I might need to make one clarification about my own view of the Reformation. The initial motivation for the Reformation had many things that were correct. However, it did mark the first departure, where independent forces could move the "Cathedral" away from those who directly spoke for Christianity. Of course, all systems (Cathedrals) produce entropy. However, in our case, the Protestant forces eventually became dominant over the Catholic ones, and at this stage have become overcome by pure antinomianism through their own logic. We are contending with now is, a type of "Protestantism-without-Christ" as the author Flannery O'Connor mocked in "Wise Blood". This isn't a critique of Martin Luther's issues, in fact, most antinomianism starts with objections to genuinely destructive fixtures in our society.
This aspect also makes me wonder if it is the origin of the Catholic church's inability to solve modern problems. Enough of the people who would be willing to solve them now face a lower barrier to leave. The whole conflict of the reformation was in part the Catholic church's unwillingness to contain the conflict within itself. Would allowing internal criticism move the institution left? i dont know.
@@djcudworth2355 Surely you would not deny that there was a pressing need for reform of the Church. The tragedy is that years of neglect by the hierarchy created a situation in which reform had to come and a resultant struggle where many wrong things were done. It was not all about Luther's internal struggles and passions.
The experience of being confronted with sound ideas outside of my paradigm has been a near constant experience since stumbling into the Peterson / Pagau / VanderKlay (et.al.) world. Every book, blog, video, lecture reminds me I live in one little sliver of Christianity and every day is a fresh chance to say, "well, shoot, this thing is way bigger than I ever realized".
Conservatism was born out of the French revolution. It was the people who wheren't radicals that became the conservatives, it has always been a relative term.
"Costly love is the right side of history." There it is. What brilliant clarity. Too easy to dismiss at that level for most of us though. We need to apply that sentiment at the ground level. Costly love is the right side of road rage. Costly love is the right side of betrayal. Costly love is the right side of finding out your plumber overcharged or didn't fix the issue. When we consistently adopt it at that level, history moves in the proper direction.
I'm so glad you are talking about that Distributist's post, which I was intrigued by, even inspired by in some regards, but not at all clear as to the extent of his intellectual framework's validity.
Eugenics, collectivism, 90% tax rates, Prohibition, minimum wage, rent control, rigorous regulation, all progressive ideas that we have either figured out were wrong and then revoked or were let to stagnant into non-relevance. The social issues take longer to fix because they are hard to model with controls. The corruption of technological progress is harder to isolate in complex social systems.
I think Tom Holland's Dominion was an excellent addition to this line of argument. "The left" is really the reforming tendency of Christendom, the desire to remake social life on Earth for more Utopian ends (and in the process tearing up traditional social norms). As such we can trace back the tendency to reform well before the Protestant Reformation, in fact the High Middle Ages with its Crusades, Inquisitors burning heretics, celibacy reforms on priests, flagellants and extreme poverty is in many ways the birthplace of this social tornado. A "conservative" in the High Middle Ages would have seen all these disruptions as undesirable. Eventually though the internal Catholic drive for reformation hit a wall, and the mantle of reform passed to Protestants, who would later pass the torch to the Enlightenment, and finally in the 20th century the "leftist" march for progress has abandoned Christianity altogether.
I'm skeptical about our ability to judge this supposed leftward movement. “My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland Harris is in many ways a modern day Hegel with his elevation of reason in the a priori dialectic possess (both assume a metaphysic, but Sam is atheistic). Peterson is in many ways a modern day Heidegger with his acknowledgment of non-reason based elements being part of the a priori (while both attempt to avoid a metaphysic--unsuccessfully). For example, Peterson affirms things like personality types affecting your political disposition, and archetypes. The difference between the two positions is revelation vs. manifestation. Harris and Hegel beleive in revelation-- having access to the truth. Peterson and Heidegger beleive in manifestation-- having access to pragmatic notions and appearances. A synthesis between the two is possible. Affirm the metaphysic of God existing and providing the possibility of revelation, while also affirming human nature is more than just reason based. Peterson needs to engage with a theologian/philosopher. It is his weakest aspect. Naturalism doesn't easily provide a possibility or ground for a blind, unguided processes providing revelation, while human nature doesn't easily provide the possibility of a blank slate that reason can helm alone. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HEHhbDCFRKk.html
Another piece that might contribute to a leftward drift is the improvement in medicine. The apparent prevalence of infectious disease correlating with conservative/authoritarian political stances of the populace would would make you expect as we vaccinate, cure and practice safe sex that our elephants become more laid back.
@@JackDSquat I always found it fascinating. He argued that since before the industrial revolution, half of all kids didn't get to live to adulthbood. What I never imagined was that there would be an advanatge. It would ensure the sickest half did not live to adulthood and spread the sick genes.
Are you going to be on John Anderson's Conversations? That would be so awesome! Anderson is a great man and solid Christian. He'll be very interested to talk Jordan Peterson with you. You'll have a wonderful talk if you get together.
Wow your talking about something so immediately relevant for me! I have begun writing a journal and sharing some of it with my wife. You've touched on a fresh "soft spot" in me now. Let me share with you some writing on this shift in myself and the "deaths" that are part of my life process: "I can summarize what occurred this weekend for me, as that I gained a greater portion of self-respect for myself, for my life process, for the wisdom I've gained thus far, for my openness to dramatic and pivotal psychological, philosophical and spiritual change, and for the difficulty of the spiritual path that I have walked, my whole life. I have faced my fears, been thrown back and thrown asunder, but stepped through to ever deeper, clearer and higher understanding. And presently, I have truly and "finally" come to realize that this is an ongoing, never ending life process, without any finale. And I can allow, honor, and nurture my own self-respect along this lifelong path I continue to walk upon, with as much courage as I can muster, moment by moment. "This is new for me (real self-respect), as I have mostly felt negative about my fears and my life path regarding what I have mostly felt as flawed and as inadequate in myself. This has just begun to change, for which I feel some real joy about. I literally used to feel I was somehow "bad" by reason of how difficult my inner and outer life appeared to me. Now I can actually feel compassion and respect for myself in this acknowledgement of my intense struggle in this life." Paul, you really assist me with come to grips with my process. My prayer has lately been, "Jesus, please help me to choose to increasingly follow love, over fear each day." Amen. Is there a way I could contact you more directly?
Sam Harris’ biggest problem is that his view for an idea society, presupposes that we are all Sam Harris. You can swap him for any utopian in that sentence.
I feel the same about Moldbug, tbh. Reading him can be almost unpleasant as he pulls you farther into the distant right, into what he would call "unfashionable" opinions.
We have a saying in recovery, "You must pursue your recovery with the same energy that you pursued your addiction". Unless we are in ACTIVE recovery (Making meetings, participating, having sober fellowship, speaking, daily reading) you are slipping. We begin to fall back into our old habits and a drink or drug is right around the corner. Meeting makers make it. You must fill your head and heart with Christ's principals, actively, daily or fall away. Thank God for my desperation!
I’ve long wanted to write a Babylon Bee headline “Hitler clarifies, He only killed Jews because they didn’t spark joy.” Then I remember it’s 2022 and wonder if I’ll be put in the gulag for jokes like that. 😂
Good video. I have a few thoughts. I think saying the left always wins, that there is a drift to the left akin to entropy is not a fair analysis. The environment changes, and if we don't change, we will die. The left always pushes for change within the hierarchy, so it can be framed that everything moves left, but I don't necessarily like that framing. If everything is in balance, society (the hierarchy) would change with the environment and that would be the ideal position, in balance with the environment. There could be an argument that the left is currently pushing for too much change, but that's different that saying everything drifts left, I think.
What I'm getting for this is "I don't like it and it's not fair because we change because we change and change is good. Adaption etc" entropy isn't the whole story of course but it's an interesting model. Because it seems clear that there are fewer "rules" and less "order" and it's moving further and further into fewer rules and less order and more "personal freedom" but freedom has a price. Think about all the personal freedoms that have been given to people in the west. Human being strive for rules and order and when society comes to a point where they can't look to somewhere to model their lives, they invent new rules and more rigid fundamentalist authoritarian models which is what is happens on the extreme left today. It is a new religion. There is no objective truth according to them but of course they talk and act as if there are objective truths
Again utter precision. The underlying difference in world view between the eastern and western religions is really pivotal in discussions..especially for the masses ( meant uncondescendingly ) . People will often throw out phrases like ..." All religions have the same base truth " .." Its all a cycle ." This is a stark departure from the axial (thus Christian)...evil is really evil and not just an eternal counterbalance for good . Again this is such a hard question to grapple with and the chronological deconstruction by Vervaeke really does make one wonder whether we have gotten it wrong . The only words we have to cling to are Jesus' claim that in the beginning he was and remains the Alpha and Omega .
I think, at least regarding tradition and change, it makes the most sense to look at the political continuum along the lines of Conservative - Progressive. Actually, I'd probably steal the term "Restorationist", as I think there's some amount of Restorationism that exists in conservative American politics.
Sounds Dutch. Bet his last name is associated with Dijk. Dyke seems to be Anglocised. You see this with de Ruiter. It's made to be de Ritter. A name I'm partially related too
@@robertpatter5509 the author was one of my English professors at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI. Taught an excellent course on American Pragmatism one semester. I assume he is Dutch.
Think of left vs right as a game of Tug of War. The left considers a foot of ground gained a win. The right considers preservation of current ground a win. So you get a step or a few left, then standing still for a bit before another step or two left. Both sides can have the illusion of a 50% win rate by these standards. Rightward steps are few and far between, if any, depending on what timeline of history/historiography is being studied. A great illustration of the two main tenets of the video's thesis can be found in the observations that 1) Early modern Feminism appeared shortly after Industrial Revolution era inventions made housework less time consuming for women like looms, sewing machines, tin cans, drummed washing machines, electricity in general; and 2) while its currently en vogue to poke fun at your typical third wave Feminist, its pretty edgy to be against second wave Feminism (for anyone younger than Archie Bunker), and any criticism of first wave Feminists (besides claims of racism) is seen as a direct attack on our worshiped and beloved right to vote. All three waves of Feminism correspond with an era of rapid technological development: The Industrial Revolution, postwar c.1960-1980, and our current tech boom. Gutenberg Bible printed in 1450; 95 Theses nailed to the door in 1517. The aspect of choosing technology because its easier work is true. It's easier to convince someone to dig a ditch with a backhoe than with a shovel. Its also financial suicide to open a ditch digging company without any power tools. If I invest in exoskeletons for my employees that allow even the weakest among them to easily lift 2x their body weight, I will steamroll my competitors who are both more limited in who they can hire and who must hire more people at a higher wage. Now imagine if my employees were soldiers.. The nature of technological advances imposes a "socially Darwinian" changing environment that must be adapted to. Technology, being Man's extended phenotype, is then advanced further as that adaptation. Another nature of technological advances is being forced to adapt to live (being so extremely incentivized to adapt that no reasonable man wouldn't, especially if the adaptation brings leisure, health, comfort, a full belly), just as animals must adapt to the natural environment. Limiting technological adaptation like the Amish or Orthodox Jews leads to only slightly or slowly changing the traditions to fit the new tools. Liberals conflate technological (I. E., economic) advances with social progress. This is the crux of the problem and a subconscious core tenant of the Whig historiography. Man marches from tyranny to freedom the same way he marched from stone hammers to iPhones. There's a valid observation of a connection somewhere to be made here but: is either march GOOD? There's a case that can be made for a social system in which a large portion of the population is forcibly forbidden access to modern technology by ostensibly benevolent technocratic elites. Perhaps that's just science fiction though! Refer to: [ISAIF p.125-135, emphasis 127-8]
32:10 A small point here is that Lazarus rose from the dead (as well as a few others) in the New Testament. Now, that is of course Christ who resurrects them, but they rise from the dead nevertheless. (Your point still stands, I think.) Apologies if this already been given sufficient attention/detail in the rest of the video, as I have not watched that yet.
I think a large part of this is that it is hard to stop protesting when you start. The first step might be logical and even necesary and most want to stop there. But there is always a group of radicals who want to take it further. Why did we change this and no that? This is the reason I think you could argue that the prots go us started on this road.
To paraphrase my comment on the Distributist's video: whether progressive or regressive, the fundamental issue is change over time. The Left tends to be more open to change, early adopters if you will, but that doesn't mean that the Left is always right. Some new ideas are cast aside as useless, but others are brought in and conserved within our cultural canon. It's easy to forget that some ideas that are taken for granted today were once new and radical in their time. It looks like the left always wins because the successful society recognizes that the world is not static and that the incorporation of new beneficial institutions, along with preservation of beneficial old ones is required to navigate modern challenges successfully.
You act like these unnamed bad changes are ever discarded -- they aren't. Give it 20 years and you'll be going on about how the cyber-Lenninists are the real pedophobes.
Hey Paul, love your Videos!! Although The Distributists video was very intriguing and thought provoking, I have to disagree with a lot. The Left vs. Right - Issue is far more complex. Sometimes the Left wins. Sometimes the Left changes the definition of Left and Right. Sometimes you cannot even tell if an idea is left or right and sometimes the right wins. (Just because we can identify Left and Right clearly in some ideas, it does not follow, that we can identify them always.) For example. The left today advocates for rules, how you should gender people. These are rules. By Distributists definition, this would be on the right, but it is clearly a left wing idea. Also the right is not always for preservation. By using this terminology it is totally clear that you would say the left always wins. Because every kind of change would be on the left. The further you go into the future, the more changes and it follows the more the left wins. This definition is nonsense. Sometimes change is inevitable and the left and right issue is about how things should change. Additionally being for preservation can simply mean, you want to change things slowly and carefully. Think about digitization. Is digitization of services a left wing or a right wing issue? Both, but the left and right approach it differently. The right would want to digitize slowly and carefully, the left would want to digitize everything and now. So if we do it slowly and carefully in the aftermath we have digitized everything. Looking backwards it might looks like the left won, while in reality the right has won. Also the late roman empire was far more left wing than the middle ages. They allowed homosexuality and things like promiscuity and exhibitionism were the norm. In the middle ages you had death penalty on it. There was no linear trend to left. This issue has nothing to do with technology. Either you think sexuality outside marriage is immoral or you don't. That we have more sexuality outside of marriage now is not due to technological advancement. If that were the case, why did most cultures that were technological underdeveloped not have strong monogamous marriages? Most cultures did not have anything like that. Also he arbitrarily chose "Ben Shapiro" as a right winger. But Ben is the left of the right. There are pretty influential Channels on YT with hundred-thousands of subscribers and millions of views (despite censorship and shadow-banning) that advocate, women should not be allowed to vote or that evolution is a lie or that they are pro monarchy or whatever. So we have influential people, who are far more right wing than Ben and those people clearly aren't less on the right, than earlier Right Wingers. Overall there seems to be some truth in his video, although it is extremely simplified to a degree, that you cannot find much value in his hypothesis. But I would agree that certain ideas, once established are very difficult to change and that these changes, would require a crises, that is actually inevitable. Because these left-wing ideas will overtime always increase chaos. I think the Distributist reads the last couple of hundred years into all of human history and this is his most fundamental error. Greetings from Germany
The definition of left and right has been fairly clear for the past millennia, really. We all know what "left wing" is, and even though the left-right dynamic was only devised in early-enlightenment French courts, it still applies clearly, using the same criteria to decide what is left, to the past thousand years. Are protestants left or right? Clearly left, as they opposed the present order and pushed us further down the line of "progress." English civil war? Parliament clearly is left, and they won out in the end. When has the right won? I honestly dont know
>I think the Distributist reads the last couple of hundred years into all of human history and this is his most fundamental error. I've been a fan of him for years and this is a thing I see with lots of Moldbug fans. It seems obvious one shouldn't do this but everyone no matter how intelligent, unless they have studied history seems prone to making this mistake, some more egregiously then others.
The point you make at the beginning that Ben Shapiro is more liberal than Howard Taft is incomplete. He is more liberal in some ways, significantly less so in others. History is very rarely so simple.
Paul the writings of Jacques Ellul on technology (The Technology Society, Propaganda, The Humiliation of the Word, etc) address many of these issues. I have been prepared for this world for years through his work. I recommend you look into him. TS Eliot wrote at the end of the Four Quartets, “We shall not cease from exploration, And the end of all our exploring, Will be to arrive where we started, And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, remembered gate, When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning” And I've often see that in both personal terms and societal terms. My thought is that we shall 'progress' until we arrive back at the Garden of Eden. In other words, when we learn so much that we can act like God, that is when we shall discover the Angel with the Sword. Meanwhile Ellul makes a salient point. There is no stopping technology. It shall consume as much as it can. We shall become like gods if we can. But he also says there is hope. And his definition of hope as a Christian is devastating. (He wrote a book on the subject.) At the end of his last book on technology he gave his sober assessment of what we can do in the face of the hydra head of technological 'progress'. Are we doomed? He asks. “Not really, if we know how little room there is to maneuver and therefore, not by one's high position or by power, but always after the model of development from a source and by the sole aptitude for astonishment, we profit from the existence of little cracks of freedom and install in them a trembling freedom which is not attributed to or mediated by machines or politics, but which is truly effective, so that we may truly invent the new thing for which humanity is waiting.” (The Technological Bluff, 412) Read Ellul Paul.
Thanks for the video. One BIG problem with this man's thesis is that it assumes a singular unilinear model of history i,e. there is a single strand labelled Left or Right that we can track over time and forms a single tradition. This is the same mistake that Corey Robin makes in his book. I think history is so much more discontinuous than that, that there are new things in history that do not bear enough resemblance to previous eras to be considered as part of a single tradition. Democrats and Republicans today for example are much further apart than you contend to name one example. I also don't think that history is meant to swing Left - or Right. I know some will argue that my position sounds nihilistic but that is not so. There are many models of history that are not linear but cyclical and also not all of us think that history is even deterministic. Anything can happen, in short. And my point still holds even if we take the most holistic orthodox Christian reading of History. It is very foolhardy for humans to think they can name the direction of history with such assurance. Is Edmund Burke the same as Ben Shapiro or W F Buckley? Buckley would love to tell you that yes they are part of this tradition we call "conservatism". Same for the left. Mao and Lenin have so little in common with Marx, just for starters. But we simply can't know. The world of the 18th century is so different from the 21st as to make such comparisons not only anachronistic but incoherent.
It seems to me that a major error of the Protestant Reformers was to misapply the New Testament's teaching of the abolition of the Law of Moses to their attempt to overthrow practices which Christ had established in the Church, and also to be confused over the matter of the requirement to obey the eternal moral law, which God has never rescinded, and which Christ said must be obeyed if we would enter into life.
Right wing is for tradition so the left wing generates the majority of new ideas and practices. Those that stick become the new tradition. With that it's unsurprising that each generation of right winger is more left wing then the last. This also explains the rightward drift with age, if you adopt political positions that push against your parents' generation's norms and keep those then the generation after yours will push for more changes and the one after that even more then by the time you are in your dotage you're now some sort of reactionary fuddy-duddy. What the leftward drift will be isn't easy to predict across a lifetime.
this is a tricky convo cus peoples definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' or 'left' and 'right' not only drift but can b used to describe totally different things based on context. for this discussion, i think the most useful is to strip it of its political and policy considerations nd more of view um from a philosophical approach. conservatism being just that, the belief in conserving (holding on to the structure in place), and liberalism being something like trying new structures. in this sense, many far left ideologies can also b considered hyperconservative, and viceversa. from that perspective, it seems obvious that the title denoting 'trying new systems' will always b able to outcompete one that says 'hold on to familiar systems' over long periods of time (new systems can fail so in the short term this 'battle' looks more volatile than it is over long spans). this is where peterson's 'on the threshhold of chaos and order is the optimal place to be' comes in as well. you WANT motion, you just dont want too much motion lol. in this sense yes the future leans 'left' but this isnt because of 'the left', its because synthesis is the only means to add energy to a system, or to be able to continue contextualizing a system that is constantly in contact with novel info/perspectives/culturs. makes more sense to see the 'left-right' polarity as a vehicle than a battle. you need both brakes and an accelerator for a car to be useful lol (and a steering wheel for that matter). in that sense it seems very silly to imagine that our brake pedal is in constant war with the accelerator and to then view the arc of history as fundamentally 'accelerator oriented' because the point of the car is taking us from one place to another lol. the more important point seems to b 'where are we trying to get to and why'.
He fought against the present system, which is often done by the left, but he also established a very conservative system which is the church. I dont think you can say whether he drifted left or right
The “I watched your car” kids often work for gangs, even in the states. Paying them anything perpetuates a system of abuse in poor neighborhoods that is not pretty. I you want to help them, vote against minimum wage increases across the board. Trust me, it’s better then donating to an after school fund.
One other note regarding Lutherans and Law, Lutherans have 3 pretty similar uses of law - 1. Civic use - maintain external decency 2. Bring all men to knowledge of their sins 3. To direct the actions of the regenerate who desire to do that which is pleasing to God. Granted, the third use was mostly brought in by Melancthon, not Luther, and Lutheranism lays more emphasis on the second use...or at least tries.
This is great. Getting a partner to engage in long term strategic thinking? Better. But this is also better. So it's great. So I'm not criticizing. It's just the deal, imo.
Hi Paul. In the comments to this discussion, Steve Turley's video on CS Lewis came up (he was mentioned by @Kiljoy). I think it's a great video about The Abolition of Man. Why don't you invite Steve for a talk? Should be very interesting, because you are both very fond of Lewis's work.
The “left” always wins because nature is progressive if you accept evolution - even purposive, teleological evolution. But tradition changes slowly and that is the “right”. If nothing changes there is stagnation, if everything changes there is chaos. What we have now is a pretty balanced situation by historical standards. TraffickingInDivinity.com
The neo-reactionary idea is something I sensed years ago in the story of Abraham. I’ve been thinking for a while that we may be in need of an Abrahamic exodus.
17:30 "I'd love to see Peterson recommend a book about Piaget and his quest to resolve the Science/Religion debate" I've been interested in the same idea, I don't know of such a book, but I know a guy on the same quest. He doesn't state it explicitly, but to me it really seems like he's trying to build up to religious wisdom with lobster science as a starting point. You know the guy.
Righteous and self righteous, yeah that has been on my mind all last year. But my problem is false righteousness. Too many Christian's use the thoughts and words of humility to display love and righteousness but are subconsciously unaware just how self righteous they are. It grates my ears everytime they try to evangelize. Because recently realized that I'm not listening to what they are saying, I'm listening to who they are. I react negatively when I subconsciously pick up the disconnect between someone's conscious and subconscious. It's weird. It's been a while seeing you get all angsty, its cute:)
The distant right is a large umbrella with lots of stupid ideas, racist ideas, and reasonable ideas. Christian traditionalists to nazis and Nazbols....
If Jesus was God, then what was there to follow? We follow God as a matter of course. Imagine if God challenged us by giving us his own model to follow, we failed, and then we were once again strewn across the paths of history.
The Potent essence of what is good comes to us in the midst of crisis. We are all flawed and we are all remote from the perfect resolution of our times, so if we are aided we must make amends by the human standard, but what we see is the tendency to treat aid, succor, and strength, as IQ scores which entitle us. When God thinks nothing of any feat. Or foot. Or meat. Or moot.
Burke vs Later day Thomas Paine. I always thought the very best description of left and right was from Yuval Levin in his book "The Great Debate" Here is an interview with him where he summarizes it very nicely. Here's a link to the video at the spot where he summarizes: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ny_W0sxbQ28.html Burkean classical liberals (conservative/right) see a distinction between society and the government. As Yuval Levin says conservatives think government should sustain a space for society.
@@anselman3156 That's the problem. He's right that Catholic doctrine and social teaching would be the best thing to address our current cultural malaise. The problem is with the Catholic hierarchy and individual Catholics. Most western Catholics might as well be Anglicans, they go to Catholic Churches which largely act as progressive morality sacrament factories. They have a get in, get out, talk to no one and do nothing mentality when it comes to church. I call for the evangelicals to colonize the Catholic Church and rebuild it from the ground up.
@@drewmann856 I fear that many Christian churches and parties have come to be dominated by the modernist theological trends which are current in the institutions in which their clergy are trained. This is far from the theology of the undivided Church of the first millenium. There has been too much accommodation to worldly philosophies. Christ does not abandon the faithful, and often has to sustain them directly himself when those who are meant to be shepherds fail in their duty. Both Rome and Canterbury are ill-led at present.
@@anselman3156 Well, Worldly philosophy has given us a lot. Without Aristotelian/Thomistic thought, I wouldn't be a Christian. Christianity made no sense until I had a firm grip on Greek philosophy. Modernism and postmodernism have been very detrimental to the church though. Things like Liberation theology, or the social gospel, have been terrible for the church and fundamentally Anti-christian in nature. Philosophy has its place, just of the older variety.
Without holiness, no one will see God. Peterson teaches us what Christ said, we die to ourselves. Satan and his demons have been released from the Abyss, IMO, and are pressing the world to be saved his way...
actually watching the original vid now nd find the 'the left is a process of entropy' incredibly naive. entropy is happening in both directions, the rights crystalization into a tyrannical order is also very much a process of entropy (or for that matter farright ideologies revolving around libertarianism are quite blatantly 'faith in entropy' philosophies). again, none of this makes sense in a 'left' and 'right' frame, as its just as likely for the left to form a tyrannical order (communisms common forms) or to invite chaos (no borders, no rules). what wins is THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF ENTROPY, not pro or anti entropy (pro or antinomian). again, its about the process of synthesis (literaly nature/lifes answer to how to use entropy most efficiently). insofar as the goal is synthesis, both the left and right play respective roles, but again to paint this as 'the future leans left' is silly and nonsensical, the future leans towards that which can synthesize, and that process is not contained or enshrined in any or either political philosophy but in the dynamic between them, and to that point what we should worry about most is that dynamic (seemingly the whole point/message of the idw). we'r talking in terms of 'reality' (which one is true) when we should b talking in terms of 'games' (what dynamic works best). he also quite blatantly leaves out the FORMATION of societies. if everything is a decline where does anything start (granted he lightly touches on this at the very end)? this whole vid makes me just want to run around shouting 'synthesis' like a crzy person lol. at this point we'r using politicians where game designers should b, and if anything this makes the entire thing that much more volatile and prone to collapse out of the entirely moronic tendency to take ourselves far too seriously (ironically because we believe not doing so leads to *bum bum buuuuuum* COLLAPPSEE).
Libertarianism and free marketers are not right wing in the classical sense. They are a form of left wing heresy. I think that is one of the things throwing you off.
Oh, yes. Mortification. I could feel the trembling in your loins through your voice after you said it. Oh, much must die. Christianity is the OG globohomo plague.
