This doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard of Fox

God is evil, and it’d be blasphemous to say otherwise.

But isn’t justice the issue? If I know this to be true and I behave morally in accordance with the categorical imperative, and I am still being treated wickedly, then where is my reason going to lead me then? Doesn’t it go out the window when people just don’t care? If Johnny gives back the toy and then gets HIS toy taken by a bigger kid, shouldn’t he have just kept the toy? At least then he would’ve have enjoyed the toy if even for a brief moment. Someone please give me a counter to this line of reasoning.

Reminds me of Miller's Crossing

Marx does have his points and we in society need share the production that we (workers and thinkers) create together!

Legitimacy follows context. Context is the human condition (the sin nature). The solution is Christian Truth and Knowing: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Nevertheless, text demands the immediate culture and socio-economics. All life is a conundrum. The solution is an individual, personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. As Adler says, "...a return to scholasticism." Marxism is a dead, violent end.

“If your are born a slave, then be the best slave you can be.” This goes against ego and thus cannot be maintained for very long time.

I have listened to biblical scholars who claim that what the "end of this sinful world" meant to the people of the time was an end to the current evil political system under which so many suffered, i.e. Rome. They did not mean a literal end of life on Earth. Personally, the expectation of the end of the world was always HUGELY problematic for me. If someone has promised to come back for you, and more than two thousand years later they person still had not come for you, then I think it is time to admit no one is coming back for you. As one biblical scholar I have heard said, it is not so much we who are placing the demands on God but God who is placing the command on us to change our world and live according to Jesus's teaching. Now, I do believe the literal end of the world may very well happen, but it will be humanity's collective suicide by way of what we are doing to the planet and all life on it.

May u rest in peace,professor

After watching this video, I bought the novel and read it in 4 days. I am now rewatching the video to refresh.

I am grateful for this top-of-the-line opportunity to broaden my scope. Thank you.

Paragraphing....are you fucking serious

Rhysome

Interpretation must include the interpreter

Not Shakespeare

Smugglers

This is not Wittgenstein

Always...

33:05 - 33:25 😭🤧🐓

Thank you

I like his impassioned style of lecturing and the way he personalizes Marcus Aurelius. However, I question the consistency of Stoic ethics in exhorting us to live in accordance with nature and at the same time to live virtuously. Assuming that nature is value-free, what reason do we have to think that nature coincides with virtue?

Gods Critique of Nietsche is better. Called “The Holy Bible”. You read 10,000 pages of stuff you don’t understand and pay $150,000 to have a paper say you did. Why not read 1,300 pages for free and go to heaven forever? For free because Jesus Christ already payed the price. ❤️‍🔥

40:20 Best part 🖤💮 39:00 closest part to my specialty 🖤 35:16 just mesmerizing 🖤 This is a gem of a lecture !

Huge thank you for this 🖤💮

I would have loved school if there was a teacher lke this. Captivating start to finish.

Russian literature is overrated. Dostoevsky writes about a degenerate, and somehow people in the West find this criminal's thoughts deep. I would summarize Russian literature...for the most part...as glorification of the degenerate soul.

How many Canadian republics? ZERO

Like this comment if you saw him drop his bookmark

34:30 michael heiser Deuteronomy 32 world view and psalm 82.

Wow! Impressive class. Thank you for putting it on the internet.

Shaman convinced hundreds of people? Try con man. (Yeah ... they had them in 9600 BC as well.)

Sounds like a angsty incel pos

Yes, I discovered Michael sugrue years ago. I hope he knew how many minds/ lives he touched

Dasein is easily translated: being here/there, not being human.

My favorite kind of people are the kind of people whose weekends are made better by some “landslide of information”

Rest in peace sir

Wow. The value of this is priceless

It would be useful to analyze existentialism in light of process philosophy. Process ontology allows for a metaphysical system that doesn't fall prey to Heidegger's criticism of post-Socratic metaphysics and Sartre's criticism of essentialism. You will find that that the religious existentialists like Kierkegaard, Marcel, Jaspers, and Tillich are more at home with "atheist" existentialists like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger. Your average theist (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) would consider religious existentialism heretical. I see process philosophy, pragmatism, and existentialism as the "three teachings" of the West analogous to Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism respectively. When Buddhism became religious and devotional (like in the Pure Land and Nichiren sects), the influence of Taoism on Buddhism led to Zen Buddhism. So yes, existentialism without process philosophy can sometimes sound like talking in circles or talking about nothing.

Tell Staloff to come back please

This is on of the greatest Scholars I ever had the pleasure of listening to. Thank you Universe💜😻

Rest in peace Dr. Sugrue, thank you folr this lecture. I am going through a lot right now and this helps me.

Goethe distanced himself from "Werther". He wrote many letters to friends and relatives about his embarrassment with it.

So analytic statement such as 1+1=2 or for that matter any other "analytic" statement, is just two synonyms i.e. "a = synonym of a". And who decides "a" and "synonym of a"? Or better when do we agree with synonyms? And why a limited number of synonyms are so "objectively/widely" agreed upon? Is that from culture? And what about rules of logic? Where do they come from? Now if we are gonna do away with analytical/synthetic distinction, why not just do away with rules of logic, because why tf should universe follow logic? Logic can either be a) Empirically learned or b) Feature of human language, which is again empirically learnt or c) A hard wired evolutionary way of processing data. In either case, its origins are very earthly. But well so is mathematics, why does mathematics seem to be applicable to entire cosmos? Why do we have conservation laws? Is it possible that, at some point mere human mathematics will be unable to figure out predictive formulation for the physical phenomena? But it is kinda amazing that all analytical statements are just agreed upon, tautologies i.e., "a = synonym of a".

If only Schopenhauer had found the middle way

Love this man 😂

Jorden Peterson was obsessed with Fredric because he’s the first person that made him question his faith. Then Sam Harris put him in a coma in Russia! 😂

Point me to the thing called matter

I'm glad that "The Lives of Others" was discussed, as it really is a remarkable film.

He simply gave an explanation of what people were already doing.