, then it's an act of grace.
jfjweb 3 years ago
It was also controversial that someone died who tried to keep the arc of the Lord from falling when it was transported. It was controversial for God to wipe out all the idolaters when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. It was controversial for God to allow Israel to go into captivity and allow the temple to be destroyed and even that there is no temple to offer sacrifice for atonement today. Jesus claimed to make the eternal sacrifice. Because He rose from the dead, that gives his claim credit.
jfjweb 3 years ago
Actually, as a secular Jew, I do believe that Judaism is harmful to the interest of the Jewish people. And so I would have to agree: the God of the Tanakh is murderous, barbarous, callous, and downright abusive of the Jewish people. However, as the slaughter of the Amalekites, Canaanites, Moabites, etc. indicates, he seems to have a bloodlust for more than just his "own" people.
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
That is fair, but if you were God, how would you do it?
jfjweb 3 years ago
Well, God has infinite power. I would simply give human beings freedom to believe as they wish, but deprive them of the ability to inflict suffering or unconsciously make decisions that would cause them tremendous suffering simply by mere mistake. My point is that if God were infinitely powerful, the issue of sin could be solved in such a perfect way that would neither violate human free will, but at the same time, avoid violence and suffering to the extent that it's morally questionable.
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
Do you really believe that God has infinite power? Do you believe He is just? I think this is one of the biggest challenges I face when I do look at the state of the world today and say to myself, if God is LOVE how can He allow for suffering? What do you think God expects of us so that we could keep from contributing to that suffering and how can that be achieved?
jfjweb 3 years ago
I do not believe in any particular God, nor the validity of Scripture. If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, then he is only just because he decided he was just.
However, yes, your point is valid, but this challenge is for me, one of so many that just makes Judaism and Christianity appear as folly to me. Basically, I think that the Jewish people need humanism and rationalism, not Judaism or Christianity.
49thStreetBarricade 3 years ago
It sounds like you are living in conflict of beliefs... you need to work out what you believe before you challenge other's beliefs. You said if the God of the bible exists... either He does or He doesn't. If you believe that He doesn't, how did you come to this conclusion?
jfjweb 3 years ago
@49thStreetBarricade If God existed then Post Modernism would be invalid because an existence of him her would be a grand narrative, which post modernists refute against. Anyway I think Post Modernism is a sham because its just a continuation of modernism in a slightly different guise that's all it is.
Professor6871 1 year ago
So to answer your question, we are all sinful and in need of forgiveness. Jesus did not come to condem anyone, but to live and die and raise from the dead so that we all could have that forgiveness. This is a message of hope, not damnation. Is there any other way to be forgiven according to the Tanach?
jfjweb 3 years ago
However postmodernism is just empty words. Most postmodernists dont personally NOT use hammer when hitting a nail cause its "strengthening the oppressive normativity" and using a shoe or the hand would be more postmodern. Its just a carreer of bullshitting others while living normal cause it works better in reality.
benattis 3 years ago
who says there is only "one way"? but there surely are better ways. they surely are more constructive and rigorously thought out solutions. we can find them in physics, biology, and economics. i'm pretty sure they aren't arrived at by readily assuming "that all structured ideas didn't work and doesn't work and that there is really no objective dominant idea". unless you assume that all truth is summed up in these quoted words of yours.lol
xpressivist 3 years ago
postmodernism has already lost credibility and is over after 'sokal's hoax'. let's go back to the business of proposing some more constructive and rigorously thought out solutions to the problems of the world we live in. assuming the truth of postmodernism is surely a non-starter in any discussions.
xpressivist 3 years ago
Unfortunately is that there is no "one way" solution to the problems of the world.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
Every problem in the world can be solved better with one solution than with another. Postmodernism is the notion we should not use the best solution to problems cause that would be unfair to other solutions and for a postmodernist solving the problem is less important than suggesting lots of solutions with no need of working at all.
benattis 3 years ago
I would probably say that it is really more like a dissillusionment with the previous ideas. So rather than look at one system for an answer, perhaps it is best to find a "best of all worlds" approach. My guess is that since there are holes in every idea, just combine the ideas. But as we all know about any philosphy, it's only a beginning. But you had a good insight.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
i suggest you read articles on the 'sokal affair' or alan sokal's and jean bricmont's book, 'fashionable nonsense', to value the importance of truth, rationality, clarity, and objectivity in writing about any academic topic. postmodernism is the enemy of these academic virtues without which we can never understand one another.
xpressivist 3 years ago
postmodernism is a form to destroy the agony structure in anxiety. playing with satire language. we need more postmodern literature to observe and absorb the ambiguity colors of our life. postmodern is very crucial form of literature now and forever.
ramalekshman 3 years ago
postmodernism is like a bubble. you prick it and it will burst and is left with nothing but air. the hullabaloo of postmodernism is over. nobody takes it seriously anymore except cranks and crackpots from france and their naive followers.
xpressivist 3 years ago
One of the most popular films of our age was influenced by Postmodernism.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
Ergo...?
xpressivist 3 years ago
The Matrix Trilogy was heavily influenced by Postmodernism. One of the most influencial books was in the movie.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
postmodernism is basically an attempt to replace a strawman called 'grand narrative' with a metagrandnarrative which is postmodernism. nobody can escape the normativity of reason explanation. there is nothing grand narrative or modern about reason and normativity. i bet postmodernists have nothing to say about normativity without using reason explanation. you can't escape normativity, dude.
xpressivist 3 years ago
postmodernism = bollocks.
xpressivist 3 years ago
Do you think demacracy, communism, socialism etc. are all postmadern? Were they all corrupted by godlessness?
oldhank2003 3 years ago
Postmodernism is not about any of those ideas. In fact, Postmodernism is really looking at all those things (democracy, communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.) as failures in it's attempts. It ultimately says that all structured ideas didn't work and doesn't work and that there is really no objective dominant idea.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
Isn't it something like being a progressive conservitive?
oldhank2003 3 years ago
Not exactly, if it is Postmodernism you are talking about. Postmodernism is really just a way of saying that there is no real structure.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
Your definition of Postmodernism is a bit...well...farmisht.
Kazzzo 3 years ago
Kazzzo, How do you define it?
jfjweb 3 years ago
I believe in using the sacrad name yahshua and yahweh.
ladyofthewood 4 years ago
"You do not choose to be natural. You do not choose to be Post modern. If you choose you are at least Modern. If you know you are choosing, you are Post Modern."
Walter Truett Anderson
professionallynasty 4 years ago 3
that is a jew could find spiritual salvation in jesus is one of the rare beautiful exceptions in the deconstructionist postmodern conversation. It is that conversation which reflects a society which allows you to be who you are. quit kveching!!!
jplanchua 4 years ago