Enlightenment Ideals Aren't Working | Jonathan Pageau | EP41 

Im still waiting for a Jonathan and Joe Rogan interview

This is what I found wrong with Lindsey is that he has the right idea but no justified morality. He can’t have the world he wants without it being christian. That is the good world where he wants to be but he doesn’t wanna believe in God.

We need James and Jonathan having a rational discussion and settling their differences. I think both thinkers are brilliant and vital to the cause of saving the west, and should be working together instead of beating each other up. We need a long form, moderated discussion between them.

30:06 thank you for covering this. I made the mistake of placing hope in politics for change only to see I was repeating old patterns. Any reliance on man-made or earthly institutions is bound to fail. It’s been a radical awakening, seeing the idolatrous nature of the worship of reason and money as gods. I’m excited to live the rest of my life completely differently, with Christ at the center of everything.

I think the Simple thing that Jonathan pageau keeps pointing out is the inevitability of religion in what ever form. And what JL seems to think that our return to religion is a kind of Natural defect that must always be avoided.

This was brilliant...several new insights, especially the description of post modernism as using the intercategorical to tear down categories in a failed attempt to reach the transcendent. Thank you.

James Lindsay is more on the same page with Jordan Peterson re. Christianity. That religious faith serves social and psychological needs that are not being met in secular society. In 'Everybody Is Wrong About God' James adopts a attitude similar to Jonathan Pageau; drop the label, drop the politics and try to talk honestly about human values and motivation.......

James Lindsay needs more attention on him. Hes able to piece together most accurately from what Ive seen, the puzzle that is postmodern philosophy

Some categories that need to be better articulated: prerational, rational, transrational. One of the primary confusions of modernism is that everything non rational is pre-rational. One of the primary mistakes of post modernism is that everything non rational is trans-rational. Shooting from the hip, I would say impulses to sin are generally pre-rational or below our rational nature, pure rationality wouldn’t have any impulse at all, and impulses to genuine virtue would be trans-rational, or above our ability to reason.

The enlightenment has failed. Miserably so. It was devoid of Christ and has led directly to this modern hellscape. Christ is King ☦ not human reason.

Well that title should work. :)

Not only is James Lindsay wrong, so is Arch atheist creator Peter Boghossian. Thank you Jonathan Pageau for taking the Cross of Christ to demolish the stupidity put forth by these men.

"The monster is intercategorical" So Pageau's criticism of D&D's "Monster Manual" would be not so much that it depicted demons, but that it is an incoherent attempt to categorize monsters?

JP take Gregory of Nissa's advice and take a break . The irony of your schtick is that it intelectualizes the sacred. There is no enchantment in that. You are way over exposed. JL may see the similarity between your journal and those academic journals he has criticized. Yours is a self congratulatory publication which like so many pier reviewed journals, has become a navel gazing foremat for like-minded people, with the priviso that yours isn't pier reviewed.

Reason is not the problem. Read Thomas Aquinas. Lots of reason there. The problem is the rejection of metaphysical reasoning that took place at the end of the 16th century, when the rational investigation of physical reality, and the technological application of physical knowledge, increasingly became over the next few centuries, the only fully legitimate fields of intellectual endeavor.

Oh James isn't just wrong he's a hack.

@4:00. The future is religious but I don't we fully understand what kinds of religions will be coming. One major religion that's being developed slowly is humanism (worship of man, human progress, the ideal human, etc). Currently it is viewed as a philosophy but it is actually religious. It will contend with traditional religions in the future.

what is missing is the self reflection of JUNG! AND his dire warning of collective neurosis!!

so because you rode on the coat tails of jordan peterson in to semi fame you now get to tell us what does and doesn't work for society lmao

This was absolutely brilliant, really needed to hear this as I can focus a bit to much on the non mystic side of things. Great as always from Pageau

christian fascism is not possible because they are contradictory concepts

For everyone here praising James Lindsay, I suggest you actually read the primary sources he’s citing. He’s wrong about most of the conclusions he comes to, once you honestly dig in. He builds these expansive phylogenetic trees of philosophies and theories, with his own post hoc obfuscations of said philosophy’s intent, completely castrating them from their own critique and context. There’s a lot more to that which he’s on about. Plus, he blocks and namecalls everyone who slightly challenges any of his assumptions with the offer of friendly discourse. Thinkers and philosophers in the discourse sphere distance themselves from him for a reason. Much like the woke will call you an ableist or a transphobe, Lindsay will call you a Gnostic or Wizard; a libertarian-ish sort of intersectionality.

I think JL has a lot of good information about our predicament. I go to JL for info on the how we got here, the poli-sci stuff and how philosophy, religion shapes the culture and affects faith. JP has his own sphere, which is purely based in faith, religion and how we derive meaning from ancient knowledge. So I just see them as inhabiting very different spheres of influence, but both have very important things to say.

I think Jonathan doesnt have the confidence to follow his argument to its fullest conclusion. He talks about the Benedict Option and families and communities living on Christian principles, but doesnt seem to think it is either possible or desirable to have whole nations run on those principles. From a Catholic perspective, there is lots of warrant for this. In 1925 Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Quas Primas , on the social reign of Christ the King, which summarised the teachings of the Church, that Christ must be the Head. Catholics enthrone the Sacred Heart image in their homes in honour of Christ's headship, and many Catholics long for the restoration of the Sacred Heart as a flag of the nation. Catholic integralists argue that the Two Swords principle of Church and State as mutually interpenetrating , but with ultimate authority residing in the Church, is the best way for a Christian society. And the prophecies of many Catholic mystics point to a future time when a Catholic monarch will rule over a resurrected Christendom.

The part about encyclopedic enlightenment reminds me of the Judge in Blood Meridian

Christianity leaves room for secularism, but secularism doesn’t leave room for Christianity. True Christianity isn’t about force but an invitation.

I have seen a few prominent internet intellectuals/authors/commentators express an inclination toward a "cultural Christianity" in preference to "wokism" or Islamism. But what is Christianity without faith? Do they want Jesus as a worldly saviour?

It all comes down to secularists wanting to protect LGB rights while wanting Christian influence to fight against the Q and T. The problem is they can't articulate why LGB is ok but Q and T is too far. Christians have a framework of one man and one woman that provides a solid foundation. Once you break that and advocate for LGB then there's no framework or foundation to prevent us from moving to Q and T. If you want to pushback then you have to go all the way and restore the Christian framework because it is the guardrails of liberalism. What we have today is liberalism without Christian guardrails.

At 35:20 regarding USA run by Christian Nationalism, I also can’t see it - seems impossible under the Constitution, but maybe that could change…. Even so, I hope at least some us are aware of the notions of Dominion or Kingdom Theology. Some Americans including elected officials certainly are, and they speak and act accordingly. Recall Rusty Bowers, the Arizona House speaker who testified at the Jan.6 inquiry, and others, who consider the Constitution and the Declaration to be divinely inspired. Can’t see how they could take over, but they are one of the many dead or twisted branches of christianity that need to be pruned for that religion to bring about genuine social cohesion. I love Jonathan Pageau. Does anyone else speak anything like him?

Just remember JP is an influencer, not a Theologian.

This is mind blowing

Sorry Creed and Culture. Stupid Trolling. Great way to turn people off of Christianity, who are undecided.

I don’t really use Twitter because it seems like it is just a platform for pointless arguments. But after listening to James’ lectures and interviews for hundreds of hours I don’t recognise James from this interview.

I don't think the divine mystery is irrational, but the human rational can't completely fathom the absolute reality of the Transcendent.

At about 15:20 I had to pause and shout out that I dont see Lindsey as relying entirely on reason, nor trying out a "new" and improved Marxism. If anything, Lindsey has been quite vocal in exposing the Marxism of "what can be, unburdened by what has been." Just a few minutes into any of Lindsey's le tures on the dialectic and/or Gnostic Hermeticum will prove this one sided cynicism quite uninformed. Lindsey might, like Peterson, not embrace yet a faith as distinct as Pageau's, but I definately dont get from Lindsey that he has rejected faith pole, line and sinker in favor of a purely secularized reason de'etre now somehow found in the fundamentalist literalism of the Christian evangelicals. William Blake reminds that "to generalize is to be an idiot; to particularize is alone a distinction of merit." While "All broad and general principles belong to benevolence who protects minute particulars."

Jesus, Im so grateful to be nowhere near the top of the hierarchy... so happy and grateful to witness God and all His works..

I would have wished that the interviewer and Mr Pageau here had been more specific about the Enlightenment and the philosophes who propagated its ideals. Counting Newton, who along with his contemporary Boyle was an enthusiastic practitioner of alchemy, as a member of the Enlightenment, is akin to putting John Adams in the same category as Maximilien Robespierre. Newton and Boyle were devout Christians; and even Spinoza was a firm believer in the existence and power of God (the Geometer). Only with Voltaire and Rousseau, and the cult of fighting the heritage of tradition, do we establish the elevation of Reason as the sole arbiter of Reality. If we are to discuss how things Went Too Far, then we have to examine with whom and how, they exceeded the bounds of harmony with the world. We lose focus by having no specifics to our historical view.

Jonathan needs to interview Gary DeMar.

Heidegger dasein is a key overlooked Being in time - Authenticity as the true understanding of humanity and is brilliant Hostility to technological world view

Sometimes it may feel 'cozy' within yourself, to want the tradition and homogeneity of a Christian hegemony. But never forget the same problems that plague 'liberalism' are several levels of torment worse, when people are filled with 'unchallenged' religious conviction. It has been quite a long time now... since Christianity was declawed in the West. The cozy feeling of a return, might arouse warm nostalgic emotions in you. But humans 'blessed from above' ...ordained with supreme power here on earth... is a recipe, for a return to the darkest of dark ages and a violent reign of death and inhumanity. Use it personally if you must, but don't wish it to control your society. Let Christianity sleep... and only in your dreams let it breathe. Only there, wishing it were a pure panacea and not its reality, of being just another incredibly dangerous ideological tool. To be so easily wielded by charismatic, yet extremely dangerous people.

I don't think Joan of arc actually said that she was beyond category, beyond man and woman, "I am". That was the invention of the playwrght.

James is off the rails. Hes right about progressives as he is one. He doesn't understand the right because he's in essence still a progressive

There's no turning back in life, only moving forqard. Many people want an easy splution by adopting systems from the past, but I think we're going to have to do better than that if we want real solutions.

Christianity is incapable of filling the God hole. Too many holes in its history and theology. Only the 7 Noahide laws (God's original plan) can give hope to all of humanity...

Doesn't matter; he's the only one willing to read enough woke literature to truly battle it. Back him, even if he questions your gnosticism (artist's curse).

James Lindsay has always seemed so close to connecting the last dot but just won't do it. Same with Jordan Peterson. These guys just want to rewind the tape a scene or 2 but willing to go back any further.

Psiké is the mad from the house. I don't know how it says in English. La razón es la loca de la casa. Thanks for this meeting. It's like to be in the dinning room of home.

I think one of the major stumbling blocks in these conversations is the lack of a clear demarcation of the political vs the cultural spheres of influence. Obviously these spheres influence each other, but I would argue that it is also not necessary for the Vatican to have direct control over the political levers of a society for a rejuvenated Catholic or more broadly Christian culture to implement policy that is fundamentally pro human in a way that a secular humanist would appreciate.

The classical trinity of ethos/pathos/logos was knocked out of balance in the Middle Ages with aquinas and the nominalists.

Listening to both Jonathan and James often, they both want the same things by different means ultimately. They are fighting different battles in the same war . James is atheist so Jonathan speaks a different language. Berlitz for James?

Heidegger shows how the mystery is being as such, and more primary to theology and any worldview or ideology, and that we achieve the highest kind of spirituality if we relate to it questioningly, together, ongoing, preserving that space of questioning.

A wonderful discussion. The main problem that hovers in the background, perhaps beyond this chat to cover, is how moderns who accede all these points make the "faith leap" if they cannot subscribe in good existential faith the ontological claims of Christianity, or for that matter the moral dogma of Hell. Even if one grants how salutary a force Christianity has been and remains, it is not so easy to make the Jungian-utilitarian or even mystery-mythos leap. If you don't see the Christian edifice at 3 in the morning, then you don't see it. That's a very deep problem.

mAR Margret Atwood... The Handmaids Tale

Monster: cannot be categorized . The “t” movement is all about creating monsters.

James Lindsey is right on the diagnosis of and the immediate consequences of the current social crisis, he is wrong his prescription for it; at least in my opinion.

You have James intentions completely wrong.

Hmm, not happy about this mischaracterisation of James Lindsay. I think everyone needs to get of twitter and talk to people propperly.

James has a lot of knowledge, but Jonathan has knowledge and wisdom.

We need to create a polity that is traditionally oriented, but can just as easily accommodate non-Christians as Christians. I am not a Christian, so the Christian solution is not open to me.

Going to be a true return to Christ and also a much larger corporate version

Jonathan is my brother in Christ, but he has a unique ability to make my head spin.

Really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you both

Wants to go back to Fresh Prince, they all do

Replacing the divine with something human.

I've listened to just over two thirds of this conversation, but, based on what I've heard so far I have little reason to believe it will come to a satisfying resolution. As someone who appreciates and has learned from both James Lindsey and Jonathan Pageau, I feel exasperated listening to this. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if either of these two fine, and very busy, men would dedicate some more time and attention to listening to and studying what they other is actually saying, they would find more substantive points of agreement, or at the least, respectful and informed disagreement, both in their analysis of our present cultural and political ills and in how to address them. But, I must say, I find it perfectly plausible that James Lindsey could have shot off his mouth and called Jonathan Pageau a Christian Nationalist, based on something Pageau wrote in a tweet. Because James Lindsey, by his own admission, leans towards a pugilistic, take-no-prisoners approach to making arguments on X/Twitter. However, Mr. Pageau seems to me to be here returning the favor by offering what strikes me as a simplistic, straw-man depiction of Lindsey's understanding of the role of religion, both as a matter of individual belief and as a source of social cohesion and ontology. I also have to say that perhaps precisely because, Mr. Pageau is not, by his own description, political, he may have failed to grasp the degree to which Lindsey, as I understand it, tries to address the tensions often inherent in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which at the same time it prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion also prohibits it from making any laws against the free exercise of religion. In contrast to how Pageau seems to describe him here, I do not understand Lindsey as advocating for a "Naked Public Square" in which all statements and arguments must be couched in purely "secular", rationalistic language. I believe Lindsey displays a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the role of religion in U.S. public life than Pageau gives him credit for. Lindsey is not just another Pinker or Dawkins. And he has himself spoken of the Enlightenment's "dark side" as Pageau phrased it. I understand Lindsey's concerns about Christian Nationalism to be directed at particular individuals and organizations that advocate for some sort of de facto establishment of a, Protestant, form of Christianity as a national religion. Getting back to this conversation, I wish they had focused more on what Pageau and Lindsey actually said in their respective tweets. As it is, I'm left with the impression that Misters Pageau and Lindsey are just flailing about, throwing one another some unenlightening shade on the webs. I take it as a sign that it's time for them each to pontificate a bit less and listen a bit more. If such a thing is possible on "The X."

Reason for James’ strong reaction is that he was brought up by the American fundamentalist baptists… They are cringe even to many Catholics. He did not experience reasonable Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Out of the many things I might or might not believe in; an enlightenment utopia is last on the list 🤣🤪

09:45 I don’t understand what he means about identities here.

Catholicism is what the words sanity and truth mean.

The pride of reason, or intelllectual arrogance, does seem to be a big problem, so to really exercise intellectual humility I think Jonathan should qualify his beliefs more (e.g., "this is what it seems like to me", "one theory/ argument is...")

The Enlightenment is working just fine, its entire purpose is to liberate man from superstitions like Christianity. Thank God for that! 😂

Loved it!

Christ is King

This, as you say, is one of the best reasons to pretend to be religious, to keep continuity with your cultural heritage, lest you fall prey to new Woke religion, or other more robust religions. Woke vs Islam, who wins? But I still cannot believe in the Supernatural. So.. I want continuity.. but without the supernatural.. but how to do it?

I hope they talk one day. James agrees more than you'd think. He's explicitly said that the enlightenment, liberalism and science need theology to keep things sane. He's afraid of Christian Nationalism when it starts to walk and talk like the Woke - that is, he is NOT opposed to Christianity. He's opposed to the corrupted Christianity that is marketed as Christian Nationalism. But Christian Nationalism is currently in the early Nick Fuentes phase where they don't talk clearly, and thus the casual onlooker can easily make excuses. Casual onlookers will in effect build their Motte, which obscures their real intentions of the Bailey. Christian Nationalism isn't just being a good Christian and voting accordingly. That's been done before and without incident. CN wants more, but you have to look at their Bailey. (Look up the Motte and Bailey doctrine that Schackel formulated if you don't get the reference)

Brilliant conversation, exactly along the lines of what I've been tripping on lately, sailing within the guardrails of Roman Catholic tradition... Bernardo Kastrup might be a good guest to have on. I really like him, though he's coming from a non-Christian analytical angle that I don't quite subscribe to. Subscribed here, though, thank you and God bless.

I was just introduced to the writings of Esther Lightcap Meek. I'm hearing echoes of the same from you. Helpful to me and my understanding of Reality

How about the truth of how christianity gave people a frame work to hold back the chaos

There is something, but I think that some fear on Lindsay side, is, how maybe, in U.S, there are some optics, about, like Mega churches, leader's type, that is even me, from Europe, a strange optic, but yes, we Christian's, can be strange, but a different force, but force of good, but those around are playing with our patience & tolerance, that's the problem, because, i will never abandon our traditions & values, and this people, who arrived here, embrace the wrong way, from communism/marksism to radical islam & don't understand what are they poking around, so there is problem's in horizon, question is, are they sure 🧐

I agree that Christianity is the underlying bedrock of Western values and culture. That a secularism that seeks to be free from religion is essentially 'cutting off the branch' upon which we sit. That said, Encyclopedia Britannica: "It was thought during the Enlightenment that human reasoning could discover truths about the world, religion, and politics and could be used to improve the lives of humankind." Does Mr Pageau reject the proposition that reason can be used to discover much truth? Does he disagree that enlightenment ideals have improved the world? "Religious tolerance and the idea that individuals should be free from coercion in their personal lives and consciences were also Enlightenment ideas." What about the above proposition "doesn't work"? I would argue that it is the separation of enlightenment ideals from their Christian Roots which is why they appear to him to not be working.

Categories are how things are ordered towards the Final Cause .. the end or purpose of all.. LOVE .. the Person. Why we are moved by beauty and truth and goodness. Aquinas.

Finally a Christian that agrees we should not weaponize religion! Jesus didn't mingle with political powers,yet the powers had to acknowledge the movement.

Where the dreams of reason produces monsters, the inquisitions of faith produce athiests is what Lindsey and McGilchrist argue is the incidence where faith and reason meet as checks upon each other. I don't think I've ever heard Lindsey say that it's all reason and no faith or vice versa. It's not an either/or reality and to believe that it is is to synthesize away the mediation of the two in the Logos as Christ both now and always, in the coming together of All in all. After all, this is Pageau's whole premise behind symbolism without dissolving the particulars to begin with...is it not?

The criticisms of the Enlightenment (and more so of Post-Modernism) are worth considering, but one shouldn't forget that one of the Enlightenment's sources was a repugnance against the wars of religion and such savagery as the _auto da fe_ .

James is right. It would be the same if we wanted to bring Sharia law. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental core of our documents. Anything we allow now, later Islam will want. Be very careful on what you wish for.

Category are, if and only if they have lasting duration. Pluto a planet, is now not. Shift isn't going to suffice for calling trans existence as anathema to typical construction of those typical traditional things. The category belongs in between the useful and user.

According to these guys, what IS the proper way to deconstruct these "categories?" Are they sacred and beyond question? Why can't we critically analyse history and reevaluate the invention of the categories and what motivated them?

13:50 took me out lol. I get it

John and James are both right in their respective fields, they don’t clash, twitter just makes it seem like they do. Cut the click bait shiz.

We are dealing with a spiritual problem READ JUNG!

I don't think that reason and revelation are compatible at all.

He’s a hack.

What are the enlightenment ideals, and how have they failed?

good stuff

Lol - no.

Choice between Sharing a mystery or sharing Death and Taxes

Yes, that is correct. James Lindsay is wrong.

Lindsay is the perfect example of what happens when exposed to a little philosophy but not much. His background is in mathematics, thats good. But he has close to zero formal training in philosophy and therefore little insight into the history of ideas and their development. His discourse therefore heavily relies on opinion but not much on actual philosophical research. For that one must go to the great philologists like Nietszche or more recent figures like Charles Taylor or Robert Bellah.

I too am halfway through 'The matter with things' and a disciple of McGilchrist. Each page is a meditation and potentially life changing. Wonderful to learn you have purchased a copy for each member of your faculty, and are working through it.

McGhilChrist has a huge clue as well read Master and his emissary!