Podcasts about emmanuel kant

In 1992, Stella di Campalto received a parcel of rugged, abandoned farm land for her wedding, located in San Giuseppe, near Montacino in Tuscany. Stella, a fiercely independent soul, with no wine experience, went on to start her own eponymous winery. She has created a Manifesto of Diversities, quotes Emmanuel Kant, and was an early adapter of Biodynamic farming in the region. Along with her daughter, Beatrice, they follow their own path and make the most sought-after Brunello and Rosso di Montalcino's anywhere. Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support The Grape Nation by becoming a member!The Grape Nation is Powered by Simplecast.

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode we look at the ethics from Ancient Greek philosopher Plato and the 18th-century Prussian thinker Emmanuel Kant.  How did they differ in how they defined right vs. wrong action?  What categories do their ethics fall into?

LINKS: Dr. Sabine Hazan sur Twitter/X : https://x.com/SabinehazanMD Travail de recherche du Dr. Sabine Hazan : https://progenabiome.com WATCH THE VIDEO: YouTube: https://youtu.be/WtlN-d6UOhU

La musique nous fait du bien. Quelle que soit notre culture, nous avons tous en tête des chansons d'enfance ou d'adolescence, des souvenirs de concerts, des chanteurs, des groupes ou des morceaux préférés… Pour le philosophe allemand, Emmanuel Kant, c'est parce que « la musique est la langue des émotions ». À l'heure où l'humanité doit s'inventer une nouvelle manière d'habiter cette planète, la musique est un moyen de fédérer les énergies, beaucoup plus efficace que n'importe quel rapport scientifique. L'un n'exclut pas l'autre, bien entendu, mais reconnaissez que si les scientifiques du GIEC chantaient leurs rapports, nous serions beaucoup plus nombreux à en connaître le contenu ! Mais comment les artistes peuvent-il nous sensibiliser ? Jusqu'où peuvent-ils aller ? Et pourquoi ne sont-ils pas plus nombreux à se mobiliser ?  Avec- Emily Loizeau, chanteuse engagée pour l'écologie, dont le nouvel album La Souterraine vient de sortir- Shaka Ponk, groupe de rock français, qui a décidé de mettre un terme à sa carrière pour des raisons écologiques. Le groupe Shaka Ponk est par ailleurs à l'initiative de The freaks, un collectif d'artistes engagés pour adopter de nouveaux comportements pour lutter contre la pollution et le réchauffement climatique dans leurs pratiques...- Blick Bassy, chanteur musicien camerounais.

La musique nous fait du bien. Quelle que soit notre culture, nous avons tous en tête des chansons d'enfance ou d'adolescence, des souvenirs de concerts, des chanteurs, des groupes ou des morceaux préférés… Pour le philosophe allemand, Emmanuel Kant, c'est parce que « la musique est la langue des émotions ». À l'heure où l'humanité doit s'inventer une nouvelle manière d'habiter cette planète, la musique est un moyen de fédérer les énergies, beaucoup plus efficace que n'importe quel rapport scientifique. L'un n'exclut pas l'autre, bien entendu, mais reconnaissez que si les scientifiques du GIEC chantaient leurs rapports, nous serions beaucoup plus nombreux à en connaître le contenu ! Mais comment les artistes peuvent-il nous sensibiliser ? Jusqu'où peuvent-ils aller ? Et pourquoi ne sont-ils pas plus nombreux à se mobiliser ?  Avec- Emily Loizeau, chanteuse engagée pour l'écologie, dont le nouvel album La Souterraine vient de sortir- Shaka Ponk, groupe de rock français, qui a décidé de mettre un terme à sa carrière pour des raisons écologiques. Le groupe Shaka Ponk est par ailleurs à l'initiative de The freaks, un collectif d'artistes engagés pour adopter de nouveaux comportements pour lutter contre la pollution et le réchauffement climatique dans leurs pratiques...- Blick Bassy, chanteur musicien camerounais.

Pascal CLAUDE et Simon BRUNFAUT nous parlent de l'un des philosophes les plus importants du siècle des Lumières qui fête ses 300 ans cette année : Emmanuel Kant. Episode 5 : Ne pas faire l'amour avec Kant. Merci pour votre écoute Matin Première, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 6h à 9h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Matin Première sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/60 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Pascal CLAUDE et Simon BRUNFAUT nous parlent de l'un des philosophes les plus importants du siècle des Lumières qui fête ses 300 ans cette année : Emmanuel Kant. Épisode 4 : La guerre et la paix selon Kant ! Merci pour votre écoute Matin Première, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 6h à 9h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Matin Première sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/60 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Pascal CLAUDE et Simon BRUNFAUT nous parlent de l'un des philosophes les plus importants du siècle des Lumières qui fête ses 300 ans cette année : Emmanuel Kant. Episode 3 : A fond la critique ! Merci pour votre écoute Matin Première, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 6h à 9h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Matin Première sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/60 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Pascal CLAUDE et Simon BRUNFAUT nous parlent de l'un des philosophes les plus importants du siècle des Lumières qui fête ses 300 ans cette année : Emmanuel Kant. Merci pour votre écoute Matin Première, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 6h à 9h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Matin Première sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/60 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Pascal CLAUDE et Simon BRUNFAUT nous parlent de l'un des philosophes les plus importants du siècle des Lumières qui fête ses 300 ans cette année : Emmanuel Kant. Merci pour votre écoute Matin Première, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 6h à 9h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Matin Première sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/60 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Pour sauver le monde aujourd'hui, on reçoit Gabrielle Pozzo di Borgo, philosophe et autrice du livre La philo, c'est la vie aux éditions Robert Laffont. Cinéma, manga, série : la jeune penseuse y mobilise toutes ses références culturelles pour faire descendre la philo dans l'arène du quotidien et de la pop culture.C'est donc tout natuellement qu'elle est venue nous parler des liens entre le manga Naruto et Emmanuel Kant, ou entre la série sur la royauté britannique The Crown et Simone de Beauvoir. Elle nous révèle aussi sa note au bac de philo, nous parle de la façon dont elle aimerait révolutionner l'enseignement de la philosophie à l'école, de son engagement dans l'antispécisme, mais aussi de son nom de famille qui n'a rien à voir avec celui d'une héroïne d'opéra de la Renaissance italienne. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Nous sommes en 1784, année de la publication d'un ouvrage qui sera intitulé en français « Qu'est-ce que les Lumières ? ». Il est signé Emmanuel Kant. Le philosophe allemand y écrit : "Les Lumières, c'est la sortie de l'homme hors de l'état de tutelle dont il est lui-même responsable. L'état de tutelle est l'incapacité de se servir de son entendement sans la conduite d'un autre [...] Sapere Aude ! Aie le courage de te servir de ton propre entendement ! Voilà la devise des Lumières." Quatre ans plus tard, dans la « Critique de la raison pratique » du même Kant, on peut lire : "Agis de telle sorte que la maxime de ta volonté puisse être érigée en loi morale universelle." Près de cent cinquante ans plus tard, deux autres philosophes allemands, Theodor Adorno et Max Horkheimer, notent dans leur ouvrage « Dialectique de la raison » : « Ce qui est en cause, ce n'est pas la conservation du passé, mais la réalisation des espoirs du passé (…) La critique à laquelle sont soumises les Lumières tend à préparer un concept positif de ces Lumières qui puisse les libérer des rets dans lesquels les tient la domination aveugle. » Alors comment défendre les Lumières aujourd'hui ? Leur idéal d'émancipation a-t-il encore un sens ? Quelles sont les Lumières du vingt-et-unième siècle ? Invitée: Corine Pelluchon, philosophe, professeure à l'Université Gustave-Eiffel. Autrice de « Les Lumières à l'âge du vivant » Editions du Seuil. Sujets traités : Emmanuel Kant, lumières, Philosophe, morale, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

22 avril 1724. Ça fait 300 ans qu'il est né. Le philosophe Emmanuel Kant par Martin Legros du Philo magazine c'est dans notre Grand dictionnaire. Merci pour votre écoute Et Dieu dans tout ça ? c'est également en direct tous les dimanches de 13h à 14h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Et Dieu dans tout ça ? sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/180 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

« Je n'arrive pas à penser la mort, ma mort, à l'apprivoiser, à donner enfin un sens à une vie qui n'en a pas » : c'est ce qu'écrit Hervé Le Tellier, prix Goncourt 2020 avec « L'anomalie ». Le revoici avec un texte émouvant et remuant consacré à André Chaix, un jeune homme qui a perdu la vie à 20 ans. C'était un résistant. Son nom est gravé sur un mur de la maison de campagne d'Hervé Le Tellier. L'écrivain nous raconte, cette semaine, les intentions qui l'ont poussé à écrire ce nouveau livre (« Le nom sur le mur », Gallimard) qui n'évite pas les questions existentielles. Celles qui mènent au sens de la vie et aux anomalies de la nature humaine. 22 avril 1724. Ça fait 300 ans qu'il est né. Le philosophe Emmanuel Kant par Martin Legros du Philo magazine c'est dans notre Grand dictionnaire. Merci pour votre écoute Et Dieu dans tout ça ? c'est également en direct tous les dimanches de 13h à 14h sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Et Dieu dans tout ça ? sur notre plateforme Auvio.be : https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/180 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

Philosophe, professeur à la faculté de Strasbourg, Jacob Rogozinski nous avait embarqué, voici quelques mois, dans une très belle aventure intellectuelle et spirituelle en nous parlant de Moïse. Il nous revient par un livre passionnant : « Inhospitalité » (Le Cerf, 144p. 18 €). Alors que nos concitoyens s'interrogent au sujet de l'accueil des étrangers, Jacob Rogozinski nous invite à relire Emmanuel Kant et Jacques Derrida, les acteurs de la Révolution Française, afin de trouver la juste mesure des choses. Rencontre avec un homme de bien, généreux, lucide et lumineux.

Qu'est-ce que les Lumières ? est un manifeste écrit en 1784 par Immanuel Kant. Kant demande comment l'homme peut accéder, par lui-même, à la lumière de la raison, c'est-à-dire sortir de la nuit des préjugés. La réponse réside dans le recours à la pensée libre. Livre audio complet

Las propuestas actuales para acercarse a Cristo a través del cine o los nuevos medios de comunicación, así como la importancia de la Escritura y la Tradición, centran el número de Omnes de marzo de 2024. El dossier cuenta con dos valiosos artículos, escritos por los teólogos y profesores Francisco Varo y Vicente Balaguer, en los que el lector se acerca a Cristo a través de los relatos del Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento y, por otra parte, al tesoro de la Tradición de la Iglesia católica en el camino de entendimiento de la fe y de la historia de la Salvación. El quinto aniversario de la firma del Documento sobre la Fraternidad Humana, celebrado a principios de febrero, ocupa la sección de Mundo de esta revista en la que se pone de relieve cómo, un lustro después de este histórico documento, la colaboración y el diálogo interreligioso siguen siendo uno de los principales retos de la Iglesia en todos sus niveles. Por su parte, Juan Luis Lorda centra su colaboración en la figura de Emmanuel Kant, del que este año se celebra el tercer centenario de su nacimiento. En su vídeo para el mes de marzo de 2024, el Papa Francisco se une a “Ayuda a la Iglesia Necesitada” y señala como protagonistas a “los nuevos mártires, testigos de Cristo”. En su mensaje, el Pontífice cuenta la historia de un hombre musulmán cuya mujer, cristiana devota, murió a manos de unos terroristas tras negarse a arrojar su crucifijo al suelo. Francisco considera que el gesto de aquella mujer es testimonio de “un amor a Cristo que la llevó a ser leal hasta la muerte”. En el vídeo, el Papa afirma que “hay más mártires hoy que al inicio del cristianismo”. Algo que no sorprende, teniendo en cuenta que la persecución religiosa está en alza desde hace unos años. Sin embargo, el Santo Padre asegura que estos testimonios de fidelidad son “la señal de que vamos por el camino correcto”. Por ello, el Papa pide a los católicos que oren junto a él para que los mártires, que arriesgan su vida por el Evangelio, “contagien a la Iglesia su valentía, su impulso misionero”. Además, asegura que el coraje y testimonio de estas personas son “una bendición para todos”. La película La Pasión de Cristo acaba de cumplir su vigésimo aniversario. Dirigida por Mel Gibson, se estrenó el miércoles 25 de febrero de 2004, Miércoles de Ceniza de aquel año. La película llegaba precedida de una contumaz polémica, en la que se cruzaban acusaciones de antisemitismo y extrema violencia. Al día siguiente al estreno, The New York Times profetizó que este filme iba a significar el fin de la carrera profesional de Gibson e intentó boicotearla. Sin embargo, la realidad fue muy distinta. En su primer día, el filme recaudó 26 millones de dólares (casi el total de lo que había costado) y, al concluir su primera semana en cartel, había superado los 125 millones. Casi un mes después, con una recaudación que superaba ya los 200 millones de dólares. The New York Times acabó admitiendo que La Pasión había despertado en Hollywood el hambre de películas religiosas. Al final de su recorrido en cines, este singular largometraje alcanzó los 370 millones en Norteamérica y los 251 millones en el mercado internacional, convirtiéndose en la película calificada “R” (mayores con reparos) más taquillera de la historia del cine, récord que todavía ostenta. El tiempo ha demostrado que La Pasión de Cristo no solo puede ser calificada de obra maestra, sino que es algo más que otra película sobre la vida de Jesús, obrando conversiones tanto en actores participantes como en espectadores. Desde el 25 de febrero y durante doce semanas, hasta el 25 de abril, el Dicasterio para los Laicos, la Familia y la Vida llevará a cabo una campaña social para redescubrir la actualidad de la exhortación apostólica que el Papa Francisco dirigió a los jóvenes hace ahora cinco años, Christus Vivit, firmada el 25 de marzo de 2019. Otro de los objetivos de la campaña es mantener viva la experiencia de la Jornada Mundial de la Juventud, que se celebró el año pasado en la capital de Portugal. La campaña se centra en la palabra clave “vivo” y, a través de vídeos motivadores, llamadas a la acción y al compromiso pretende preservar la esencia de la JMJ también en el espacio digital implicando a quienes ya han participado en anteriores Jornadas Mundiales de la Juventud, a sus animadores y a los responsables de pastoral. La iniciativa, disponible en varios idiomas, está abierta también a otras entidades eclesiásticas que deseen llegar a los jóvenes a través de las redes sociales.

durée : 00:58:22 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann - Kant révolutionne en replaçant l'imagination, souvent associée à l'invention et aux rêves, au cœur du nécessaire aux côtés de l'entendement. Comment cette redéfinition par Kant transforme-t-elle notre compréhension de son rôle central ? - invités : Antoine Grandjean Professeur à l'Université de Lille, spécialiste de philosophie allemande; Michaël Foessel Philosophe, spécialiste de la philosophie allemande et de la philosophie contemporaine, et professeur à l'école Polytechnique

William MarxLittératures comparéesCollège de FranceAnnée 2023-202401 - Comment lire ? - Lire : une tâche utopiqueRésuméDans son Cours de poétique, Paul Valéry expliquait que le sentiment esthétique était ce qui reste quand tout s'est effondré autour de nous. Il y a là une sorte de cogito esthétique, à la manière de Descartes : non pas « je pense, donc je suis », mais « j'éprouve la beauté, donc je suis ». Lire est une activité intense, qui emporte tout l'être. Mais qu'est-ce que lire ? Le terme en français désigne deux activités différentes, quoique complémentaires. Savoir lire, c'est d'abord savoir déchiffrer littéralement un texte écrit. Mais lire, c'est aussi savoir comprendre et interpréter ce texte. Cette nécessité de l'interprétation est fondamentale, car le sens d'un texte ne se donne pas de lui-même. Il y a plusieurs interprétations possibles d'un texte, dont certaines sont meilleures et plus valables que les autres. Ce qu'on nomme par commodité de langage le vrai sens d'un texte est le résultat d'une construction complexe faite par le lecteur. Comme l'explique Ortega y Gasset, pour pouvoir parler, nous devons taire beaucoup de choses, le silence est une condition de la parole, et le lecteur, pour reconstituer le message, doit « construire laborieusement [en lui-même] toute la réalité mentale non dite » dans le texte. « Lire avec sérieux et sincérité » : voilà tout l'enjeu. C'est une question d'épistémologie et d'éthique. Le Saint Jérôme d'Antonello da Messina illustre fort bien cette « tâche utopique » de la lecture. Et aujourd'hui, quand se multiplient les lectures de type inquisitorial et la critique radicale des textes (cancel culture, wokism, entre autres), il convient de replacer ces nouvelles façons de lire dans un panorama historique et culturel des modes de lecture et d'interprétation.Auteurs et œuvres citésPaul Valéry, Cours de poétique, Histoires brisées. René Descartes, Discours de la méthode. Miguel de Cervantès, Don Quichotte. Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary. William K. Wimsatt, « The Intentional Fallacy ». Roland Barthes, « La Mort de l'auteur ». Aristote. Platon. Emmanuel Kant. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. John Wilkins. Friedrich Nietzsche. José Ortega y Gasset, Qu'est-ce que lire ? Andrei Minzetanu, La Lecture vertueuse. Antonello da Messina, Saint Jérôme dans son étude. Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Voyage au bout de la nuit.

Politicians, world leaders, and even advertisers talk about "moral imperative" whenever they are trying sell an idea or take money from your pocket. The real issue is that they don't really seem to understand the term. You might say, "They Kant do it". G. Long and Deb discuss Emmanuel Kant's work on "The Moral Imperative" and try to make sense of why moral imperatives  such as healthcare, clean water, and broken infrastructure are set aside while the government continues to support war, violence, and corruption around the globe. We are getting all philosophical on this episode of the Long in the Boot Podcast.Thanks For Listening! Find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Facebook!Email: longintheboot@gmail.comCall Us: 337-502-9011

A mis amigos ateos les encanta citar a Emmanuel Kant, David Hume y Voltaire como pensadores de punta que abrieron nuevos horizontes a la humanidad, liberándola de los prejuicios religiosos que la habían tenido esclavizada durante siglos. Pero las cosas fueron muy distintas, y los escritos de estos tres pensadores crearon un marco de referencia para justificar la esclavitud y la explotación de las razas no europeas. Examinamos las grandes ambigüedades de la Ilustración y los principales mitos del ateísmo, como El Mito del Progreso, el Mito de la Racionalidad Humana y el Mito de la Bondad Humana con una discusión del libro “En Defensa de la Ilustración" de Steven Pinker. Programa escrito, presentado y producido por Gabriel Porras, actor profesional de voz (gabrielvoice.com). Diseño de portada: Ricardo Gil (ricardo@scrav.com). Música: “Joking Together”, de Michele Nobler/Memory Tapes @artlist.io “Alive and Well”, de Campagna/Hello Love @artlist.i0 La inspiración de este programa viene de un debate entre Steven Pinker y Nick Spencer, titulado “Have science, reason and humanism replaced faith?”, disponible en YouTube: https://youtu.be/Ssf5XN5o9q4?feature=shared Nick Spencer publicó un artículo alusivo titulado “Atheist Fairy Tales: exposing secularism's major myths” en la página Premier Unbelievable: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/topics/atheist-fairytales-exposing-secularisms-major-myths/12200.article Francis Collins, el director del Proyecto del Genoma Humano, publicó un libro titulado ‘The Language of God”, en el cual presenta sólidos argumentos sobre la existencia de Dios.

Welcome back to another riveting episode of "Analysing Philosophy's Fault Lines." Host Michael Leibowitz engages in a compelling conversation with the renowned Professor Andrew Bernstein, a distinguished Objectivist philosopher and author of influential works like "Heroes, Legends, and Champions" and "The Capitalist Manifesto." This episode casts a discerning eye on Emmanuel Kant's complex philosophical stance, diving deep into the contradictions and implications of his ideas.Professor Bernstein brings his insightful analysis to bear as he dissects Kant's philosophy, highlighting the perplexing aspects of his worldview. Kant, often hailed as a towering figure in philosophy, is also viewed with skepticism due to the contradictions that permeate his ideas. Professor Bernstein masterfully guides us through the intricacies of Kant's reasoning, exposing the potential pitfalls of a philosophy that undermines the power of reason.One of the most striking aspects of Kant's philosophy is his notion that individuals exist as sacrificial lambs, driven by duty to others without room for personal reward or happiness. This belief, as elucidated by Professor Bernstein, raises important questions about the nature of human action and the role of altruism. Delve into a critical examination of Kant's philosophy and its implications. Discover how his ideas have impacted various ideologies, including Marxism, communism, fascism, and altruistic-based concepts. Professor Bernstein's insights unveil the connections between Kant's thinking and the broader socio-political landscape, shedding light on the origins of ideologies that prioritise sacrifice over individual rights and happiness.Join us for an intellectually stimulating exploration of Kant's philosophy, its contradictions, and its societal ramifications. Gain a deeper understanding of the foundations of altruism and sacrifice as we dissect the thought-provoking ideas on "Analysing Philosophy's Fault Lines." Michael Leibowitz is a renowned philosopher, political activist, and the esteemed host of the Rational Egoist podcast. Inspired by the philosophical teachings of Ayn Rand, Leibowitz passionately champions the principles of reason, rational self-interest, and individualism, seeking to empower others through his compelling work. His life's narrative exemplifies the transformative power of Ayn Rand's writings. Having faced challenging circumstances that led to a 25-year prison sentence, Leibowitz emerged from adversity by embracing the tenets of rational self-interest and moral philosophy put forth by Ayn Rand. This profound transformation propelled him to become an influential figure in the libertarian and Objectivist communities, motivating others to adopt reason, individualism, and self-interest in their own lives. Beyond his impactful podcasting endeavours, Leibowitz fearlessly engages in lively political debates, advocating for the protection of individual rights and freedoms through compelling YouTube videos and insightful interviews. His unwavering commitment to these ideals has garnered him a dedicated following of like-minded individuals. Leibowitz is a versatile author, co-authoring the thought-provoking book titled "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime." This groundbreaking work delves into societal attitudes surrounding punishment and rehabilitation, shedding light on how misguided approaches have contributed to the rise of crime and recidivism. For a deeper exploration of his ideas and insights, don't miss the opportunity to read "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime," co-authored by Michael Leibowitz. And also, delve into his book "View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty." Both books are available for purchase using the following links:"Down the Rabbit Hole": https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X"View from a Cage": https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj

durée : 00:03:22 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - par : Frédéric Worms - D' Emmanuel Kant à l'ami proche : comment nous inspirons-nous d'autrui ?

Un épisode de type inversé puisqu'on commence direct avec le sujet de la semaine : l'immobilisme causé par la projection (c'est plus bête que ça en a l'air). À travers cette demi-heure de conversation - cherchant, au choix, à complimenter ou humilier Avril - vous plongerez subtilement dans ce monde passif-agressif que nous commençons à maîtriser. Suite au fou rire de la semaine dernière, impossible de relancer le Plouf Plouf remplacé pour l'occasion par un jeu de citation mettant aux prises Emmanuel Kant et Juliette Armanet. Après deux détours outrés par Pierre Palmade et les potatoes betterave du Mcdo (beurk), on prendra 3 nouvelles minutes pour sucer Saint Brad Pitt (3ème fois en 21 épisodes, ça commence à faire beaucoup). Enfin, l'épisode se terminera par deux Ddodg sur Thanos et la Moustache ainsi qu'un nouveau format : Le DDODG-SPRINT (5 sujets, 2 secondes pour choisir son camp, 1 argument chacun). Bonne écoute ! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Jennifer and Jacques explore the meanings of ownership and property in western thought, and how concepts of land use and productivity have been used to justify the dispossession of first nations people.ReferencesGnuse, R (1985) You Shall Not Steal: Communiy and Property in the Biblical Tradition. New York: Orbis BooksJurczak, P. (2019) Ch.10 - The Nature of Property in Introduction to Philosophy. Simple Book Publishing.Emmanuel Kant in 1795 'Zum ewigen Frieden, ein phil' (Towards an eternal Peace: a philosophical proposal):'America, the black countries, the spice islands, the Cape, etc. were for them, as they were discovered, lands which were not owned by anyone; because they didn't consider their inhabitants to be anything."

Aujourd'hui, avec Camille de Villeneuve, Docteure en philosophie et professeure au Centre Sèvres, nous parlerons d'Emmanuel Kant.  Kant est sans l'ombre d'un doute le plus influent des philosophes de sa génération et des temps modernes. Sa pensée toucha à tous les domaines de la connaissance : épistémologie, métaphysique, religion, éthique, politique, etc. Son œuvre écrite est immense et sa philosophie réputée rigoureuse et difficile d'accès.  Mais Kant était aussi un être humain avec une vie, un quotidien austère, une organisation bien réglée.  C'est ce grand nom de la philosophie que nous présente aujourd'hui Camille.  Interview menée par Parnel Ledaga, doctorant en philosophie au Centre Sèvres.  Enregistrement et montage : Cyprien Rigolot.  Musique : Improvisations au piano de Pascal Marsault

Would you like to receive a daily, random quote by email from my Little Box of Quotes?https://constantine.name/lboqA long long time ago I began collecting inspirational quotes and aphorisms. I kept them on the first version of my web site, where they were displayed randomly. But as time went on, I realized I wanted them where I would see them. Eventually I copied the fledgeling collection onto 3×5 cards and put them in a small box. As I find new ones, I add cards. Today, there are nearly 1,000 quotes and the collection continues to grow.My mission is creating better conversations to spread understanding and compassion. This podcast is a small part of what I do. Drop by https://constantine.name for my weekly email, podcasts, writing and more.

Would you like to receive a daily, random quote by email from my Little Box of Quotes? https://constantine.name/lboq A long long time ago I began collecting inspirational quotes and aphorisms. I kept them on the first version of my web site, where they were displayed randomly. But as time went on, I realized I wanted them where I would see them. Eventually I copied the fledgeling collection onto 3×5 cards and put them in a small box. As I find new ones, I add cards. Today, there are more than 1,000 quotes and the collection continues to grow. Hello, I'm Craig Constantine

durée : 00:57:34 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann - Le philosophe Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) se demande d'où vient le mal dans le monde, et si l'être humain est méchant par nature. Comment comprendre que le mal, radical et non pas absolu, est autant un penchant naturel que le résultat de notre volonté ?

Philo Tech : la chronique philosophie de Trench Tech animée par Emmanuel Goffi. Cette chronique est extraite de l'épisode Irénée Régnauld : Aux armes, citoyens numériques ! La question de l'éthique et de l'IA est au cœur des réflexions mais encore faut-il le faire correctement au risque de voir le père de la déontologie, Emmanuel Kant, se retourner dans sa tombe. VOUS AIMEZ TRENCH TECH ? ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Trench Tech, c'est le talkshow « Esprits Critiques pour Tech Ethique » Abonnez-vous, commentez, likez, notez ce podcast… pour partager l'esprit critique pour une tech éthique. Retrouvez-nous aussi sur Linkedin , Twitter , Instagram  et TikTok , ainsi que sur www.trench-tech.fr.

Le quotidien du philosophe Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), était réglé comme du papier à musique. Détestant les aléas du hasard, les journées de cet assoiffé de connaissance devaient se dérouler sans aucune surprise. Chaque jour, à 14h30, il sortait de chez lui vêtu de son habit gris et empruntait le même parcours au centimètre près. On raconte toutefois qu'il modifia son emploi du temps un jour de 1789, pour se procurer la gazette qui annonçait les débuts de la Révolution française…

Le quotidien du philosophe Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), était réglé comme du papier à musique. Détestant les aléas du hasard, les journées de cet assoiffé de connaissance devaient se dérouler sans aucune surprise. Chaque jour, à 14h30, il sortait de chez lui vêtu de son habit gris et empruntait le même parcours au centimètre près. On raconte toutefois qu'il modifia son emploi du temps un jour de 1789, pour se procurer la gazette qui annonçait les débuts de la Révolution française…

Que dit le marquis de Sade dans son roman Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu ? Peut-on dire que le "divin marquis" était un philosophe ? Qu'est-ce que le sadisme ? Doit-on respecter la nature ou le droit ? En quoi Emmanuel Kant est-il un adversaire de Sade ? Et surtout, à quelle condition le plaisir est-il permis ? Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/kosmos. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Le quotidien du philosophe Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), était réglé comme du papier à musique. Détestant les aléas du hasard, les journées de cet assoiffé de connaissance devaient se dérouler sans aucune surprise. Chaque jour, à 14h30, il sortait de chez lui vêtu de son habit gris et empruntait le même parcours au centimètre près. On raconte toutefois qu'il modifia son emploi du temps un jour de 1789, pour se procurer la gazette qui annonçait les débuts de la Révolution française…

Un libro en el cual más de 20 filósofos analizan distintos capítulos y personajes de la serie de TV más popular del mundo. En el resumen comparamos a Homero con las creencias de Aristóteles, a Bart con Friedrich Nietzsche, y la moral del vecino Flanders con Emmanuel Kant. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Day 118 Today's Reading: Romans 1 "What about the people in other countries who have never heard the gospel? Will they go to hell?” This was a question one of our worship band members asked me. I was finishing up a late meeting at the church, and he was finishing practice. We met each other in the lobby when he dropped that question. More specifically, he said, “We preach the gospel here, but what about for all of the other countries around the world? How will they know what we know?” Today's reading in Romans 1 is how I began to address this young man's legit and important question. I wish I were a universalist and an annihilationist, but I can't be, based on what the Bible teaches. A universalist says everyone goes to heaven no matter how they interpret God, so all of humanity will be in heaven. An annihilationist says there is only heaven and no hell, so those who are evil simply cease to exist. It removes the final judgment. I wish I were both, so responding to such a complex question would be easy. However, the Bible provides an answer. We'll start in the book of Romans. Romans is what I use to explain the difference between a local church band member, a tribesman in the remote part of the Amazon or a nomad in the Sahara who has never heard the Good News. The full answer is in two Bible verses: one about God, one about humanity. Let's start with the verse on humanity: “That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20). Paul says God has two witnesses on the planet: one is internal and the other is external. Both creation and consciousness speak about God—we see this very clearly in this Romans passage. It is the evidence of God “without” and “within.” In other words, what's outside of us and what's inside of us. German philosopher Emmanuel Kant spoke about believing in God because of two realities that converted him—“the starry heavens above and the moral law of God within.” A story about Sir Isaac Newton and his atheist friend serves as a wonderful example of the evidence "without." Newton's friend did not believe in God but preferred to take the position that the universe "just happened." One day Newton showed him a model of the solar system. The sun, the planets, and the moons were all in place. The sizes of the spheres were in proportion, and the planets and the satellites revolved around the sun at their relative speeds. The friend admired the model saying, “It's intriguing. Who made it?” “Nobody,” said Newton. “It just happened.” Newton was stating that to have a design of the universe, there needs to be a designer of the universe. A big bang didn't do it, but a big God did. The “within” argument is the moral law. The distinguishing between right and wrong is innate within humanity. This premise was the entirety of C. S. Lewis's conversion and his must-read book, Mere Christianity. What is not clear is how much information a person gets from within and from without? Even with only these two witnesses, however, I do know that it is enough by which to be judged and not have any excuses. For all of us in the West, I believe we will be judged more severely than the person in an Indian remote village because we have had the gospel made clear to us almost our entire lives. Now let's look at the verse about God: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25, AMP). This verse is so powerful. Abraham said this about God. God will do what is right with what He has given humanity to believe. From consciousness and creation will people in other countries kn

What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the intellectual process of evaluating information, thinking clearly and rationally as a guide to belief and action. You could see it as an attitude whereby no statement or piece of information is accepted as true or false, without first being carefully analysed. Simplistic conflations, generalisations and preconceptions are all challenged, as is any kind of statement made without evidence. Critical thinking has its roots in the teachings of ancient Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato. Throughout history, philosophers like Francis Bacon, René Descartes and Emmanuel Kant have used it to create the basis for methodical thought. So how do I go about becoming a critical thinker then? What about religion? Surely it can't be possible for religious beliefs and critical thinking to coexist, can it? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: What is the postpartum period? What is ketamine? What is burnout? A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

En citant Emmanuel Kant, Frédéric Lenoir a déclaré dans une interview à la télévision canadienne-française que nous n'osons plus nous poser les questions essentielles en vieillissant car nous savons que les réponses sont difficiles". Et peut-être a-t-il raison. Mais se pourrait-il aussi que nous nous empêchions de les poser parce que nous avons peur de le faire, ou mieux encore, parce que nous ne savons pas comment nous y prendre ? Voici mon point de vue sur la façon de s'y prendre.     Musique de Infraction sur Bandcamp Photo de Nikola Ancevski sur Unsplash    

“It's trying to thread that needle between the wonder and the splendour in this mythology without being beguiled into actual fascism.” ~Adam Roberts Adam Roberts is a professor of nineteenth century literature, a prolific essayist and critic, and one of our best science fiction writers. Our interview traces a path between two powerful forces in science fiction – the mythic stories of transcendence and self fulfilment that animate much of today's most popular sci-fi storytelling, and the mundane and ordinary lives that ground our reality. We touch on the shifting perception of science fiction in academia, questions of worldbuilding and the endless argument to define science fiction, the new optimism of hopepunk and solarpunk, HG Wells long fascination with eugenics, the balance between stereotype and archetype in storytelling, and professor Roberts answer to the question of where science fiction began. It's a great insight into the thinking of a great SF author. 00:00:00 A mistrust of myths 00:01:51 An interview with Adam Roberts 00:04:39 The professor's productivity tips 00:08:11 The nineteenth century and science fiction 00:11:03 Has the academic perception of science fiction shifted? 00:14:29 The worldbuilding question 00:19:16 Why do we keep arguing about the definition of science fiction? 00:23:39 We spend more money on Star Wars than space travel 00:32:12 Melding the literary and the sci-fi 00:42:49 The process of writing science fiction 00:48:03 Translating Joyce and algorithmic writing 00:59:50 Hopepunk and Solarpunk 01:11:22 The Community vs. the Individual 01:18:03 The Heroic and the Quotidian 01:28:02 A segue to Wellsian scholarship 01:35:01 Emmanuel Kant and the Fermi paradox 01:44:24 Tolkien and the English mythos 01:49:47 Stereotype vs Archetype 01:57:14 When does science fiction begin? Become a member of the Science Fiction podcast: https://damiengwalter.com Join the discussion on the Science Fiction community https://www.facebook.com/groups/324897304599197 Read the novels of Adam Roberts https://amzn.to/3LjUfZQ

Title: Klaus Fuchs: Traitor or Man of Conscience Description: We are joined again by Michael Holzman author of Spies and Traitors and many other books on the topics of espionage, spies and deceit at the highest levels of government during the 20th century. Michael Holzman is going to guide us through the fascinating life of another spy, Los Alamos and Manhattan Project scientist Klaus Fuchs. We will try to figure out what Klaus Fuchs motivations were for providing important secrets to the Soviets. Learn More About our Guest:Michael Holzman author of:Spies and Traitors: Kim Philby, James Angleton and the Friendship and Betrayal that Would Shape MI6, the CIA and the Cold Warhttps://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Spies-and-Traitors/Michael-Holzman/9781643138077You can learn more about Beyond the Big Screen and subscribe at all these great places:http://atozhistorypage.com/Click to Subscribe:https://www.spreaker.com/show/4926576/episodes/feedemail: steve@atozhistorypage.comwww.beyondthebigscreen.comhttps://www.patreon.com/historyofthepapacyOn Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/atozhistorypagehttps://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfThePapacyPodcasthttps://twitter.com/atozhistoryMusic Provided by:"Crossing the Chasm" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/Begin Transcript:, [00:00:00] this is beyond the big screen podcast with your host, Steve Guerra. Thank you again for listening to beyond the big screen podcast. Of course, a big thanks goes out to Michael Holzman, author of spies and traders among other great books on espionage during world war two and the cold war links to learn more about Michael Holzman and his books can be found in the show notes.A great way to support beyond the big screen is to leave a rating and review on apple podcast. These reviews really help me know what you think of the show. Other people learn about beyond the big screen to learn more about the Parthenon podcast networks and great shows like Scott ranks, history unplug James Early's key battles of American history, Richard Lim;s, this American president, and more can be [00:01:00] found at parthenonpodcast.com.You can learn more about beyond the big screen, great movies and story. So great. They should be movies on Facebook and Twitter by searching for. A to Z history, you can contact me there, or just send me an email to my email, address, steve@atwosiehistorypage.coml inks to all of this and more can be found at beyondthebigscreen.com.I thank you for joining me again beyond the big screen. And I think you're going to enjoy this one today.Thank you for joining us today. Again, I am very excited to be joined again by special guests, Michael Holzman, author of the books, spies and traders, Kim Philby, James Angleton, and the friendship and betrayal that would shape the CIA and the cold war. Uh, Michael Holzman is the author of numerous books, [00:02:00] including James Jesus Angleton, the CIA and the craft of intelligence biography.Guy Burgess and one on Donald and Melinda McLean, as well as the novel packs, 1934 to 1941. Today's episode is kind of a, uh, add on to our episode when we talked about Jason. Jesus Angleton and Kim Philby today, we're going to talk about another spy and trader who affected the entire trajectory of the cold war scientists, Klaus Fuchs.The focus of most of your works is on cold war history and particularly spies and espionage during the cold war. How did you become interested in this topic? It's more or less an accident? I drifted into it. Um, I was interested. And ideology the way in which the ideas to. Basically, usually a dominant group affect the actions of everyone within that [00:03:00] group and everyone that's affected by it.So, uh, a very good example of how that works. It's the, these groups of people, um, who are involved in espionage, not from. But because their beliefs, uh, Kim Philby, who we talked to about rather exhaustive with the other day, uh, was part of a group at Cambridge university in England, in the early 1930s that joined the communist party, um, because they were.Concerned about the way, uh, he, uh, dominant group and Britain and the British empire was accumulating enormous riches at the expense of the people who are actually producing them. I've just been reading actually, uh, th the diaries of Henry Chip's Channon, who was a member of that dominant group. He was in [00:04:00] the society.Uh, pages as it were of England. I took me in the 1920s and the rather dazzling, uh, lifestyle that he led, uh, dressing fruit dinner every night, going to two balls, constantly moving from long castle. That's a very good example of how the top 2%, 1% what happened 1% of European countries at that time lived well, on the other hand, we have, uh, coal miners and, uh, going into the general strike at exactly the same time, because they weren't paid enough to, to eat these people.Philby virtuous. Anthony blunt. Who's another very interesting person. I decided to work for a change in that system and we can see then how their beliefs then were enacted in actions. [00:05:00] Klaus Fuchs. And a lot of ways was a bit different than some of the other people that we've spoken about and, and his background and what he actually did and his espionage career.What does, before we drill down into some of the specifics of his career, can you tell us a little bit about what did, what did Klaus Fuchs actually do? Well, what he did and, and why he's famous is that he took the detailed information about the atomic bomb that was developed at Los Alamos and sent it to Moscow.A perhaps. Accelerated the development of the Soviet atomic bomb by a year, maybe two years as we look back at that time. Now this becomes increasingly crucial. Yes. The United States was planning a nuclear war against the Soviet union [00:06:00] to occur. Uh, probably about 1950. The fact that the Soviets exploded an affiliate device in August, 1949, made that impossible.This the point I wish this was probably most probable Ms. During the Korean war. When the Chinese had intervened and, uh, driven back the American and British forces to the Chinese Korean border from the train and general MacArthur wanted to bomb the Chinese forces and he was stopped from doing this and it hasn't done.Much elaborated about why he was stopped, but one good reason that he was talking with, uh, president Truman and Eisenhower the Natera at that time thought, uh, the United States used atomic weapons there. The [00:07:00] Soviets very likely, uh, do so themselves, uh, perhaps by bombing London. So, um, who was clouds? Feats.What was his background? Where did he come from? The background is very interesting. Uh, I see three approaches to, uh, folks, one of us when we were just discussing the espionage and there's, uh, a lot of information about how he was caught and on the American side and how he did what he did on the Soviet.So it's not. Yes that he was a physicist. Uh, he wasn't quite a Nobel prize quality because of this newness, that next notch town, but he was very much admired for his work. I said, theoretical nuclear physicist. And the third approach to him is that he was, um, he was to say, secular. Protestant [00:08:00] his, uh, family had been, his father was a Protestant minister who became a Quaker.This was in Germany, uh, before the first world war, his grandfather had also been a Protestant minister and cloud's folks had drilled into him from an early age that it was very important to do the right. This I, what was right following, uh, say radical Protestant views and following the teachings of Emmanuel Kant.Uh, and then once you've decided what the right thing, uh, to do you call ahead and do it no matter what anybody else is saying. And he took this essentially Christian idea, uh, with him as he became a communist before they, uh, in the 1920s. It was family had been social Democrats socialists, but, uh, he decided, and [00:09:00] his siblings decided simultaneously that the social Democrats in Germany, in the 19 late 1920s, weren't doing enough to stop the rise of the Nazi.And that the only group that, uh, seemed to be willing to actually fight and I mean, literally fight street fights and Nazis was the German communist party. So you'll have these three things. He asked me a notch. And you, uh, have this ethical approach to, um, my folks, uh, started out his education at the kale as a, became a physics student.And as things deteriorated in Germany in the early 1930s, he took a leading role in the, uh, student branch of the chairman Cummings. And got into a serious conflict. [00:10:00] So the Nazis, I think here, we need to talk about the difference between communism at that time and communism, the lease Inc, or the communist party in Germany was the largest in the world, uh, for quite some time and was an internationalist party.It's thoughts. That would be a good thing. If everybody in the world came from. After Lennon brought the Russian communist party to power and what became the Soviet union, there was a split and some people, uh, decided that the thing to do was to build communism in the Soviet again and forget about the rest of the world.And others wanted to continue the idea that there should be a worldwide revolution. The ladder was Trotsky and the former was stolen and stolen. It. But in night in the early 1930s, this wasn't completely clear. So [00:11:00] folks Allegiant the communist. Well, is it an allegiance to the German condiments? Pardon me?Not to the Soviet idea. That was only much later after the German communist party was destroyed by the Nazis in the mid 1930s. That to be a communist meant to, you had to have some kind of loyalty, the communist party of the Soviet. How w how engaged was Fuchs. He did the, he was in the leadership of the German communist party.Was he on the more o

La propagande ? C'est vieux comme le monde ! Cela fait longtemps que les artistes créent pour le pouvoir politique : pour diviniser un roi, pour célébrer une bataille, pour sublimer la puissance. Mais alors quelle est la différence entre la bonne propagande et la mauvaise propagande ? Allez, on vous explique dans les grandes lignes... Entre prostitution artistique et récupération politique, les artistes ont souvent souffert cet attachement au pouvoir politique. Car parfois il induit un décalage grossier entre la réalité politique, et l'illusion artistique. Parfois, l'art ne se contente pas de refléter le pouvoir, mais il le précède, en cherchant à lui conférer de la force. Et aujourd'hui encore, la propagande est loin d'avoir disparue, même dans les démocraties... Featuring. Malevitch, Platon, Donald Duck, l'art baroque, Jacques Louis David, les portraits présidentiels, l'art maoïste et soviétique, Shepard Fairey, Murakami, et Emmanuel Kant. *** Retrouvez Art Talks Coffret! Dans des coffrets assemblés à la main, numérotés et signés, retrouvez un livre d'art, le podcast, et dix œuvres satyriques, en lien avec les séries d'Art Talks. Ils sont tirés en 100 exemplaires seulement, et c'est un magnifique objet d'art à offrir, ou simplement pour compléter la découverte du podcast. Rendez-vous sur : https://www.art-talks.fr Suivez Art Talks sur Instagram @art.talks.podcast

We don't let Jesus offend us enough. When he says things like, "The pimps and prostitutes are closer to heaven than you are," we should be shocked. But mostly we just miss his point, or don't even think about it.But Emmanuel Kant WAS offended, so much so that he completely, 100%, rejected the Gospel of God in favor of the gospel of self-deceit. A reading and commentary on this article: https://beliefsoftheheart.com/2021/06/30/is-it-dangerous-to-hear-god-outside-of-scripture/  by Sam Williamson. And very special thanks to Keith Medley for his FANTASTIC 27 string guitar background song, Ancestors. You can find more of Keith's music at: http://www.keithmedleymusic.com/Support the show

HyperFrance Le podcast qui permet de mieux vivre en France Titre : #4 Ma Maire en prison Bienvenue dans ce programme qui donne la parole à l'HyperFrance, cette France qu'on n'écoute plus mais qui parle quand meme. Le principe est simple, un épisode, une question d'un-e auditeur-ice, pour mieux comprendre notre Hyper pays et surtout pour mieux vivre en France.

Una bella chiacchierata sulla nascita della passione per la game culture a suon di pistolettate a casa di Emmanuel Kant! Ora... noi volevamo parlare della nostra prima esperienza in assoluto con un videogioco. Ma poi Mattia mi si mette a parlare di filosofia, Gianluca lo segue a ruota... e insomma, siamo passati da Duck Hunt ai cabinati delle sale giochi sugli strusci delle nostre città natali... fate voi... Anzi... Raccontateci la vostra prima esperienza con un videogioco (o un filosofo) sul nostro canale Telegram: https://t.me/insidetales Se volete leggere le nostre riflessioni folli le trovate su insidetales.it/

Secret meetings. Plots. Unexplained things. Our imaginations can run wild when we think about conspiracies. They are the proverbial rabbit hole. Instead of talking about a bunch of conspiracies directly, today Heers discusses the historical and post-enlightenment understanding of conspiring along with ice trays and Emmanuel Kant.Links:Check out this semesters podcourse on Conspiracies here: https://first-things.org/wawtar-podcourseInterested in joining First Things Foundation? Check out our Join FTF page for more info, or email Daniel at danielpadrnos@first-things.org.We are going to Georgia this September and you should come! Keipi Journeys by FTF is an immersive 10 day trip across the Georgian Republic. Past Journeys have included stops in Kazbegi, Tusheti, Tbilisi, and Kakheti among others. You'll experience the Supra (learn more in the link below), traditional foods like Khachapuri, and fantastic wines. This isn't just a trip, it's cultural deep dive that will leave you wanting more. Click here to find out more and get in contact with us.Gagimargos! Wait, what does that mean? Learn more about the Georgian Supra and its symbolic significance here: https://thesymbolicworld.com/articles/the-symbolism-of-the-supra/If you like this podcast, please consider leaving a review with your comments. Your support keeps this podcast alive and allows us to broaden our discussion. You can also check out First Things Foundation for more information on who we are and what we do.---CreditsMusic:Intro / Outro Provided by Edward Gares / Pond5.comSound effects and additional music:Sounds provided by https://www.zapsplat.comSupport the show (https://first-things.org/donate)

Este capítulo lo dedicamos a dar una probadita del prólogo a la obra Fundamentación para una metafísica de las costumbres de Emmanuel Kant. Esto en preparación para nuestro próximo curso donde leeremos la obra completa a lo largo de ocho semanas. Puedes checar toda la información e inscribirte aquí.

durée : 00:58:30 - Les Chemins de la philosophie - par : Adèle Van Reeth, Géraldine Mosna-Savoye - Kant est le philosophe rationaliste par excellence, pourtant, il croit fermement en l’existence d’une vie extraterrestre. Postuler cette possibilité, pour lui et d’autres, comme Carl Schmitt, peut-il permettre d’adopter un point de vue différent sur nous-mêmes, et donc, de définir notre humanité ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Peter Szendy professeur en littérature comparée et en humanité à l'Université de Brown aux Etats-Unis, conseiller auprès de la Philharmonie de Paris

En la vida cotidiana damos por sentadas muchas cosas. Observamos el cielo, el sol, las cuatro estaciones, el mar, y ya no nos maravillamos. Nos hemos acostumbrado. Por la costumbre, hemos ido adormilándonos poco a poco y este sopor también nos ha llevado a no hacernos preguntas. El niño pregunta ¿por qué? ¿qué es esto? ¿qué significa? mientras que nosotros, ante cualquier clase de duda, simplemente agarramos el teléfono celular, googleamos o buscamos en wikipedia y la pregunta queda contestada. Sin embargo, hay grandes preguntas, grandes cuestiones existenciales que no pueden ser contestadas tan a la ligera: ¿Quién soy? ¿De dónde vengo? ¿Adónde voy? En este sentido, el filósofo Emmanuel Kant se formulaba tres cuestionamientos fundamentales: “¿Qué puedo saber?” “¿Qué debo hacer?” “¿Qué me cabe esperar?”

The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel's sermon for Eastertide Evensong brings together preteen questions about the Seven Deadly Sins, ancient Greek philosophy, Emmanuel Kant, the arts, and a very powerful set of very good friends. All to remind us who we are, whose we are, and how we live into it. This evening's readings are: Wisdom of Solomon 7:22-8:1 Matthew 7:7-14 Readings may be found on Mission of St. Clare Officiant: The Rev. Barbara Ballenger Preacher: The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel Crucifer: Riley Prell Director of Music: Tyrone Whiting St. Martin's Vocal Ensemble: Krystiane Cooper, Alyson Harvey, Ross Druker, John Wentz, Martha Crowell, Jean McConnell, David Cybulski, Ralph West Lectors: Leni Windle and Harry Gould Liturgical Support: Cathy and Gary Glazer Tech Director: Daniel Cooper Altar Guild: Tina Bell In the Same Breath Sermon by the Rev. Jarrett Kerbel for Eastertide Evensong Sunday, May 2, 2021 Using readings from the Daily Office [Introductory Music] [The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel] Please join me in a spirit of prayer. Blessed Creator God, we give you thanks for the gift of your Sophia, your wisdom that pervades all you have made with your love and your goodness. She reflects your eternal light. She is a spotless mayor of your workings. She passes into holy souls and makes us friends of God and prophets, for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Well, welcome back to Evensong! Isn't this great? Except for the 16 layers of clothes I'm wearing, it's fantastic. So, at our church, there is a junior high student who loves to engage me in theological and ethical discussions. I relish his engagement. Nothing quite tests a seminary education like a preteen. His favorite recent topic - drum roll please - is the seven deadly sins. Today he asked me the profound question, “Jarrett can you rank them in order from the worst to the least bad”, certainly not the best. “Which deadly sins are more serious than the others?” he asked. “That is hard to answer,” I replied, “After all, they are all deadly. It's hard to get worse than that.” So I asked him, “Which ones are you concerned about?” He replied, “Pride and sloth. Pride is just being proud of yourself,” he said, “what is wrong with that?” “Well,” I said, “Yes, that's very good. Here's how I think it works: healthy pride is in the middle. That is, when we mirror God's delight in us and our delight in ourselves much like Sophia, on the one end there is too much pride and on the other too little pride. It's on the edges where sin comes into play,” I said. “Same with sloth. That's a fun word to use. Healthy leisure is in the middle that God delights in, on one side is too much indolence and on the other side of the spectrum we're overworking and addicted to our work.” He accepted this answer with a thoughtful look and I spared him the footnotes. You get the footnotes. What I taught him, and this is crucial to my sermon, comes from Thomas Aquinas. And before Thomas Aquinas it came from the great Greek philosopher Aristotle. Healthy Christianity has this long, healthy, happy history of productive relations with reason, philosophy, science, logic, and all the liberal arts and I want to celebrate that. I want to celebrate that connection at this evensong where we have a glorious passage from the Wisdom of Solomon and we have the Golden Rule from the Gospel according to Matthew. Let's take that Golden Rule and the categorical imperative as a place to start. “Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people,” says Immanuel Kant. “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the law and the prophets,” says Jesus. “Using pure reason alone, the great philosopher arrives at the same truth as Jesus speaks from tradition and revelation. And I'm not the first one to point out that Kant setting out to strip away all tradition and revelation still manages to discover 18th century Protestant theology in the process. For the attentive reader of the Bible, this should be no surprise at all. We know that God speaks the lean language of reason. God speaks the logos. God speaks the Sophia. God speaks in tradition, in story, revelation, science, poetry, and all the arts in the same breath. The name of that breath is Sophia, and she is celebrated as an emanation, an outpouring of God's inner life, in this gorgeous passage from the Wisdom of Solomon. Using the language of middle Platonism, the unknown Egyptian author who is masquerading in this book as King Solomon, lays out the gift of wisdom for an imaginary audience of all the world's leaders. So, not only does God's wisdom exist in everything, it's available to all people. Wisdom is God's voice speaking through all of God's creation, showing us order, purpose, meaning, and process. Ultimately showing us a loving God who delights in all that God has made. The whole world communicates. The world is intelligible to us. The world is impregnated with God's loving presence and we are part of God's communicating abundance as learners, listeners, explorers, thinkers, singers, worshipers, scientists, on and on. I love this so much because we have an image here of wholeness. An image that brings all parts of humanity together. Reason and knowledge are not merely for dismantling, they're not merely for disintegrating. Stuck in the terms of stale 19th-century reductive rationalism, we can be caught thinking that when we take a car apart we prove there was no car in the first place, just a lot of parts. Stuck in a stale 19th-century debate we think science and religion are incompatible. We react to a reductive science with an equally reductive fundamentalist religion and we go nowhere. Stuck in 20th-century scientism we think knowledge is the sole province of the scientific method and while it is so abundant in truth, there's a more-than. There is room for more and there is this wonderful web of liberating, loving, communal wisdom we hear praised in the Wisdom of Solomon and gorgeous poetry. Every spring I start flowers from seed under a grow light in my mudroom. Nothing fancy. My favorite flower is the morning glory. First, two leaves spring up and then two more come after that. By this week we have a vine growing at a rapid pace, two or three inches a day, that finds the nearest vertical structure and starts climbing it, at least in my mudroom, in a counterclockwise direction. I want to know if in Argentina it goes the other way. But that's the curiosity we're talking about here, right? The world is wonderful! What if it does go clockwise in Argentina? That is God's whimsy, I would say, and gravity and something else. It's all good, see? It all works together. Without eyes, this plant has no eyes, it finds this vertical support, searches out, grabs it and climbs it while reproducing cells at an astounding rate. I would love to hear the complete biological account of this plant behavior. I really do want to learn that and, and this is an and, I want to delight in it. I want to take joy in it and wonder from observing it and I want to thank God for it, all in the same breath. All in the same breath, the breath of Sophia, where all knowing comes together as God's mystery, spoken so we can receive it. Now, you'll excuse me but we're going back to Kant. And I love Kant. He's hard to argue with, God forbid I would try. Yet he almost got it right. Almost. There's a more. You see, if you start off with a false dichotomy you end up with half of an answer, or less. When you split tradition and reason you lose something, something is lost. It is absolutely true that we owe to others what is owed to us. In our humanity, however we resist it, and we do, however we violate it constantly, reserving it for family and friends, reserving it for people we like and people like us, reserving it for local people and not people far away, and on and on and on, but here's what Kant misses: God owes us nothing. God gives us everything without owing us one thing at all. This is grace. We are not entitled to God's freely-given forgiveness, or God's freely-given love, or God's freely-given son. Only through what God graciously gives us are we restored to live the grace of the Golden Rule. To live the grace of the categorical imperative. That is God's dream of wholeness that God breathes into us. God's dream of humanity reharmonized with creation and reason and every other way of human perception and discovery. God breathes God's reconciliation through it all. And her name is grace. And she is a very good friend of Sophia. Amen. Permission to podcast/stream the music in this service obtained from One License with license #A-701187. All rights reserved. Video, photographs, and graphics by the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Episcopal Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, 8000 St. Martin's Lane, Philadelphia, PA 19118. 215.247.7466. https://www.stmartinec.org

Historiquement Vôtre réunit 3 personnages qui n'ont jamais voyagé: le Douanier Rousseau, le peintre resté célèbre pour ses tableaux de jungle - une jungle qu’il n’a jamais vue de ses yeux vus, car le Douanier n’a jamais passé la frontière du pays, Emmanuel Kant, l’un des plus grands philosophes des Lumières qui est mort dans la ville de Königsberg, capitale de la Prusse-Orientale, la même où il est né, sans jamais en avoir bougé… Et Jacqui Kenny, une artiste agoraphobe qui photographie le monde entier sans sortir de chez elle, en l'explorant grâce à Google Street View !

‘Opereren leer je niet in een boek en niet in een cursus. Dat leer je aan tafel!' In de 20e podcastaflevering interviewt VCMS Nijmegen prof. dr. Stefaan Bergé. Prof. dr. Bergé begon zijn geneeskundige carrière in Leuven en heeft zich daarna tot MKA-chirurg gespecialiseerd in Bonn. Heden is hij hoogleraar en afdelingshoofd van de Mond- Kaak- en Aangezichtschirurgie in het Radboudumc Nijmegen. Hij roept ons op om volgens de eerste categorische imperatief van Emmanuel Kant te leven: gedraag jezelf zoals je graag zou willen dat iedereen zich gedraagt. Hij deelt daarnaast veel andere wijsheden over het chirurgisch vak; veel luisterplezier!

Être un philosophe demande beaucoup de discipline... intellectuelle, pour commencer. Un grand penseur, toutefois, avait décidé de s'infliger un emploi du temps extrêmement rigoureux... même dans sa vie quotidienne. Tous les jours, le Prussien Emmanuel Kant appliquait en effet les mêmes rituels ; notamment, à l'heure de son déjeuner. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In defending the existence of God, Emmanuel Kant said He is perfectly righteousness, all-knowing, and all powerful. Romans 1:18-32 explains the attributes and reflects God's justice.

What is critical thinking? Thanks for asking!Critical thinking is the intellectual process of evaluating information, thinking clearly and rationally as a guide to belief and action. You could see it as an attitude whereby no statement or piece of information is accepted as true or false, without first being carefully analysed. Simplistic conflations, generalisations and preconceptions are all challenged, as is any kind of statement made without evidence.Critical thinking has its roots in the teachings of ancient Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato. Throughout history, philosophers like Francis Bacon, René Descartes and Emmanuel Kant have used it to create the basis for methodical thought.So how do I go about becoming a critical thinker then? What about religion? Surely it can’t be possible for religious beliefs and critical thinking to coexist, can it? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions!To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: What is the postpartum period?What is ketamine?What is burnout?A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

12 ŞUBAT 2021Tarihte bugün yaşanan olaylar arasında; Mora'da Yunan isyanı, Maraş'ın kurtuluşu, Hasan El Benna'nın şehit edilmesi varDÜNYA TARİHİNDE BUGÜN YAŞANANLAR1502 - Vasco da Gama, Lizbon'dan Hindistan'a doğru ikinci yolculuğuna çıktı.1541 - Santiago, (Şili) Pedro de Valdivia tarafından kuruldu.1912 - 6 yaşındaki Çin İmparatoru Puyi, tahttan indirildi. Böylelikle iki bin senelik Çin İmparatorluğu ve 267 yıllık Mançu Hanedanı son bulmuş oldu.1912 - Çin'de Gregoryen Takvimi kullanımı başladı.1949 Hasan El Benna Şehit Edildi Müslüman Kardeşler Örgütü'nün kurucusu büyük İslam alimi ve mücahidi Hasan El Benna 12 Şubat 1949'da Kahire'nin en büyük caddelerinden birinde arabası durdurularak polisler tarafından kurşunlandı Kaldırıldığı hastanede bilinçli olarak müdahale edilmeyerek kan kaybından ölmesi beklendi. Hasan El Benna'nın ölmesini başta Kral Faruk olmak üzere İngilizler ve Yahudiler çok istiyorlardı.TÜRKİYE TARİHİNDE BUGÜN YAŞANANLAR1914 Türkiye'de İlk Uçak Postası Hizmete girdi Osmanlı Devleti zamanında 12 Şubat 1914 tarihinde Türkiye'de ilk kez uçak postası hizmete girdi ve kullanılmaya başlandı.1994 Tuzla Tren İstasyonunda Bomba Patladı Tuzla tren istasyonunda 12 Şubat 1994'te çöp kutusu içerisine yerleştirilen bombanın patlaması sonucu 5 yedek subay adayı şehit oldu, 16 askeri öğrenci ile 11 er yaralandı. Bu olayın faili Abdullah Öcalan'ın yanında cezasını çekmektedir.BUGÜN DOĞANLAR1809 - Amerikalı hukukçu, siyasetçi ve ABD'nin 16. Başkanı Abraham Lincoln dünyaya geldi.BUGÜN ÖLENLER1804. Ünlü Alman düşünür Emmanuel Kant öldü.1934 - Türk şair, yazar ve doktor Cenap Şahabettin hayatını kaybetti.

Les fake news et les théories du complot qui fleurissent à foison sur internet font de l’enseignement à l’esprit critique une priorité de l’Éducation nationale en France.«Penser par soi-même», comme le préconisait le philosophe Emmanuel Kant, et parfois différemment de ses proches et de ses pairs peut s’apprendre dès le plus jeune âge.  Avec : - Sophie Mazet, professeure d’anglais au Lycée Auguste Blanqui de Saint-Ouen en Seine-Saint-Denis, auteure de Autodéfense intellectuelle, le retour, lexique pour esprits critiques (Robert Laffont) - Sylvain Wagnon, historien, professeur des Universités en Sciences de l'Éducation, Université de Montpellier. En fin d’émission, la chronique du psychologue Ibrahima Giroux, Parents, enfants, d'ici et d'ailleurs : comment bien utiliser la vérité dans l’éducation des enfants ? À télécharger ici Un rendez-vous hebdomadaire pour aider les parents, Ibrahima Giroux est psychologue à l’UNICEF à Dakar.

Aurions-nous rencontré le Diogène contemporain ? Gilles Vervisch est un tantinet cynique ; l'essentiel pour lui est d'aller contre le sens commun, de dénicher les paradoxes et de laisser notre étonnement s'en mêler. Certes, cet agrégé confesse un petit syndrome de l'imposteur mais rapidement son esprit vagabonde entre Star Wars et Stranger things, entre Hume et Bergson. Car la POP philosophie qu'il pratique embrasse aussi bien grands penseurs que des séries, films et romans. Autant de références – décomplexées – à la culture populaire qui ne cesse de l'inspirer. Et puis il y a l'humour. « La forme achevée de l'intelligence » selon cet enseignant de philosophie et auteur. Nous interrogeons avec lui la formule “j'ai réussi à donner le change” qui nous conduira entre autres à parler d'identité. « On n'en change pas, on la trouve de plus en plus ! ». Contribuez aux prochains épisodes de L'INSTANT PHILO en nous suggérant en commentaire le thème/ la question/la pensée autour de laquelle vous souhaiteriez philosopher avec nous et nos prochains invités ! Interview, réalisation et montage Emilie Drugeon / Photos ©Emilie DrugeonRéférences abordées : - Le Rire : essai sur la signification du comique, Henri Bergson (éd. Félix Alcan)- Critique de la raison pure, Emmanuel Kant (éd. PUF)- Indignez-vous !, Stéphane Hessel (Indigène éditions)- Traité de la nature humaine, David Hume (éd. Flammarion)- Psychologie de l'inconscient, Carl Gustav Jung (éd. Le livre de poche)- Discours de la Méthode, René Descartes (éd. Flammarion)- Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury (éd. Gallimard)- Into the wild, Sean Penn Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

¿Qué es el tiempo? ¿El tiempo es como una línea recta? o ¿solo lo percibimos de esa manera? ¿Quiénes se encargan de estudiar el tiempo? Escucha en este episodio algunas definiciones sobre el tiempo de Aristóteles, Agustín de Hipona, Martin Heidegger, Stephen Hawking, Emmanuel Kant y Friedrich Nietzsche.

L'atelier Clefs de lecture a pour vocation de fournir une aide à ceux qui ont des difficultés à lire. L'objectif est de choisir une œuvre connotée « dissidence » et réputée ardue afin de l'étudier sur plusieurs séances. Le principe est d'aider à la compréhension de textes obscurs en donnant des clefs de compréhension afin de déverrouiller le texte. Cette émission d'ERFM est produite en collaboration avec la section Île-de-France d'Égalité & Réconciliation. Au sommaire de ce neuvième épisode enregistré devant la section Île-de-France d'E&R : Les Thèses sur Feuerbach « constitue un des principaux tournants de la pensée occidentale » et « son importance historique est du même ordre que celle du Discours de la méthode (René Descartes), de la Critique de la raison pure (Emmanuel Kant) ou de la Phénoménologie de l'esprit (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel) » selon Lucien Goldmann. Elles sont « d'une valeur inappréciable, comme premier document où soit déposé le germe génial de la nouvelle conception du monde » selon Friedrich Engels. Dans ce Clefs de lecture, nous vous proposons de comprendre comment 11 thèses qui tiennent sur 2 pages peuvent avoir une portée si monumentale dans l'histoire de la pensée. Minutage : Introduction 05'00 : Les difficultés du texte 05'42 : Le plan 06'03 : Pré-requis : le matérialisme dialectique et les systèmes philosophiques 12'10 : Le système philosophique de Kant et le « système » philosophique de Nietzsche 18'18 : Les 3 critères du matérialisme dialectique 18'20 : 1re clef : la pratique comme critère de la vérité 21'10 : 2e clef : l'unité du sujet et de l'objet 28'13 : 3e clef : le sujet collectif Source: https://bit.ly/35sVGlw

In simple terms, the "Democratic Peace Theory" is the idea that democracies are less likely to engage in armed conflict or war with other countries that also identify as democracies. This originated from Emmanuel Kant who said that "If consent of the citizens is required to decide whether or not war is to be declared, it is very natural that they will have great hesitation in embarking on such a dangerous an enterprise." In this episode, Drew and Alex debate and break down this theory. They have one question in mind: does the theory hold true? Or are things changing? They look at the theory through the lens of globalization and the idea that capitalism could be a driver in peace as well. They also look into the realist and constructivist counterarguments. 

Dans ce second épisode, l'équipe de La Saveur de la finitude s'intéresse à la question de la limite dans la fiction d'horreur : comment l'excès (d'adjectifs, de formes et d'images) peut nous permettre d'appréhender la limite de ce qui est pensable, comment dire et représenter l'indicible, et quelles sont les conséquences du franchissement de la limite Avec : - Guillaume Baychelier, plasticien et philosophe - Lucile Bokobza, philosophe, astrobiologiste en devenir et musicienne - Jean-Christophe Dardart, psychologue - Ambroise Garel, journaliste - Julie Le Baron, journaliste Générique et habillage : Lucile Bokobza Montage : Ambroise Garel Logo et illustrations : Guillaume Baychelier Liste non exhaustive des œuvres citées dans cet épisode : Livres et articles - Georges Bataille, L'Expérience Intérieure - Edmund Burke, Recherche philosophique sur l'origine de nos idées du sublime et du beau - Marcel Détienne et Jean-Pierre Vernant, Les ruses de l'intelligence : La mètis des Grecs - Maître Eckhart, Les Sermons - Katarzyna Gadomska, Les techniques anxiogènes dans le cinéma d'horreur et dans la littérature d'épouvante - Emmanuel Kant, Analytique du sublime - H.P. Lovecraft, Les Montagnes Hallucinées - Eugene Thacker, Horror of Philosophy Tome 2: Starry Speculative Corpse - Linda Williams. Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess, Film Quarterly 44.4 Films, vidéos et documentaires - L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, Pierre-André Boutang - Altered States, Ken Russel - Annihilation, Alex Garland - Bird Box, Susanne Bier - Cigarette Burns (Master of Horror, épisode 8), John Carpenter - Event Horizon, Paul Anderson - Existenz, David Cronenberg - In The Mouth of Madness, John Carpenter - The Last Wave, Peter Weir - The Ninth Configuration, William Peter Blatty Œuvres picturales - Caspar David Friedrich - John Milton - Luca Signorelli Jeux vidéo - Call of Cthulhu, Cyanide Studios - Dead Space, Visceral Games - Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Silicon Knights - Observer, Bloober Team - Resident Evil, Capcom

Comme le disait le philosophe allemand Emmanuel Kant: “plus l'homme a d'habitudes, moins il est libre et indépendant”, c'est pourquoi le Short change de voix pour quelques jours. C'est Joëlle qui prend le relais. En revanche, ce qui ne change pas, c'est l'actu qui parle du Covid, servi en shots et en pintes au Great Escape, de son vaccin qui ne sera pas obligatoire mais servi en masse en Suisse. Et de tout un monde de princesses qui s'écroule...

Fuzzy logic is an approach to computing based on "degrees of truth" rather than the usual "true or false" (1 or 0) Boolean logic on which the modern computer is based.  It is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 both inclusive.   Govind's Social:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/gov218/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/govindmohan218/?originalSubdomain=ca   Deep's Social:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/neuronsrcool/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Deepneuron LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepprasad/   Pouya's Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pouyalj/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/pouyalj LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pouyalajevardi/   Episode Transcript:----more----   SUMMARY KEYWORDS reality, true, logic, people, thinking, idea, language, point, universe, objective reality, humans, thought, fuzzy, experiment, paradox, nature, question, probability, false, thoughts SPEAKERS Pouya LJ, Govind, Deep   Pouya LJ  00:16 Hey guys, how's it going?   Govind  00:19 Nice, amazing. Toronto. Good weather.   00:23 Yeah, no, it's surprisingly hot. Yeah.   Pouya LJ  00:29 So it's been a while, since we talked. Let's see each of you. What's up with you. Let's start with you guff?   Govind  00:39 Well, for those that don't know, I have a startup called Virtual systems that focuses on network security using information theory, principles, and networking, to have a flat internet that's not built on data centers where data privacy can be controlled by the user, as opposed to any corporate corporation that is controlling your data, which is the case these days. So that's a little bit of my background. I like a lot of things like mathematics, philosophy, computer science, and software development.   Pouya LJ  01:11 Well, that's for philosophy. All right, I bet you the What's up? What's up with you?   Deep  01:18 Um, yes. First of all, I just want to say that just sounds like the life of a polymath, so I can really appreciate that right on COVID. Yeah, so I similar to COVID. I also run my own startup, we do quantum computing. Instead, we are looking to use quantum computers to accelerate the materials discovery timeline. Right. So right now we do a lot of things that are mostly trial and error based plus some compute, for doing materials discovery, let's say you want to discover a new cathode or new electrode material, right? How are you going to do that? We want to automate that process and and speed it up by thousands if not millions. That's our goal. It's pretty ambitious, but that's what we do you everyday, or try to do. Uh huh. Yeah. So that's what I've been up to.   Pouya LJ  02:11 Yeah. Thanks. That's amazing. Are you in Toronto?   Deep  02:14 Yes. Good.   Pouya LJ  02:15 Good. You're enjoying this weather?   Deep  02:17 Totally. Yeah. So nice. weather wise will enjoy it. Well, us.   Pouya LJ  02:21 Yeah. Well, that's true. That's going on soon. Probably next week. Still not that bad? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Anyways, so today, we are tackling a subject that I am very inept in? I have no idea. I mean, I know abstractly what it is, but I don't have any readings on it. I think you guys are more educated on this than me. But let's see how it goes. So we're talking about a bunch of different stuff. Actually, it's not one thing, but it's centered at logic propositions. And quantifiers. Do you want it? So this was the pathway was introduced to this conversation was introduced by golf? Do you want to start it off yourself?   Govind  03:06 Sure. Um, so when we think about logic, what comes to mind? Generally, it's things like, debate, you know, things that logic is associated with, or things like debate, and truth and false, maybe people who are in software development or would think of code. You know, there there are so many of these, these these concepts that come to your mind when you think of the word logic. You know, what, maybe maybe you guys can chime in with like, premium fallacy. When I say the word logic, one of the one of the things you think about,   Pouya LJ  03:35 no, I think I mean, I guess it depends on their perspective, as you were saying, but I think what you're saying it makes sense. I think, generally, people think about logic as reasoning, like step by step thinking. Thinking about, like, it depends, if you're asking a philosopher is a little bit different than a mathematician than a software, regular person going about their lives, not thinking about these things. But I think that just remains for most people.   Govind  04:05 Sure, what am I?   Deep  04:07 Yeah, when I think of logic, I think of two things, the more intuitive idea of logic, which is what I think every human has, right? We like to all believe that we're logical beings, right? What does that mean? We all know that mean something when I say it, but what does so I think, the intuitive idea that humans are logical insofar as they have a set of consistent rules that you can codify that have some sort of basis, right, you can derive next set of actions based on a set of let's say, axiom true principles, right. And they're logical in nature. For example, humans get hungry where you're cutting off I don't is that does that me or?   Govind  04:46 Oh, I can I can hear him fine. I think   Pouya LJ  04:48 that's me.   Deep  04:50 Do you want me to restart for you?   Pouya LJ  04:53 Okay, now that's better. Sorry. Okay. Sure. That's fine. Continue. Sorry.   Deep  04:56 Sure. So I was just saying that like from from the preset preset Something that's logical, or I would consider as logical is the idea of hunger, right? Like when a human is hungry? What would be logical next is that they're going to try to get food. Right? To me that's logical. And that and so that's an intuitive logic or system of systems are sets of logics that we just know from by nature. Then I think of the logic, when when when Govan asked me, What do I think when you know about logic, right? Like what comes to mind? Or how would I define it and whatnot. The second one is the formal, abstract idea of logic that we humans have that I think that maybe other creatures don't have. And and that's the mathematical ability or the mathematical perspective of logic, where you can look at, you can create systems like Boolean logic, you can generalize Boolean logic and look at how you can construct quantum computations in Universal computations. And propositional logic is totally different than what I just talked about. And so that's all these things are abstract logics, and it's different than the intuitive logic, sometimes.   Govind  06:07 Yeah, yeah. No, that's, that's a great way of like, you know, describing the entire breadth of what logic? Thanks. Well, I think it comes down to the concept of truth and false, right, because you have to start with things you know, are true. And then you string these things that are true in certain ways that allows you to create certain implications, right? You, you, you start with a few facts, like, as a classic one, all men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal, right? You know, you have these propositions you have you start with these facts, and then you put them together using some inference rules. But what I wanted to discuss in today's topic, as today's topic is this concept of truth and false itself. We really, as humans, we take truth and false kind of for granted as a discrete binary thing, right? You have something that's true, and it's not true, it's false. But is that really the case? And to further grounded discussion, I have a few quotes from this book. It's called fuzzy thinking. And it has it really explores this concept of how truth can be continuous or fuzzy, right? It's it's not it's not truth. It's like an on off switch. But it's actually like, on and goes all the way to off with like, several, maybe infinite steps in the way. So one quote I really like is, there was a mistake, and everyone in science seemed to make it. They said that all things were true or false. They were not always sure which things were true and which were false. But they were sure that all things were either true or false. So I thought that that is a really cool quote, because it points out this fact that this is really taken for granted, we don't really think about, you know, like, What is it? What does it mean for something to be true or false. And another quote, I think, would be interesting not to make this all the quotes I made this last one is a quote from Albert Einstein. So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they're not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Because, I mean, if you say something is true or false, the universe does not give a shit, you know, universe is going to do whatever it's doing. And we're just we're just creating these models where we say, Okay, these things are true, these things are false. And, and we're going to construct our models of reality based on it. But these models of reality are pretty much mental experiments that we perform across humans right? Now, it just so happens that it happens to be incredibly good at modeling reality, to the point where people can get confused and say that reality works based on the principles that we create, and the facts that we create, the things that we assign as true or false is what is allowing reality to work the way it is. But it's it's always important to know that there's this detachment between what's reality and what's what's, you know, our our collective, our thought experiment, which is, you can call it mathematics, philosophy, whatever any anything that we have, when we come together, we have discussions, even discussions like what we're having right now. They're, they're just, like, there's a separation from this and reality. And this is kind of exemplified by what's known as the law of the excluded middle in, in logic. So where if you have a proposition a, let's say, let's just call it P let's let's work in the realm of the abstracts, if you have a proposition p p could be something like, this is a fruit or a gob is a person, you know, things like that things, something that I can assign a truth value to true or false. So the law of the excluded middle is that for all propositions P, P, or not B, that is something can either be true or not true. Now, this this sounds like stupid, simple, right? It sounds kind of like okay, sure, something can either be true or false. But now, what's crazy is that several mathematicians in over the 20th century, were actually pushing back against including this principle and logic, they were saying, No, I want to construct a mathematics which doesn't have p or not p that is, p or not P is actually not true. According to these people. They were called the intuitionists. And this cause Like a massive, massive debate back in the 20th century. But I'll pause here and I'll get some comments from you guys like what do you think such a mathematics could actually look like?   10:11 So   Deep  10:12 the first thing that comes to mind is the idea of structural realism. Structural realism basically posits that whatever scientific and mathematical understanding that we get of the universe, it does not necessarily reflect on the true structure and nature of the universe, right? So, if you have a quote, of creations that describe gravity at the macroscopic scale, that does not mean that those equations are the true structure and nature of reality. And that's important because when we're, as you sort of alluded to Govan, like when we define something to be true or false, nature doesn't give a shit. Right, so to speak. And that's like, like, interesting enough, there's a philosophical question right there. Because what if it happens that structural realism is false. And ironically, there is some sort of mathematical truism, at least in the physics perspective, that we can define, and that it is actually a true reflection of reality. It is objectively the truth. Right? Like, we may not, it may actually be possible, who knows? So there and because we haven't actually answered that, you know, what I mean, that that philosophical idea yet, whether structural realism, is true or not, is very hard to it. Yeah, extend or resolve the conflicts that have occurred in the 20th century from logic? Because this is just an extension of that. What do you think?   Govind  11:50 Um, well, I think this this, this time in history was very interesting, you know, because, well, maybe, like, some historical context would be that, you know, this is the first time you have like, several extremely smart people from across the world coming together and creating a global, you know, like, hey, let's tackle the biggest questions in, in humanity, like any point in your thinking, right? So like, and I think this kind of resulted in probability, right? probability is something that emerged from the 20th century, I mean, some could argue the roots extend way back, but you know, like the roots for everything, then way back. But the reason I bring up probability in this in this argument is like, as, as humans now in the 21st century, we, our process of science is so fundamentally grounded in probability, right? Like, to the point where our models of reality are the closest models of reality, we have use probability necessarily, right? Think of all the discussions you've had with your friends regarding COVID, or all these other things. Most people tend to make arguments related to probability and case fatality rates, you know, these kind of like, almost baseball statistics, right? Like I say, baseball statistics, just to kind of ground that and make it more like, you know, you see where I'm going with this, right? It's just that probability has created this kind of way that of making seen things our model seems so real, that you can actually see them and you can actually see their measure their impact on them. Right, this in fact, in mathematics, this the, let's call it the backbone of probability is called measure theory. Right. And I think this kind of lends itself to, well, some of the stuff you're working on, right, the quantum models of reality. So I think I think structural realism is something that is extremely effective, because it's, it's, it works on observations of reality, behind the scenes, and it actually kind of gets there. I mean, I'm using structural realism, maybe I'm, I'm conflating it with some mathematical context that are quantitation that it does not come with out of the box. I hope, I hope my point is clear.   Deep  13:51 Yeah, I understand your point completely. Um, quia. What do you think about this idea of an objective truth in nature? Um, do you think that it actually exists? And should we possess it? logic around that idea? Or the, or the rejection of the idea? Yeah. How important should that rule be?   Pouya LJ  14:12 Um, that's a very good question. Actually, I have started this long project, which is in the background for my own sake, I actually came up thought of this question a while back. I mean, everybody thought of thinks about these things, but more seriously started thinking about this insert. Getting onto some avenue to, you know, think about Yes. Is there an objective reality? And then that's literally the question to ask myself that started me on this journey. And you know, I I talk to some people from different walks of life, from psychology to philosophy to physics and what have you, some people who are at the top of their fields. I didn't. I mean, I did ask them this question, which is not the point. But from there our conversation, my conversation with them. What I got is that, no, from, from, from the real essence of the question, like the deepest sense of the question. And what I gather from all of those conversation conversations is that, again, we not the way we understand our world, our universe, maybe there is maybe there is a formalism that will get us there. But at least not with anything we have this, you know, far we've gotten discovery in science and philosophy thought. So. I, I think ultimately there is that's just a guesswork, obviously, like hypothesizing, but not in the sense that. So, let me put it this way. So for example, when GM Govan was saying that there's a spectrum of truth, I think that is, that is, that is true, until you get to the, to the resolution to the, to the, to the pixel of reality, essentially, at some point, it has to be one or the other. But we didn't get there yet. So that's my sense of it. That's my sense is that yes, it will eventually be some sort of objectiveness in reality, but it requires a better understanding of that reality that the fundamental laws of our universe, and that is not just gravity, gravity is, for example, gravity is emergent, from my perspective, and that that sense?   Govind  16:49 Well, I think you're gonna be happy, because initially, you wanted this discussion to be more about the nature of reality. And I think it's creeping into there. So I'll talk a little bit about the nature of reality as examined by Western philosophers. So there's a Descartes, notably, in the in the history of Western philosophy in like, let's say, the early modern period, which is like on 1600s, to like present day, or 1600 to 1800, is about the early modern period, we had these different movements, we started with rationalism, which is that, you know, like, we just, we just say things like, create these elaborate logical models. And then, and then we, we kind of examine, we use this as descriptions of reality. And then this kind of God rejects. And notably, Rene Descartes was kind of like a huge figure in this movement, because he said things like, the mind is its own soft, separate substance. And to tie that back to this discussion, what I was saying earlier about the realm of, of imaginary, thought experiments that we work with, in different fields like mathematics, computer science, and so on. He thought that it was its own separate universe that was completely detached from our, the universe that we live in. And he, I mean, these are the things he's saying, right? Like, I mean, he could be right, he could be wrong, but like, he's like, he's using logic as a means to tie together his his arguments. But at the end of the day, these are just things he's saying. And he's just using logic to create an elaborate story, an elaborate logical model. And this is the criticism that the next movement kind of gave to the rationalists. They were called the empiricist. People like David Hume, and I think mill or Locke, john Locke was in there. But they were like, hey, you're just saying things, you know, you're just you're just creating, you're just like, this is basically a story that I'm reading. And you're just like, Well, God is this and God is that. Savage. Exactly. And they're like David Hume, one of his famous philosophical quotes is like, you know, you can, you can't say for sure that the sun is gonna rise tomorrow, we see it rise every day. And we take it for granted, we have these explanations for it. But at the end of the day, these are just explanations, you know, I mean, at this point, they hadn't invented spacecraft and all that stuff yet, you know, they couldn't just go up there and see the sun.   Deep  19:09 Well, even then, like it did, there's still a philosophical point to that, like, even then we may not, despite everything we know, today, you know, I mean, the sun might not rise like there's   Govind  19:21 exactly that's, that's, that's   Deep  19:22 apparently physical reasons. I'm not even saying like magical reasons. But yeah,   Govind  19:26 So so they completely dismiss these, the rationalist arguments using this, it's like, if I don't see it, you know, it doesn't exist. So, you know, show me the proof, show me the reality of things. Got it. Um, and eventually, this kind of got resolved somewhat by Kant, Emmanuel Kant, who came in the, I believe, late 1700s, early 1800s. And he, he, he's like, Okay, guys, how do we resolve this? Because there's clearly some value in using logic to describe reality. And there's definitely value in talking about things that we can see and perceive and sense right. So his Way of reconciling this was to say that was to bring in the human aspect of things like how we perceive things. And he thought that that played an important role. In fact, what we call space time, were intuitions, he described them as intuitions. So humans have an intuition of space and an intuition of time, which is what allows us to perceive these things in reality. To make that more clear, he's he's telling the Emperor says, Hey, the things that you think you perceive, so clearly, maybe they're not that clear, you know, you are trapped behind your veil of perception at the end of the day. And again, like this is all to talk about the objective nature of reality, right? As humans, we can't help but be stuck behind the fact that everything we're perceiving is just what we're perceiving. There's another quote from Descartes, you know, it's, I think, therefore I am. It's one of like, the most famous quotes from philosophy, I think. But it's, it's basically that, for him thinking was such a rational endeavor, right? He thinks that just because he has this stuff running on in his head, like this voice that goes like, blah, blah, blah, and in his head, that's, that's why he knows for real, that He exists, like, no matter what, I have this thing that allows me to, like, perceive and like, you know, like, I don't know, if you guys are real, I don't know, my computer's I know, there's something going on here. You know, that's kind of his point there. And Kant was saying, you know, there's a human element of things you just can't strip away from, from anything real, right. So that's a little bit of a background in this in, well, let's say Western philosophical thinking about this, this this topic.   Deep  21:27 That's awesome. Um, and, you know, a lot of its circles, it's all circling and tying back in to itself in an interesting way. And here's what I mean by that. So, to your point about how deep you know, probability is in quantum mechanics, right? It plays a huge role, a fundamental role. For literally since the birth of it, you know, physicists both on the quantum computing and sorry, quantum physics side of things, and the classical physics side of things, believed that there should be some sort of a clear description of the wavefunction and information that we can eventually have access to and predict perfectly. So like, just, there's there was this idea that we'll eventually be able to predict the exact nature of the collapse, the wave function will know when it will collapse, and into what outcome it will collapse, rather than just knowing the probability. And you know, fast forward 100 years later, we've made essentially zero progress in making that stochastic process any less stochastic to us. And so it's really like sad react Sony, right? Like for the people who, who believe like, go when you and I've had tons of discussions about determinism and whether the universe is and Buddha unites was actually all three of us. And so quantum mechanics quickly touches on that. And then there's the objective reality question. There's the witness friend paradox. experiments, right that were recently conducted, again, two years ago, where you had two different labs instead, posing as a weakness friend, basically, it's a witness paradox is a paradox that was created in the 60s it was proposed by the famous physicist Wagner, and essentially, what he said was that if there are given the fact that the wavefunction encodes the all the possible measurables and observables, for a given observer, then the wavefunction is going to be different for different observers. And if that's true, then they're going to have eventually conflicting facts about the universe. And so he said, that's a paradox, right? And it turns out that it's true that two years ago, in those days, it is insane, because two years ago, we actually ran these quantum physical experiments where we took a well being split using beamsplitters, we essentially used quantum entangled photons. And we've been into two different labs, and you have people, you have what's called witness friends inside the lab, and then Wagner or like the observers outside the lab. And so all four people in this experiment, none of them can observe each other. We're measuring each other's photons directly, they can perform measurements to see if a measurement hasn't done, but they can't. Yeah, so that so if you want to think about it physically, they're splitting at the end of the experiment, one particle that was turned into four quantum entangled pairs, so through Bell state pairs and beamsplitters you really have these so if you want visualize that, so imagine, like I take a ball of physical ball, and I cut it in four pieces, and I give it right to four different people. Here's a weird thing about the huge We're gonna experiment what ended up happening is that Imagine if I asked those four people to look at, if I to record the color of their ball, right, let's say I cut up a red ball. And and I gave a piece to everybody, everybody has a red ball in theory right? v a piece that's red. What ended up happening is that these people, of course, were quantum mechanics, there's one caveat, right? You can expect the ball to change colors, that's fine, you can, you can expect it to change either red or green. So that's let's say, you can measure spin up, spin down totally fine. What and what what we did was, let's say I did this, I took a red ball, I gave it to four of my friends. And then they did measurements, knowing that it'll change red, green, red, green, sometimes. I, it turns out that when they did those measurements, and they all got back to each other, and they looked at their lists, and the measurements that they did on each individual piece themselves, the colors didn't add up. So So I so imagine this, like, imagine if I looked at my list, and I observed red, green, green, red, green, red, and you observe green, green, green, green, green, red. So you were looking at a different piece of the ball. How's that even possible? When I physically split the same objective ball? It's not it's, well, technically you shouldn't have been, but it is like, in fact, what's happening is that literal conflict and objective facts about reality, where you have people who participated in a physical experiment, use the same physical measurement tools and came up with different conflicting facts   Govind  26:31 that is completely wild. Yeah, no, that's physics anymore. You know, this is like something just so beyond anything.   Deep  26:41 Yeah, I mean, it is very edgy. Yeah. See? What we know, dude.   Govind  26:45 Yeah. Oh, my God. That's, that's insane. Everyone reminds me of the banach tarski paradox, right? Like, I mean, these kind of things happen on mathematics, and we're totally fine with it. Right. So the banach tarski paradox is like, imagine you have a sphere, a sphere that's composed of like, let's, let's call them like, an infinite number of droplets that are holding together this fear, right? It's like this basketball. So the banach tarski paradox says that there is a way to separate out, like, just choose all the points, like a whole bunch of these points that are in here, like these droplets, and then you take them out, and then you move them away. And these are just solely choosing the points, while granted infinite number of points, you're telling them to go somewhere else. And using this, you can actually create a perfect clone of the ball, right? You have two different copies of the ball using the exact same number of particles. So you can do all these weird things with infinity in the world of the abstract, you know, where we're fun things happen, and everyone's everyone's happy and dancing all the time. You know, like, yeah, they're like, we're okay with all kinds of crazy things happening. But man, when this spills over into reality, it's like, we all lose our shit. Because, you know, yeah, literally not believing.   Deep  27:54 That's right. That's right.   Pouya LJ  27:57 Yeah, and so, um, so what, what, what do you do, but especially because you're, you're actually very close to these experience. What does that what does that make you feel? What does that? What? What does that? Do you think it means? What does that say about that objective reality, if you will? What is your thought?   Deep  28:17 Yeah, it will, what it tells me is that there's likely some sort of, clearly a multiverse situation going on, where almost it's like, we're maybe that maybe each agent that can be concerned, considered an observer or anything that can be considered capable of measurement, right? We don't know how far that extends. We just don't know those answers. But I believe that everything that can is on some unique multiverse, and we all just have our own timelines intersecting with each other. That's what that told me. It no longer feels like, we share one objective physical space. It's like, you know, I mean, we just have like, the these rays instead. That intersect. So it, I found, frankly, I found it psychologically disturbing when I read the experiment and the results. And I don't think that there's no way around it. It's just but it's fascinating stuff. So yeah,   Pouya LJ  29:17 yeah, no, I, it does make sense. Yeah, what you're saying like, I mean, obviously, there has to be so that to me, either. There's another explanation such as the multiverse situation, or maybe there is no objective reality. Well, in a sense, at the end of the day, if you're living in a multiverse with different set of facts, and you're building all of your rules based on those axioms that you get from FX x, or whatever, a different set of axioms will say. Then, who's to say which universe is the reference universe, or the main universe or truth? So maybe maybe there isn't any objective reality which, which to me, And then that's my whole thing. That was my whole thing about this objective reality. I asked this question going in thinking, yes, there is, and we can't just find it yet. But let's pose the assumption that Yeah, no, there is no objective reality, then to me, it's a little bit more humanistic again, talk, but it just shows me how arrogant we've become of a thing called, you know, science and discovery. And we're just, we're just going forward thinking that we're supposed to know the answer to, to everything, we have to figure it out. And that and that's fine to try. But also I think it this whole phenomena should should give us some notion of Okay, there is there there should be a little bit a bit a degree of humility, in what in what we do as discoverers of this universe, which is, to me the most beautiful parts. Again, I'm like, this is being poetic as a human thing. But that's at the end of the day. That's who we are. And I think I think we should appreciate that part as well. Sorry, I'm just going to close this loop on this poem that I just composed here. But Okay, back to Golf. How does that make you feel? from someone who's a little bit more distant? Personally,   Govind  31:28 I think it's very interesting to use the word pool there because, well, since since this, this discussion has kind of been underpinned by logic and language and all that kind of stuff. There's this philosopher Martin Heidegger, his his entire take was like, we need to kind of escape from the confines of language and the kind of thinking that is inevitable, just because of language being the way it is, right? Because it's like, realistically, we all have our own personal language. It's like, I have my own language. And when I say that, I don't mean like my own version of English, I mean, my own, let's like, composition of thoughts, experiences, feeling senses, right? Like, if I remember, if I smell a perfume from my past, like, I'm gonna have like, these nostalgic experiences and all that stuff, right? And, and that really, that's part of that's a word or like maybe a phrase in like, personal language. And whenever I'm talking, what I'm doing is I'm converting from my, I'm translating from my personal language to English, right? In this case, and then and then you have to, like convert that back to your personal language. And men composition is really hard, like, how do we do it? Given this this context, but Heidegger, his his attempt to improve language, was by positing that we move to poetry as a way of expressing ourselves purely because he thought poetry had this innate ability to capture our personal language, right? Because when we write poetry, it's such a, like, poetry is a hard thing to understand, right? Like, sometimes you read poetry, and I'm like, What the heck is going on? But it's just because it's, it's the poets like attempt to try to bring out their personal language as much as possible, right. And I would argue that most of art is the same process. So I mean, in, and I want to tie this back to like, the point I made earlier about us trying to escape the confines of our own existence, right, like, the the confines of our of our human infrastructure, the way we do that, I think poetry is a very, very cool way of and it's kind of cool that emerged from this discussion as well. That's kind of a case in point.   Pouya LJ  33:23 Yeah. No, I I think so. Yes, I think I understand. So it's the least amount of filters like art, I suppose, like, closest to you as it gets, I suppose. So, so yes, I, and that's what I've been going back and forth a lot. Like I obviously, as somebody who cares about, you know, methodical thinking, logical thinking, and, you know, rationale, reason, etc. That is very valuable, especially if you if we want resolved in this in this world of ours, because at the end of the day, we can get a lot with the our version of you know, reality that we have in this very pocket that we are living in, in the whole the whole universe and in space and time. But going beyond that, I think there there has and that is where I think they kind of, you know, overlap the the field, let's call it science and art, if you will, I don't, I don't like to make huge distinction, like borderline distinction distinctions, generally personally, but I think in an entirety, society does make it very, like black and white distinction between these two, which I think there is a good amount of overlap, and that is, we're   Govind  34:44 talking fuzziness, right, it's all about being fuzzy and accepting it for what it is as opposed to what we want it to be that maybe seems more perfect to us, right? Like these molds seem more perfect to us. But the reality is, nothing is a mold like everything is fuzzy, right? Like I think the example is like such a mind. looming realization of that.   Pouya LJ  35:02 Yeah, no, that's that's true. And what one way one can raise a question. I suppose that what makes us want the I mean, I have I have one answer. But let's let me just pose the question first. What makes us as who we are humans, again, within this infrastructure, once this clarity of binary of, you know, not being fuzzy, but rather completely distinct or True or false? Well, what are your thoughts on that?   Govind  35:35 Well, I remember we actually think I think we did a podcast on this a little bit ago about like the nature of chaos, right? Some people, most people I think, are very averse to chaos, because they like things being simple and easy to understand. Right? What I mean, the more, let's say, foolhardy among us, for lack of a better word, like kind of naturally as gravitated towards chaos, because I think chaos is just such a good description of reality. But the problem is that chaos, by definition is incredibly, incredibly complex, right? So you don't you don't have the simplicity of like, you know, two plus two equals four, right? You're like, what's two? what's plus? What's four? What's the quality?   Pouya LJ  36:14 That sounds like you checked, you just say, yeah, smoke some weed or something? Like what is to man?   Govind  36:23 I thought this was Joe Rogan.   Pouya LJ  36:27 Oh, it could be anyway. No, I think so. Okay, let me go back to how about you do and don't share my thoughts?   Deep  36:38 Yes. So, first of all, it's super interesting about the nature of fuzziness, especially when we think about Zeno's paradox. Because even that is a great example. You know, I still contend that we have not resolved the paradox of why is it that we can make contact with anything, right? Why is it that I'm even touching the floor right now, despite the poly exclusion principle? And, you know, Zeno's paradox, right?   Govind  37:10 xenos paradox.   Deep  37:11 Sure. So So, so xenos paradox. It's really a family of paradoxes. But it all comes down to the fact that, I'll give you an example. Let's say that you want to reach the end of the hallway. And your rule that you impose on yourself is that you're going to have your distance in order to get to the hallway, and you'll have your distance, every single time until you get to the end of the hallway. And so let's say the, you're 10 feet away from the end of the hallway, then the next time the next move you make you're five feet away, then two and a half, then 1.25, and so on and so forth. And until you go to point 000000125, blah, blah, blah, but it'll never be zero, right? It never touches zero. So at no point, will you ever actually reach the end of the hallway. So Zeno's paradox, what basically asks, Why do you never, why do you touch the end of the hallway? Why is it that in real life, we end up making it to the other side, despite the fact that these infinite distances, you know, taking any slice of an infinite still infinite so so he just had all these questions about it. Yeah, spacetime. Very deep questions to the thousands of years ago on so and we still haven't answered them properly. And yeah,   Govind  38:34 well, I have a point about that. But I know if we are you're you're itching to talk about your, your perspective on it. Go ahead. Oh, you're on mute. Oops, sorry.   Pouya LJ  38:45 First of all, I want to say that I, I sent a photo and chat A while ago, and I think I diverted deeps attention to that kind of concept, which was I don't know if you saw the, the the rabbit or whatever it is. It wants to go get a haircut. I'll put this in the show notes, by the way, but it's a half off haircut. Did you guys see that one?   Deep  39:12 Right now? That is funny. Yeah, I'll put this   Pouya LJ  39:16 in the show notes. So that people who are listening to this, they can just find it out. But I know this is exactly what you're talking about. It'll gonna take forever. So yeah, you're right. But why do we actually get that haircut and the half of haircut eventually? No, I think so. First of all, all of these are exactly to my point that there's there's there is probably a sea of things that we just don't know about the nature of our universe, the one that even forget about objective reality, the one that we even perceive. And maybe one can make an argument that the reason with the fatalities of our of our views are the questions that we cannot answer is because of the fact that our realities are not completely overlapping the objective one, and that's where those those are the the edge cases that are actually creating these problems, perhaps. But true. Beyond that, I think there's a, there's a degree of obsession amongst many, many people, most people probably besides besides the ones who are embracing chaos, I suppose as go and was putting it, that we did a good good amount of like humanity essentially once a clear answer to two things and sometimes takes shortcuts through through, you know, ideologies that might not have, you know, rational rationale behind them. Just to get to those answer, why am I here? Why, like, because I have to be tested here to go to heaven, part of the some of the religious ideologies, or, or what is the nature of our unit? Why is the sun come up? I feel a first of all does is going to come up tomorrow or, and then we come up with these answers, and everybody through their own ways try to answer these definitively. And part of that is I think, now it's a little bit of more philosophical questions, I suppose, or answer rather thoughts, I suppose. But I think part of that is because we understand our own mortality by binary, which is the most did the deepest, probably driver of our existence, and that is either we're dead or alive, there's no, I'm half dead. I was like, well, maybe you're sick a little bit, but you're not half dead. So I and there is there's a degree that we and there's an understanding that when I die, I there's like, there's no coming back from that. I mean, I'm obviously there are exceptions, sometimes. Some people, some people, flatline they come back. But if you're flatlining for a week, you're not coming back from that, right? So so there's, there's a permanency to that experience that and and, and our deepest drive is to avoid that. So to avoid that clear, at least, at least from our mortal, mortal perspective, clear, true or false If true, being your dead and false being your life. That is clear that okay, if I'm, if I'm talking right now, as the card would say that I exist. In a more biological setup, sense, I'm not dead. And, and, and it drives all those questions, I suppose. But again, like, also going back to language as a logical tool, essentially. What do you think there's going to be a funny question, what do you think people before language would think? Would they have similar thoughts to these things? Now? I mean, obviously, in a simpler case, and not thinking like quantum physics, I suppose. But what do you think all of these are fatalities of language that we're carrying with ourselves? Or is it drive by language? Or is it more fundamental? So if we didn't have language for people who didn't invent language yet, back in? I don't know how long ago? Would they have similar thoughts? Do you think?   Govind  43:11 Well, I think we do have animals, right? Like, I mean, when we have these, you have any pets? Do you   Pouya LJ  43:17 mean no? Okay, before, but I know Okay, yeah. No, but I can understand what you're where you're going.   Govind  43:24 But when you have, like interactions with animals, I love animals. It's almost like you have this communication with them. That's that's not like you. I mean, I don't I can see versus and they probably don't understand me, unless all animals know English, and they just choose to ignore us. And they like humans are too stupid. There was a   Pouya LJ  43:43 cabal of animals deciding that this is not a good idea. Yes.   Govind  43:48 Lots of Rick and Morty episodes. But yeah, no, I think I mean, it's just that that awareness that being that's that's just there right? I think that is rooted in language fundamentally. Like I don't I don't know if we can actually get past this. This like our art like the language that we have developed evolved and developed is like it serves a very good purpose which is sharing thoughts with each other sharing these these like awareness experiences with each other right? But at the root of it all like I mean, it's all about that awareness and you brought up such a great point about death right? And how death is that binary which kind of makes us realize like you know, like there is such a thing as a clear like a clear line drawn in the in the northern sand like a line drawn in the concrete You know, this this is it like you know, there's life and then there's not life so so that that is actually such a such a great point about why negations work in this in this sense. I seem to have lost you guys   Pouya LJ  44:47 know, we can hear you. Okay. Oh, yeah, your picture froze, but I can hear you so that's good. Excellent.   Govind  44:53 Yeah. Well, yeah, that's that's the point I wanted to make. You know, it's a it's like these these ideas do exist, but I'm sure Animals have a notion of death as well. Right? And animals. Oh, yeah. Their their experiences and all that.   Pouya LJ  45:05 Yeah, no. And that's true. The notion of death is obviously at least in its more primal sense of obvious. Obviously, they're, they're trying to avoid it. But there are no but my point was, so so the rabbit holes that we go to and get stuck in it, then half of the way to the destination, and then half it, and then half of them and have it is this. My This is what is this? Now? Now this one is not as outside of language, actually, some, I'm kind of negating myself, but is a lot of these problems with language and and how we're communicating with each other. Because honestly, like, there are instances that I think I should have been thinking about this. Do I think with myself, like when there's nobody else, I don't have to communicate with anybody else. I don't need to use language, English, Farsi, whatever, to communicate with other people. But is there any any? Do I communicate with myself with my thoughts, in language or outside of language? And I've been thinking about this for a while and trying to observe it? And part of it is that, yeah, yeah, most of my thoughts are us using language. But yes, there are pockets sometimes that I feel like, there's a thought that I can't even express it to myself, using language. It's that the, maybe that that's the that's for, like, there's a fog. And I'm perceiving it. There's some sort of experience behind it. But I can't even describe that experience for us. Like, I mean, what what is like, so what is it sounds like an impression of a thought, right? Because a thought is a thought when you're able to express it, maybe? Yeah, so i think i think that that becomes super clear. Well, okay, let me let me give you so this is a, this is going to be a little bit of an exaggeration. Like, it's not what I'm thinking about. So the one that I'm thinking about is more of a thought. But think about this, when you're extremely fearful for your life at a very moment notice of, you know, hitting, you know, you have to you have to run there's there's a, there's a specific quality to that fear. And you're thinking, Okay, maybe there's a bear in front of you. And your thought is that we're going to grab this knife, but are you really thinking in terms of wars, I am going to grab this knife, you see a knife, you you want to grab it, you know what I mean? That's a thought that I'm going to grab this knife, but it's not really in any language. And that is really forced when I think I can see myself doing that, at least, when it comes to the precipice of like some sort of when it combines with some sort of very strong emotion such as, okay, I have to grab this knife or gun or whatever, shoot this bear, I'm not thinking to myself, okay, I am going to grab a gun, and I am going to pull the trigger at this. No, that's not it, you just know, right? That's a   Govind  48:01 possibility. It's like you're like, the way I think of it is like, it's almost like a design space of everything that could possibly happen given what's around you. Right? So it's like you're sampling from this design space. Like one of these events, for example, is like you picking up a knife or like, you know, you punching someone in the face. This is around you. Something like it's like these are these are just, I think the mind is really good at generating these kind of things, which is just sampling points from, from this design space of what's around us, right? Yeah. And then and then these are actions or like, these are these are impressions. Yeah. It's like, yeah, we just, we just like, we have all these things around this, like stimulus. And our mind is generating these things. And most of the time, it's like, it's pretty pragmatic. It's like, Oh, you have to put on your shoes to walk. It's like this thing you tell yourself, but you're not really thinking you're doing things. But like, sometimes it's just like random thoughts. Like it's our mind is a pretty interesting random number generator. Deep. What are your thoughts on that?   Deep  49:00 Okay, it really is. I agree with that. I mean, you can always say that, uh, you know, all of our output all of our, I've always wondered, you know, the, what is it the thousand monkey or the infinite monkey experiment or thought experiment where what would happen if you let monkeys play with a typewriter for an infinite amount of time, right? There's the idea that they would eventually create Shakespeare. And it makes me question the idea of creativity and thought, is it a linear combination of what you already know? Or is it truly something that will eventually appear emergent from random fucking monkey? Monkey actions, right? Like, what what is true intelligent creativity? So with that being said, I really had a I was thinking, though, you know, on that note about us looking at death and life is binary. That's true. We are classical creatures, like we observe the universe in classical sense, right? Everything is and so because it's macroscopic to us, I wonder, what if? What does life look like for, let's say, micro organism that doesn't experience the world classically like we do, right? What if there are, there are quantum organisms that are only experiencing the world and quantum mechanics? To them, there would be literally no such thing as a classical I am dead or classical life. What does that mean? What What does death for that organism look like? So yeah, I was just thinking about that. But you guys think,   Pouya LJ  50:34 yeah, no, you're you're dragging us into the pan psychism   Govind  50:41 the movie arrival, right? With the whole concept of like, circular time and all these things, right? Like, this is some I think, innovations of the 21st century like, exploring this, these kind of ideas. I see so many outlets for this in different TV shows and movies and all that stuff. Like this, this like convergence of everything, how everything is one and many at the same time. Right? Well, I guess the fuzziness of everything, right. Like everything is just really fuzzy. And we're, as humanity starting to accept it, which is, you know, really freakin cool.   Pouya LJ  51:12 No, no, it is. And you mentioned an arrival It reminds me of, so I think if I'm not mistaken. Okay, maybe I'm mistaken. But let me let me just make it maybe, you know, I think Stephen Wolfram was an advisor in that movie. I don't know if he really I don't know. That's that I I'm doubting myself now. So anybody out there listening. Please double check for yourselves. Don't quote me on it. But which reminds me he actually I don't know if we're familiar. Actually. I   51:40 don't know why I did a quick Google and   Pouya LJ  51:43 it is like it's okay. Yeah. And he came up with this new What is it? What do you call it? Geez. new stuff. Yeah, he is hypergraph.   Deep  51:56 Physics.   Pouya LJ  51:57 Yes. Yeah. Have you heard about that? Did you look into it?   Deep  52:01 Yeah, I   52:04 I liked it.   Pouya LJ  52:06 So what are your thoughts on that? But super quickly, I don't want to go to a different deep rabbit hole right now. But it reminded me of him when you mentioned arrival.   Deep  52:14 Sure. I mean, various.   Pouya LJ  52:16 I don't know, Dad Galvin. Are you familiar with what it is? Oh, yeah, sure. Sure. Okay. Okay. Cool. Cool. Good.   Deep  52:22 Yeah, just very briefly, I mean, the idea of like, Come complex, physical phenomena from simple rules is nothing new, right. Like that's been talked about for 100 years. What was really interesting was the idea of using causal graphs or attempting to use just like these hyper graphs to encode physical rules. Yeah, I think it's promising. I'd love to see experiments and math and more rigor. But the ideas are cool. Like Stephen Wolfram is really, like he has some fundamental thoughts there that are interesting, unique worth pursuing.   Govind  52:56 These are usually a pioneer of this kind of this kind of funky fuzzy stuff. Right, right. Yeah. Yes, geez theory so much with his work on automata and all that stuff. Well, this release. I mean, I wanted to bring back this point from about 15 minutes ago. We were talking about Zeno's paradoxes. Yeah, a conversation topic for a future podcasts definitely should be the nature of calculus, right? Because, yeah, the way we as humans, resolve Zeno's paradoxes was to create this notion of a limit, we just throw a limit on it. And we say, at some point, it does, it does converge on to this value, right? Like, and I'm like, okay, so you keep cutting the half of your hair. And at some point, you're, you're going to get a full haircut, right? Like, even if you get the convergence now that that notion of convergence, it turns out is not strongly understood by by humans. But I think that's something we need to discuss. And I it stands out for me, because this is one of the first discussions we ever had. Right? Exactly. Yeah.   Deep  53:57 Yeah, absolutely. Talking   Govind  53:58 about limits and how like, that's what I think I first realized I'm like, this doesn't make any sense, does it? It's just, we just put   Deep  54:04 it is it is a great because some that is it all stemmed from some Berkeley kid asking us like, like, about it, right? Like he's like, yeah, this like this. And then yeah,   Govind  54:15 yeah. Yeah. Cool stuff. No, but I think we should explore that in in the next podcast or though sounds good. Sounds good?   Pouya LJ  54:24 No, I think I think okay, well, we made the plan. I don't know about the dates. We'll talk about that later. But next sub subject of the next conversation will be calculus, and its origins, its fundamentals. axioms, I suppose. Okay, I think that's a good. Here's a good stopping point. We almost went full hour here. Is there anything else you want to, you know, close the loop on before we leave this conversation?   Govind  54:54 Well, for me, I think I learned so I mean, I had these thoughts about fuzzy fuzzy thinking and all that stuff. And it was Kind of like in the let's let's see the disk of my, the my external hard disk of my brain is just forgotten there. So it's great to brush the dust off. And I feel like I really kind of added to these models based on this conversation. So yeah, it was very cool. I think we achieved fuzziness today. Yes.   Pouya LJ  55:18 That's great. How about you?   Deep  55:20 Yeah, I would just say that I really appreciated the perspective of the history of history philosophy, with respect to logic, a super neat perspective that you brought to the table or Govind and yeah, just different perspectives that were shared today. Um, it's awesome. It does make things more fuzzy. And yeah, let's keep it going. Guys, I, I think that there's a lot of interesting questions. We post here today. So   Pouya LJ  55:47 okay, and if anybody wants to share their thoughts, feel free you can reach go in and deepen their respective social media, which I'm going to put in the show notes. Don't need to repeat them here. You can you can find them there.   56:01 And comment guys.   Pouya LJ  56:04 Make it make it dirty. No, keep it clean. And all right, stay fuzzy until later episode.   Deep  56:11 Cheers, guys.  

Audio Transcript: Good morning. Welcome to Mosaic Church. My name is Jan. I'm one of the pastors here at Mosaic. And it's so good to worship together. If you'd like to connect with us and you're new, we'd love to connect with you. We do that through the Connection Card and the Worship Guide or in the app or online. We'd love to get connected with your information and we would like to send a little gift in the mail to say, "Thank you for coming out." With that said, would you please... Oh. One quick announcement. Next Sunday we are not meeting in person. Unfortunately. We will be meeting online. And I will be in the Facebook Live chat. I really enjoy that.And there might be a chicken wing question. Who knows. Who knows. Would you please pray with me over the preaching of God's word? Lord, we thank you for the Holy Scriptures. We thank you that the Holy Scriptures reveal so much about your character. About how gracious you are. About how loving you are. How pure you are. How holy you are. And we thank you that through the Holy Scriptures we get to meet the hero of the Scriptures, your son Jesus Christ. Jesus, we thank you for living the life that each one of us was intended. A purpose to live. And for dying the death that we deserve to die for our law breaking. We thank you Holy Spirit that you are with us. And Holy Spirit I pray you continue to tune our hearts to the voice of God. Let us hear the proclamation of your glory that creation preaches and declares.Let us hear your holy voice that directs us and guides us to live lives that glorify you most. Continue building your church here, Jesus. You are a great builder, and you get all the glory. Thank you for leading us here, and I pray prepare our hearts now. Remove any doubt, anxiety, stress, worries and let us hear from you. I pray this in Jesus name, amen.We're continuing our sermon series through the Psalms. We're calling them Balm Psalms. Balm in terms of it's balm for your soul. It's medicine. It's ointment. It's anointing for your soul and hopefully in your time with the Lord, in your devotions, you're spending time in the psalms. Today, we're in Psalm 19. Junior year in college I had a season of doubt. I looked around at my fellow students, at my professors and no one believed in God. Very few believed in God. Almost statistically insignificant. And then I had this one professor. He was there for just a year from the University of Moscow. And he was a believer. He was a Russian Orthodox believer, but he loved the Lord and he loves the Scriptures.And I asked him, I said, "Why do you believe? No one else around us believes. Why do you believe?" And he quoted Emmanuel Kant and this is the quote that he gave me, "Kant said this in the Critique of Practical Reason, he said, 'Two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe. The more often and steadily we reflect upon them. The starry heavens above me, and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances. Beyond the horizon, my vision, I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.'" And Kant was actually buried in Russia and this is his tombstone and it's the quote on top, it's in German and at the bottom it's in Russian.It talks about the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. That's why I believe in God. Can we know that God exists? Of course we can. Even to ask that question from the perspective of Scripture is folly. Scripture says, "Yes, of course God exists. Look around. The greatest miracle in the history of miracles is creation itself. It's creation ex nihilo. Creation from nothing. Everything from nothing. God speaks. It's there." And today we're looking at Psalm 19 where it says that, "Creation speaks. It declares. It proclaims that God created everything. And it declares and it communicates something about God because God is a communicating God." Can we know who God is from creation? We can know some aspect of Him that He's all powerful. That He's beautiful. That He's an architect. That He's a designer. That He's a creator.But the other aspects of His character are veiled. Creation can't give us those, and that's why we need the other book that God gives us which is Holy Scripture. Got is Elohim, great creator, almighty God. He's also Yahweh, a conventional God who loves us. So God's written two excellent books published for our instruction edification. The first book is creation. Its natural revelation shows that God is a genius of a God. The second book shows us the will of God. That He created us for a purpose and that we are to obey His will. That He is sovereign over every single person. Not just over Christians. He is God over all.And today as we enter into the incredible Psalm that Psalm 19 is, a great writer C.S. Lewis said, "This is the greatest writing he's ever read in his life." The greatest lyricism. One of the finest poems in the world", he says, in his reflections on the Psalms. Today we're going to look at glory of God in all of creation in the Scriptures. And in God's recreation which is Christians. So would you look at psalm 19 with me? Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God. And the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor are there words whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them, He has set a tent for the sun which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strongman runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens and its circuit to the end of them.And there is nothing hidden from His heat. The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure of making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right. Rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. The rules of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold even much fine gold, sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover by them as your servant warned in keeping them there is great reward. Who can discern His errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults.Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins. Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless and innocent of great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, oh Lord, my rock and my redeemer." This is the reading of God's holy and infallible authoritative word. May you write these eternal truths on our hearts. Three points. We'll look at God's glory in the cosmos. We'll look at God's glory in the Scriptures. And we'll look at God's glory in the Christian. So the first point is God's revelation or God's glory in the cosmos. By cosmos I mean all of creation. Everything that is and it begins with Psalm 19: 1 and 2. "The heavens declare the glory of God." It's as if everything around us is a sermon. It's a preacher declaring the truth that God is and the sky above proclaims His handiwork day to day pours out speech and night to night reveals knowledge. By heavens, He's talking about the sky. He's talking about the galaxy. He's talking about the universe. The cosmos.And e talked about this a little last week, that we are to meditate on the nature around us. It is created for us to be wow by, to have awe. To be in awe. Which is one of the greatest places to be. Little children ... this is why children are so happy. Children find awe in everything. I was just admiring my daughter, Milana. She had a little bottle of water. She's wowed by it. Because she doesn't see little bottles of water on a daily basis. She sees bigger bottles. And she loves it. It fits her hand so perfectly. She's wowed by it. It's such a happy place to be. Such a joyful place to be. And I think as we grow older, we get desensitized to the awesome nature, the world that we live in. It speaks. There's mystery. There's splendor. There's order.And the galaxies of the cosmos, they're loud. They're direct. People often say, "I've never heard the voice of God. I don't believe in God. I've never heard the voice of God." Well, God doesn't often speak audibly. He speaks louder than audibly. He doesn't just speak to our ears, He speaks to all of our senses if we are willing to receive the message.The heavens aren't just glorious. They declare. They proclaim. It says, "Days pour our speech. Nights reveal knowledge." It's like there's two choirs. The choir of the day, and the choir of the night, and they're singing together in beautiful harmony. They utter forth. That's like the speech bubbles forth. From the very beginning, the Psalm is what He assumes is there's no pretext for disbelief. There's no justification for it. You can't live in physical reality and just believe that it just happened.That's not just disbelief, that's willful disbelief. Reality in a created order demands that we acknowledge the creator. And we aren't just to acknowledge. We are to adore like creation does. It declares. It proclaims that he's glorious. Psalm 19:3, "There is no speech nor are there words whose voice is not heard." So it's not audible. It's not distinct words, but it's real. It's not precise, but it's still an eloquence. It's a wordless word. You ever hear people around you speaking in a different language? The thing I always think when I hear a different language around me, it's like two people speaking different language, they're totally talking about me. And as a bilingual speaker, if you hear me speaking Russian in front of you, I'm totally talking about you. 100%.Why would I speak in English? I'm going to speak in Russian to just ... Right? And it's as if nature speaks a different language. We know it's there. We need someone to decipher that ... what is nature saying? What is it speaking? Psalm 19:4, "The voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." And the assumption here is everybody hears. Everybody hears. The question is, what do you want to do with that testimony? And the New Testament sheds light on this, that there is wrath from God when people willfully tune down the volume of God's creation. Romans 1:18 and 20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness, suppress the truth. For what can be known by God is plain to them because God has shown it to them for His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made so they are without excuse."Saying the reason why people reject that there is a creator behind the creation is not that there is not enough evidence, it's because there's a suppression of truth. I don't like this truth. Therefore this truth isn't true to me. God says, "No. No. You can't do that. There is no excuse." Romans 10:18, "But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for their voice has gone out to all of the earth and their words to the end of the world." He quotes this psalm. So meaning that nature exists. We exist not just for natural order. There's not just a natural end to our existence. There's a moral end that we exist just like all of nature exists to declare that God is glorious.It's important not just that it is, but what it says, and nature is a form of language and it's speaking about God and the heavens are a sign and every sign about God is a vehicle of ideas about God. So the fact of nature reveals the fact of God. The being of God. The vastness of nature shows that He is immense. The uniformity of nature declares His unity. There's an order in the godhead. The regularity of nature discloses His unchangeableness. He does not change. He's immutable. The variety of nature manifests His exhaustlessness. The adaptations of nature unveil His wisdom and the happiness of nature declares His wisdom. His goodness. That God is a good god.One of my favorite things in the world is to watch animal videos. There were the cat videos that were ... and then there were little puppy videos that go viral, and then there's goat videos. Videos of little goats. And they are like the happiest beings ever. Sophia, my oldest daughter, started dreaming about having a farm and she's like, "I just want some goats." And I said, "Who's going to care for the goats?" She talking about hiring someone. Good for you. There's a happiness in creation. It shows us that God is a happy God. He's a good god. And nature is telling us to think about God. And as we contemplate nature, we have to contemplate God. And it's not His only revelation, obviously. But it's a great and beautiful revelation and God's testimony is both of His work and His work is a testimony about His goodness. And it's plainly discoverable. The more you study, many of you are in fields where you study God's creation on a daily basis. You could probably preach this part of the sermon significantly better than I can.It's everywhere. Charles Misner was a physicist who was friends with Einstein and he said this, he said, "The design of the universe is very magnificent and should not be taken for granted. In fact, I believe that is why Einstein had so little use for organized religions. Although, he struck me as basically a very religious man. Einstein might have looked at what the preacher said about God, and felt that they were blasphemy. He had seen more majesty than he had ever imagined in the creation of the universe and felt that the God they were talking about couldn't have been the real thing. My guess is that he simply felt that the churches he had run across did not have proper respect for the author of the universe."What a quote. The author of the universe. It's as if we're daily reading a book and saying, "There is no author." Psalm 19:4b through 6, "In them, He has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber. And like a strongman runs his course with joy. It's rising is from the end of the heavens and its circuit to the end of them. And there is nothing hidden from its heat." So this part of the sermon, He crescendos with the son. He said, "The sun on a daily basis proclaims. It's a witness to God's glory." And he personifies the sun here. He says, "The sun is like a bridegroom." It's like a groom. It's like a groom on his wedding day.If you're married and you were a groom for your husband and you were a groom at one point, you know exactly what this feels like. That morning, you're about to get married. I remember the day, the night before I got married, I couldn't sleep. I slept like three hours. I was just so excited. And thinking through all the details and still mad that I invited my barber who was supposed to cut my hair the evening before, and my barber comes to my wedding, he forgot his scissors. He forgot all of his tools. And that's the only reason I invited you, Joe. So I'm thinking about that and I was like, "Well, it's okay. We'll use a little gel and a little pomade and we'll figure this out." That's what I'm thinking.Then you wake up and I remember with my boys, we went to Dunkin' Donuts, and I still remember the egg, ham and cheese on an everything bagel. I still remember. The extra large coffee. Cream and sugar. I still remember all of that. And then you get ready. The tuxedo. The excitement. He said, "The sun is like that." There's an exuberance that every day is a gift. It's a gift to be alive. There's a joy. There's an eager anticipation. There's a brilliance. There's a radiance. And it moves through the sky, He said, "Like a strongman." Like a world class runner. Where it just seems so easy for them. Right? You ever watch the Olympics, you're like, "Yeah. I could do that. That's so easy." Someone once said like, "Every Olympic event should have just one regular person. Just for like so we know how good is Michael Phelps. Just throw in the commenter. The guy who was saying that Phelps is slow." Throw in that guy.And He's like this is what the sun's like. It's like an athlete. He makes it look so easy. Unaffected by how difficult it is. And it provides continual undeniable proof of the greatness of God. However nature has fallen, it's great and it's good, but it's fallen. So we can know a lot about God but the fallenness of creation gives us doubts. Is God good when there are earthquakes and forest fires and tsunamis and tornadoes? Is God good in those moments? And that's why we need more than just general revelation. We also need special revelation. We have natural revelation. We also need supernatural revelation to show us just how great God is. And this is the second point that God's glory in the Scriptures, God is not silent. He has spoken and He expresses Himself in two books, in nature and the Scriptures.And He comes and tells us that the Scriptures are from Him through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came. He believed that the Old Testament was God's word. He spoke more of God's word, and then sends the Holy Spirit to speak even more of God's word through the church. And Saint Peter, Peter the main apostle of Jesus Christ, the main disciple, he saw the glory of Christ. He saw the transfigured Christ where Jesus Christ unveiled His glory. Removed just a little bit so Peter, James, John, they saw the glory of Christ.And this is what Peter writes about that in connection to the Holy Scripture. 2 Peter 1:16, "For we do not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God, the Father. And the voice was borne to Him by the majestic glory. This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased. We ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with Him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place. Until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation for no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man.But men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." This is one of the most mind blowing text in all of Scripture. He said, "We saw the glory of God in Jesus Christ and we have something", not just equal in revelation. We have something even more glorious in revelation. And he's talking about the Holy Scriptures. He's talking about the miracle of the Holy Scriptures, and this is what the Psalmist talks about starting verse seven. He talks about the law of the Lord. It's perfect. Reviving of the soul. And here, I love getting into all the details about the lyrics and just the wordplay. One of the things I just want to point out is, he gives us 12 qualities here about the law of God. And you can study them on your own. He gives us six nouns, six adjectives and six verbs about the beauty of it. So you see how it's all planned.He's talking about the law and when we think of law, we think of just God's commandments, but it's more than that. It's the word Torah, or Torah, which is the God's teaching. It's God's wisdom. God's instruction. So for us, the Torah, for us God's instruction is more than just the Psalm. More than just the Ten Commandments. More than just the Old Testament. It's all of the Holy Scriptures. All 66 books. And if you study the Holy Scriptures, you really do see it's a miracle of God. If you go outside today, if you go up to 40 people, and you say, "Tell me what God is like from your perspective", you won't have 40 perspectives. You'll probably have 400 perspectives.Because every single person probably has 100 opinions on God and they're all contradictory. They will not be in unison. And the Holy Scriptures written over 1,600 years. Over 40 authors. In three different languages. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Written on three continents. You're talking about people who were tent makers, physicians, shepherds, farmers, fishermen, priests, philosophers, kings, and they're all singing in harmony. They're all speaking about the same glorious God. They're all speaking about the Holy Trinity with Jesus Christ at the center of this one theme. God created everything that humanity rebelled against God. That God sends a redeemer to die in our place. And that God does redeem and that God does transform people by the power of His Holy Spirit through the Holy Scriptures. And the Holy Scriptures have transformed billions of people. Lives are transformed. When people read this book and submit to the teachings of the God of this book, it transforms people. It transforms men. It transforms women. It transforms families. It transforms communities, nations. It transforms everything.And he says, "The law of the Lord, it's perfect. It's whole. It's complete. It's lacking defect of any kind. And it revives the soul." And the beauty of this text is he says, "The law of the Lord", he changes from El, Elohim, to Yahweh. That God gives this law because He's a loving God. And he gives us this law, this teaching, to show us how our souls can be revived. And the assumption for revive for this word is that something is wrong. That our souls are languishing. That there's a lack of energy. There's a lack of vibrance. There's a lack of life and our souls need to be refreshed and restored and reinvigorated. They need to be renewed. And the Holy Scriptures do this. If you're a Christian and you devote yourself as a discipline to studying the Scriptures, loving the Scriptures, you know exactly what I'm talking about.You wake up and it's as if you died a little in the inside. That's the only way I can really describe it. There's like a spiritual amnesia that happens where you forget that everything that happened before in terms of God, you wake up and it's as if everything God did, all of the revelations you got, it's as if blank slate and you need the soul to be revived again. And that's what God's word does. The second part of verse seven is, "The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple." It's sure. The testimony is God's own witness about who He is, what He requires. That's what the law is. And it's sure. It's verifiable. It's trustworthy. It's dependable. And there's a prophet. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simply. Assumption here, apart from God's law, there is no wisdom.And wisdom is very different from knowledge. You can get lots of knowledge about how the world works, but without wisdom which is why the world works the way it is, that's what wisdom is. It's being able to take truths about God and those truths now have purpose. And now you know how to take that knowledge and apply it. Wisdom is thinking the thoughts of God. It's seeing life as God sees life. And it's acting accordingly. Some of the most educated people in the world, if they don't know God, if they don't know why everything exists, if they don't submit themselves to God, Scripture calls that folly. That you can be getting incredible education, but without wisdom, without why are we here, who's behind me being here, what is my purpose in life, you're missing it.So my girls are back in school. Praise God. The youngest. The two youngest go to school now. Milana goes to pre-kindergarten at age three. And that, I feel so good about that. Praise God. The two oldest is still online, but the two youngest are out of the house for at least a few hours of the day. One of the things, as I grow older, like I've read the wisdom part. But as I grow older, I begin to realize a lot of what they teach in school is just folly. Like teach my kids math and two plus two is four. There's no debate on that. Teach my kids math. Teach them how to write. But as far as the content, apart from God and God's wisdom, you remove that from the classroom, and there's a lot of folly being taught. And we need to understand that we need wisdom on a daily basis. We need wisdom about how the world is. How the world works. And the wisdom is this is ... God says, "This is who you are. And here is the design book. Here is the design user manual."You need God's law. Psalm 19:8, "The precept of the Lord are right. Rejoicing the heart." Precepts are right and they rejoice the heart. What are precepts? They're rules. They're regulations. This is how you work, and I want to give you this manual so that you know how to have moral satisfaction. That's what the joy is. To gladden the heart with moral satisfaction. The law isn't given to us by God to restrict us from good. It's given to us to restrict us from evil. You ever meet a child that grew up with zero restrictions? You ever meet a kid like that? And for some reason it's always at the grocery store or at the airport. That's where you meet those kids. I don't know why it is, but it's true. Next time you fly, you'll see those kids.And probably that kid is sitting right next to you on the plane. We know. We know that children need a framework. They need to be told no. We know this. Why in the world would we think that if God has children, He would not tell them no? God does tell us no. He tells us no all the time to give us a better yes. He actually wants us to get to the point where wee tell ourselves no. That's self-control. Self-discipline. And say, "Yes" to the great things of life. That's what parenting is. And that's what the Holy Scriptures are. God is saying, "This is my word to you as my children. I want the best for you." The law is designed to lead us in the way of life, peace, blessing. And that's why His law is very specific about very nitty-gritty everyday things. Here's my law regarding work. He's my law regarding finances. Here's my law regarding desire. All kinds of desire. Here's my law regarding love. Here's my law regarding how you structure your life. And it leads to rejoicing of the heart. Sin steals joy. Holiness replaces it.Holiness fills our heart with incredible joy. Psalm 19:8, "The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." The commandment of the Lord enlightens the eyes. It's pure in the sense that there is no sin, malice corrupting influence. There's no darkness in God's law. And it does enlighten the eyes. In terms of it reveals what life is like. It reveals the path forward. It enlightens your eyes. It clears your vision. It's like when you wake up. You always got to wash your eyes. There's all kinds of gunk in there. And for me, I don't really see everything until I put on my glasses. Everything is blurry right now. The first two years I would preach without glasses because I was like, "I don't need to see people's reactions." It would just ... I don't need to see people falling asleep. I don't need that.This is what God's law is. It fixes your eyes. You begin to see what is good. And you begin to see what is evil. And on top of that, and this is as you grow in the faith, you don't just see good. You begin to love good. You begin to be drawn to the good. You don't just see evil. You begin to hate evil. The part of loving God is also hating evil. All the evil within, all the evil without. And part of loving God is also loving the things that God loves and God loves the world and God loves people. And God's law does this to the sight of our hearts. The eyes of our hearts. Psalm 19:9, "The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. The rules of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." The fear of the lord, it's clean.Again, there's a parallel with the previous verses. Clean is pure, meaning the fear of God is what cleanses us. The fear of God is what keeps us close to Him. And I believe that a lot of Christians don't really grow in their faith because they don't have a theology of fearing God. If God is the God who created everything that there is, if God is who Scripture says that God is, why would we not fear Him? And I'm not talking about a fear that pushes us away from Him. I'm talking about a fear that pushes us away from anything that would pull us away from God. There's a difference. Fearing God is you love Him so much. You want to do everything you can to bring delight to His heart instead of disappointment. And that's what fear is. He's so great. He's so incredible that when you love Him, you fear anything that will pull you away from Him because that's what brings disappointment to His heart. How is your fear of ... Do you fear God?Do you fear God? And the greater ... I don't know ... You kind of experience this when you meet someone famous. If you've ever met someone who is in power. If you ... I remember one time I shook Bill Clinton's hand and I was in college, one time. And I remember just like people were in awe of the president. People were in awe of this person in a position of power. There's something ... there is like a trepidation that happens. Well, how about the God who created that guy? How about the God who created everything? And a very healthy love for God always comes with fear. Fear of God that's pure and it's enduring forever. The rules of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. Psalm 19:10, "More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold. Sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb." He's saying that the law of God, the word of God, it's treasure. Many of us we don't really understand Scripture because we read Scripture like we read a law book or like a history book. He says, "No, no, no. This is the way you got to read Scripture. Like a treasure map."Like this map is given you, and you, if you study this map attentively, you will find much treasure. More treasure than fine gold. And He says, "It's sweeter than honey and drippings of the honeycomb." My community group knows this and the staff at Mosaic knows this. Whenever we have Scripture and we study Scripture, I start to salivate. Like it's so delicious. There's so much goodness in God's word as you dig into really what's going on. Paying attention to every single word. And he said, "It's like honey." The thing about honey, if you've ever met anyone that is a beekeeper that makes honey, Tanya's dad is a beekeeper in Philadelphia. He used to do this in Ukraine and then he went to a monastery that has huge fields. He walked up to the door and said, "Hello. I'm going to bring my bees here. Is that okay?" And they said, "What are you talking about?"He's like, "Here's some honey. It's a foretaste of the honey I keep bringing you." And they said, "Okay." So he's got these little beehives. He's got little boxes. And he shows us what he does and it's so much work to care for them and to create a space for them to live and to make sure they don't get sick, but it's so worth it. And that's what He says. That's what Scripture is. It takes time to mine for treasures. It takes time to make the honey. But it's so worth it. A few things here about how to study Scripture. My favorite view of how to study Scripture comes from the monastic movement where they would study. That's what they did as a full-time job.And they talk about the five movements of studying Scripture. Because a lot of people think of Scripture of like I need to study the Greek, I need to study the Hebrew, I need to really understand what's going on, and it's a very mechanical understanding of Scripture. But the goal of Scripture is to have a relationship with the Lord. To spend time with the Lord, for Him to satisfy your soul and give you power for the day.The five movements are silencio, lectio, meditatio, oratio and contemplatio. The first one is silencio where you're quiet before the Lord. You sit down with Scriptures. Quiet before Him. And you start praying. You start a conversation with the Lord. You ask for the Lord to fill you. You enter into God's presence. You slow down. You intentionally release the chaos of what's inside and the noise in your mind. And then lectio is you begin to read the word slowly. Paying attention to every single word, lingering over the words, studying the context. Studying how the words work together in the sentence. How the sentence works together in the paragraph, et cetera. When a word catches your attention, stop. Pause. Because at different readings, God speaks differently. Yes, it always means what it meant and the context is the same. But sometimes... and this is why I always say in my community group, "What hit you in a fresh way? What stood out to you in particular as you're reading this text?"Stop and attend to what God is saying. Meditatio, read the Scriptures a second time out loud. Savor the words. Listen for an invitation from the ... and there's something about reading it out loud. Speaking the words of God into the space. Oratio is you respond. Lord, what did you teach me here? How do I need to change? How do I need to repent? Where in my life am I not submitting to your word? And you enter into a personal dialogue with the Lord. And then contemplatio is contemplate. The rest of the day, contemplate. What did the Lord say and what is He continuing to say, yield and surrender to the Lord. Psalm 19:11, "Moreover, by them your servant is warned, in keeping them there is great reward." And from the warning, he transitions to prayer and repentance. And he allows God to warn Him and as God warns him, he turns to the Lord in repentance. And this is point three. The glory of the Lord in the Christian.And by Christian, I mean a person who has represented of their sins and trusted in Jesus Christ. Psalm 19:12, "Who can discern his errors, declare me innocent from hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins. Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless and innocent of great transgression." He asked God. He said, "God, I have hidden faults." What does hidden faults mean? It's sins that you don't see how sinful they are. It's when you see the world around you living a certain way and then you say, "Why can't I live like that?" And you come to the Lord and you say, "Lord, reveal the sinfulness of sin." That's what he's talking about. That's the hiddenness. And then the presumptuous sins, when you allow hidden sins to remain in your life, they become presumptuous sins. And by presumptions sins, there's a defiance.No, I will not submit to the Lord. Or, and I see this in a lot of Christians, you presume on God's grace. Yes, this is a sin. But God will forgive me. God understands. And that lack of fear keeps you in the presumptuous sin which has dominion over you. So he says, "God, forgive me. Reveal the sinfulness of sin and release me from the dominion of it." Psalm 19:14, "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight. Oh Lord, my rock and my redeemer."I love how he brings the word redeemer in here, and I love how in the temple we have a Bible verse. I know that my redeemer lives. It's from the book of Job. Why in the Old Testament are we using the word redeemer? And if you remember in the Book of Ruth, we talked about this. That Boaz was the redeemer. The redeemer of this idea was this is a person who will come and pay for your debts. This is a person who will come and free you from the dominion of another owner. And he says, "God, you, Yahweh, you're my redeemer. Redeem me."And ultimately, it was Jesus Christ who dies on a cross for our sins. He said, "No. You humanity, you", every single one of us, we have not kept God's law. We have actually contradicted. Transgressed God's law. We were enslaved to the presumptuous sins of our hearts. Jesus Christ comes. Lives a perfect life. A life of embodying the law. A life of perfection. Purity. Holiness. And then gives Himself as a sacrifice for us, for our sins. And this is why I love these verses in the Psalms, because he's talking. This is how you become a Christian. You repent. You ask for forgiveness. You turn away from sin. You turn back to the Lord who is our rock. And He is our redeemer. 1 Peter 1:10 through 12, "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully. Inquiring what person or time the spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you.And the things that have now been announced to you through those who preach the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven." Things into which angels long to look. In the same way that we stare at the sun or we stare at creation. Don't stare at the sun. In the same way that we are blessed by looking at creation. Angels stare into the gospel, because they can't believe what God did to recreate humanity. Meaning that every single Christian is a miracle. In the same way that creation reflects the glory of God, it's a miracle. In the same way that Holy Scriptures are a miracle. Every single Christian is a miracle of God because it took that. It took God's word, spoken into your heart in order to regenerate you. So God is glorified in the cosmos, in the Scriptures, and in the Christian.In conclusion, what do you think of when you think of the good life? What do you think of when you think of the good life? Do you think of fast cars, vacations, big houses, et cetera? This is what God wants. This is was God says that leads to ultimate satisfaction. What is the chief end of man? This is the Westminster catechism. What is the chief end, chief and highest end of man? The answer, man's chief and highest end is to glorify God and fully enjoy Him forever. Enjoy God. Enjoy His creation. Enjoy His Holy Scriptures, and enjoy the fellowship that God gives us with His children. Let's pray.God, what a great word that you have given us from Psalm 19. I pray that you make us a people who do enjoy you. Who seek to enjoy you on a daily basis. That you are so much better and so much satisfying than anything else. And we thank you for Jesus who reconciles us with you, and we thank you for the Holy Spirit who is with us. And we pray this in Christ's name, amen.

Devenir PRODUCTIF comme les GRANDS AUTEURS (Sartre, Marx, Simone de Beauvoir, Stephen King, Emmanuel Kant). Pour cet épisode, je me suis dit que cela pourrait être intéressant de rechercher et d'analyser les journées types de grands auteurs prolifiques. Pour pouvoir se situer par rapport à des personnes productives et créatives qui ont impactées leur époque. Car aujourd'hui, nous courons à droite à gauche, nous sommes de plus en plus sollicités : pour autant avons-nous de l'impact ? Bonne écoute ! S'INSCRIRE A LA NEWSLETTER LE NECTAR

Beethoven avait noté sur ses Carnets : « Le ciel étoilé au-dessus de moi, la loi morale en moi. » La phrase d’Emmanuel Kant condense l’idéalisme transcendantal en deux temps : les Idées infinies dont le ciel étoilé est l’emblème, les principes inconditionnels qu’elles peuvent susciter dans un être fini. Manière de dire que les étoiles peuvent faire trembler … Continuer la lecture de « Métaclassique #80 – Etoiler »

Este episodio del podcast es parte II de una serie de dos partes dadas en Radio Victoria (www.radios.co.cr/victoria-heredia) sobre el Cristianismo y el Conocimiento. En esta segunda parte examinamos más sobre como la teoría de conocimiento de Emmanuel Kant que domina el mundo de hoy, intenta eliminar al conocimiento de Dios, y los dos mundos […] The post TP020 El Conocimiento y el Cristianismo Parte 2 appeared first on Ta Panta.

durée : 00:06:18 - Emmanuel Kant et les vertus du confinement - Les philosophes en crise |Comment la philosophie, grâce à la raison confinée de Kant, fut-elle sauvée ? C'est le récit que nous fait Adèle van Reeth de la vie de ce philosophe qui ne connaît pas la crise, réglé comme une horloge, mais qui, par la rencontre avec la pensée de David Hume, découvre le scepticisme et remet en question la raison... ouvrant la voie d'une philosophie nouvelle.

Vet någon av oss vad ett jag är, vad som bildar ett någon?. Ida Hallgren är filosof och psykolog som arbetar med frågor om moralpsykologi och skuld vid Göteborgs Universitet. Redan som barn började intresset för filosofiska frågor som dessa.  Filosofi och religion har mycket gemensamt och det finns inom bägge skrifter som reflekterar kring vad livet är och kan vara. Andakten tar sitt avstamp i kristendomens gyllne regel om att älska sin nästa. Alla vill vara någon, i någon annans ögon. Samtidigt kan vi glömma att se, dem som inte gynnar oss själva. Vi bör behandla andra människor som mål i sig, inte som medel för att uppnå något eget mål. Ida Hallgren   Emmanuel Kant är en av dem som citeras i andakten med sin syn på människans rätt att vara i sig själv. Men är detta något som gäller endast människor? Nutidens filosofer som Christine Korsgard vidgar frågan till de andra djuren. Text Mark. 12:31 Emmanuel Kant Christine Korsgaard Musik Miljarder stjärnor/Per Texas Johansson More human/Lars Jansson Trio Producent Neta Norrmo för Sveriges Radio Göteborg liv@sverigesradio.se

Wann haben Sie sich das letzte Mal gefragt, wer Sie sind? Kann man sich selbst gleich sein? Ist Identität statisch oder dynamisch? Welche Beziehung hat die Erinnerung zur Identität? Wie zuverlässig ist Identität im sozialen Leben? Michel Friedman und der Philosoph Tim Henning sprechen über Identität.

durée : 00:02:31 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - Absolument, je m’explique. Le conservatisme en France, rassemble peu d’électeurs, comme en témoigne l’échec du parti Les Républicains aux européennes, parti Les Républicains qui avait adopté une ligne conservatrice en prenant comme tête de liste le philosophe François-Xavier Bellamy.

La citation du jour revient à Emmanuel Kant, un ancien philosophe allemand: « Des pensées sans contenu sont vides, des intuitions sans concepts, aveugles. » Comme le titre le mentionne, le sujet du jour pour cet épisode de L'Accélérateur sera les avantages de la création de contenu. Je parlais déjà de création de contenu dans le passé, par exemple avec mon épisode de la semaine dernière sur le marketing par courriel et dans mes différents articles/podcasts sur le podcasting justement. Parmi ces articles, il y a entre autres « 3 bonnes façons de créer du contenu pour son site », le « Guide de la création de contenu pour débutant » et « Startup? Par où débuter ta stratégie de création de contenu? ». Aujourd'hui, nous allons voir plus en détails les avantages de la création de contenu ainsi que à quoi elle sert, et cela, peu importe le format. Il n'est pas question de guerre ici entre les formats écrits, parlés, vidéos ou autres. Avant d'aller plus en détails dans le contenu de cet épisode, je voulais vous parler du livre de la semaine, qui nous parle justement des avantages de la création de contenu. Ce livre présenté par Micheline Bourque, présidente-fondatrice du club de lecture affaires,  a le potentiel d'inspirer les entrepreneurs qui nous écoutent. Il s'agit de «Bien utiliser son Blog, Création, visibilité, influence et performance» de Stéphane Briot.  Bonne écoute! Les avantages de la création de contenu: 1-Renforcer votre image de marque Par la création de contenu qui se rattache à votre marque personnelle, le lien que les consommateurs feront entre vos produits et leurs besoins deviendra plus évident. Au lieu de rechercher des produits au sens générique du terme, vous pouvez ainsi espérer que ceux-ci vous recherchent vous, de façon plus précise et directe. 2-Générer et qualifier des prospects Par votre façon de créer du contenu, les médias utilisés et les sujets dont vous traitez, il vous est possible d'attirer et/ou de qualifier des clients potentiels pour votre entreprise ou pour vous-même (en branding personnel par exemple). Vous obtiendrez ainsi plus de visibilité sur les moteurs de recherches pour un sujet bien précis, ce qui peut être bénéfique pour vous. 3-Développer une clientèle Profitez du fait que les besoins de votre clientèle évoluent dans le temps. En évoluant avec eux dans le contenu que vous leur livrez, vous pourrez développer d'autres occasions d'affaires encore inexplorées. 4-Augmenter votre notoriété Que ce soit dans un cadre personnel ou entrepreneurial, votre notoriété obtiendra un solide coup de pouce lorsque vous serez en mesure de créer du contenu sur une base régulière. De faire figure d'expert dans son domaine n'a que de points positifs à présenter, mis à part de s'exposer à la critique, qui devient parfois un prix à payer. 5-Fidéliser vos clients Entretenir vos clients par le biais de votre création de contenu est un point non négligeable. Ceux-ci vont vous percevoir comme étant sur le qui-vive. Comme quelqu'un constamment informé et alerte sur les possibilités du moment.Pour de l'information concernant l'utilisation de vos données personnelles -

Litt’Orale, revue sonore de littérature et autres langages, propose une exploration sonore de la création dans le but de promouvoir le travail des artistes. Voix : Lise Paco | Tiré du recueil philo "Je" Cet article Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique : extrait | Emmanuel Kant est apparu en premier sur - Littérature sonore & autres langages.

Vinny, William, and Chris discuss the history of political philosophy, on the second part of our series covering the topic. For this episode, we cover Thomas Paine, Emmanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, and more.

www.Wonder.land is Damon Albarn's re-imagining of Lewis Carol's tales of Alice, the White rabbit et al, transferred from The Manchester International Festival to London's National Theatre. Lily Tomlin plays the feisty Grandma who has to help her granddaughter find the money needed for an abortion Nureyev - Dance to Freedom, is a BBC4 drama-documentary which tells the story of the famous dancer's dramatic defection to The West in 1961 Adam Roberts' novel The Thing Itself deals with Emmanuel Kant, the search for extra-terrestrial life, time-hopping and so much more London's V+A Museum has reopened refurbished European Galleries. With an embarrassment of riches from which to choose, how have they updated the display? Tom Sutcliffe's guests are John Tusa, Louise Doughty and Lynn Nead. The producer is Oliver Jones.

    Henry Hume, Lord Kames (1696-1782)       Henry Hume, Lord Kames was a distant relative as well as friend to David Hume, although they spell their names differently.  David Hume changed the spelling so that his English readers would pronounce it properly.  Henry Hume kept the original spelling H-O-M-E.               Unlike David Hume, Lord Kames did not go to university nor even have the benefit of a sojourn to France to broaden his education. Much more like Jane Austen’s Lizzie Bennet, Kames was born the third son out of nine children to a heavily indebted but well-respected family.  He was educated at home with his siblings and was apprenticed as a solicitor.  Unlike Lizzie Bennet, who faces limitations due to her gender, Kames was able to participate in a number of philosophical societies and gentlemen’s clubs.  He further expanded his knowledge through jobs such as Curator of the Advocates’ Library in Edinburgh which gave him access to a wealth of books.        There are a number of factors contributing to Kames success.  Clearly two of these factors were his talent and his drive.  Another was the luck of a long life.  Kames was born in 1696 and lived through much of the eighteenth century to the ripe age of 86.  Contemporaries commented on his remarkable good health in old age, the longevity of his memory, and his feisty personality.  Kames is quoted as saying of old age “why should I sit with my finger in my cheek waiting for death to take me?’  He did not specify which cheek.        After his apprenticeship he worked his way up through the judicial ranks to become a highly respected judge, which is how he acquired the title Lord—it was not a hereditary title but an honor associated with his work as a judge.  Lord Kames again like Lizzie Bennett benefited from a lucky marriage.  He waited until age 47 to finally decide to marry.  His bride, Agatha Drummond, an attractive socialite eleven years his junior came from the wealthy Blair Drummond family.  James Boswell’s journals praise her for her looks, conversational skills and sense of humor—high praise from Bozzie.  Agatha’s original marriage portion was a moderate £1000 without any prospects due to an older brother with a family of his own.  However in 1766, Agatha unexpectedly became heiress to the entire Blair Drummond estate upon the unfortunate death of her brother and his son.  Thereafter, she and her children styled themselves Home-Drummond to acknowledge her family’s legacy and her husband Kames actively worked to enjoy and care for the sumptuous estate.       The inheritance impacted Kames’ work by providing a country writing retreat.  He was a prolific writer with 8 legal histories, plus books on diverse subjects like agriculture, and political science.  His book with the greatest impact on the history of rhetoric and the subject of our talk today was Elements of Criticism.  Published in 1761, Elements of Criticism brought the Enlightenment’s “scientific” view of human nature to the critical evaluation of the fine arts.  I would like to highlight how this interesting eighteenth century text connects to some very recent conversations about multimodal, visual and spatial rhetorics.                 Elements of Criticism made a splash and was a bit controversial due to its expansive inclusion of the visual arts with belle lettres.  Developing a theory of criticism for the fine artsrequired Kames to take sides in debates about human nature, beauty, and human nature.  He is participating in these with writers like Frances Hutcheson, Thomas Reid, and Edmund Burke.  At the time he was writing the orthodox and moderate factions of the Presbyterian church were vying for power in Scotland.  Based on theological ideas going back to the Reformation, both sides had mixed feelings about the impact of visual arts like paintings and sculpture on the viewer. In some areas theater was illegal.          Most of Elements of Criticism engages with literary texts for its examples and illustrations but his methods take into account the multimodality of the work.  For example, Kames takes encourages readers to take into account the musical and melodic qualities of poetry in his analysis of meter.  In spite of the disapproval of theater in Edinburgh, he works in criticism of plays and operas—not just the librettos but also of the staging and sets tacitly indicating through these inclusions his views on theater debate.       For those listeners interested in spatial theory or rhetorics of space, Kames applies the final chapter of the book the criticism of gardening and architecture.  The chapter thinks about how progression through space and the arrangement of objects in space can influence the mind and especially the emotions.  Kames emphasizes the natural style of gardening over more ornate or fantastic styles.  He presents the ornate French gardens as an example of what not to do, and praises the harmony of Chinese models.       Many of Kames’s proscriptive and prescriptive critiques participate in a larger Scottish Enlightenment conversation about taste in which moderates posed that fine arts were acceptable if morally improving to the audience or reader.  In this argument the wealthier members of society had an obligation to develop their taste as a sort of moral education.  For Kames, taste could also be developed by the lower classes through proximity to and observation of tasteful public works.  This idea represents a synthesis of ideas about the human tendency towards imitation and new concepts of the moral sense.  This chapter along with Sir John Dalrymple’s Essay on Landscape Gardening popularized the natural garden trend in mid-eighteenth century Scotland.               Elements of Criticism had a lasting impact as a textbook well into the 19th century and was by no means confined to Scotland.  The work was quickly translated into German and appeared in the library of Emmanuel Kant.  It crossed the Atlantic where it was taught in rhetoric courses at Yale side-by-side with texts by authors like Hugh Blair and George Campbell, according to the research of Gregory Clark.         To close our discussion of Elements of Criticism I would like to bring things back to the author himself.  Lord Kames, after all, did not have the benefit of a formal education, nor did he have the restrictions.  Although his writing is clear, he does not aspire to the heights of rhetorical eloquence.  In his judicial practice he was well known for using casual and even ribald language with his colleagues.  According to local legend, Kames at his retirement took leave of his colleagues with a cheery “Fare ye a’weel, ye bitches!”       Thanks for listening to our podcast today.  This is Connie Steel at the University of Texas for Mere Rhetoric.           Chambers, Robert.  Traditions of Edinburgh, Vol 2.  Edinburgh:  W. & C. Tait 1825, p 171.   Googlebooks Web.        Clark, Greg.  “Timothy Dwight's Moral Rhetoric at Yale College, 1795–1817.” Rhetorica:  A Journal of the History of Rhetoric.  Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring 1987) pp 149-161.   Home, Henry, Lord Kames. Elements of Criticism.  Edited with an Introduction by Peter Jones (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). 2 Vols.  www.libertyfund.org May 31, 2015. Web.       Lehmann, William C. Henry Home, Lord Kames, and the Scottish Enlightenment: A Study in National Character and in the History of Ideas.  The Hague:  Martinus Hijhoff, 1971.  (International Archives of the History of Ideas.  Info on Agatha and the family, on Agatha p 64-65.  “Bitches” 135 (from Chambers).       Miller, Thomas.  “The Formation of College English:  A Survey of the Archives of Eighteenth-Century Rhetorical Theory and Practice.”  Rhetoric Society Quarterly.  Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1990) pp 261-286.                          

En mi humilde opinión, la mayor contribución de Emmanuel Kant, uno de los filósofos más importantes de la historia, fue su descubrimiento de que no llegamos al mundo completamente ignorantes, sino con un conocimiento innato. Nacemos con los conceptos de espacio, de tiempo y con otros relacionados con cómo está formado el mundo; no tenemos que aprenderlos. Este conocimiento se ha ido adquiriendo durante la evolución de nuestra especie y de alguna manera se ha codificado en los genes que luego construyen nuestro cerebro. Esta idea de Kant, posibilitada por su razón pura, ha sido confirmada hoy por métodos científicos.

Was passiert wenn Emmanuel Kant und Robocop an einer Ampel stehen und warum sind Nihilisten schlechte Ärzte? Das und mehr erfahren wir, wenn Biologie- und Ethikstudent Marty uns in die wundersame Welt von Philosophie, Bioethik, Genmanipulation und Transhumanismus entführt. Rauchende Köpfe und spaßiges Halbwissen garantiert.

Les rencontres de la Bibliothèque, mercredi 20 mai 2015 Avec André Stanguennec, professeur de philosophie de l’université de Nantes En savoir plus : http://www.bibliotheque-rennesmetropole.fr/agenda/les-grands-philosophes-emmanuel-kant/5c0b950bc3345b436e7fb51ae673d4df/

Ed is an author, businessman, athlete and decorated marine officer. Ed’s served around the world from Afghanistan to Indonesia, has published more than 10 works of fiction and non-fiction, has a slew of qualifications (including his Masters Degree in Security Studies) and is an outspoken advocate of women’s rights, and has written several essays on women in combat. Ed's Homework List  Ed's "launch page" link: http://ehcarpenter.blogspot.com/ Gamification  Follow Yu-kai Chou on Twitter... (@yukaichou) and check out his website: http://www.yukaichou.com/ Kantian Universalism  An idea originated by the philosopher Emmanuel Kant as the "Categorical Imperative" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." in simpler terms, "if everyone acted this way, would that be a world you'd want to live in". For example, should you borrow money without intending to pay it back? Kant would say no, because if it were a universal action, nobody would lend money to anyone because they know they will never be repaid. Useful Prosumption:  For the "Useful" part, listen to Episode 36 of "The Tim Ferriss Show" (podcast) with Alexis Ohanian - for the Prosumption part, read "Revolutionary Wealth" by Alvin and Heidi Toffler Five books to take to space list! 1. Bill Bryson, "Neither Here Nor There: Travels in Europe" 2. Bertrand Russell "History of Western Philosophy" 3. Neil Gaiman's "Sandman Omnibus" (a giant collection that is still only one book - bam!) 4. The biggest "X-Men" omnibus I can find (again, technically ONE book!) 5. David Kaiser, "How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival" Awesome literary linkage: http://zenhabits.net/20-amazing-and-essential-non-fiction-books-to-enrich-your-library/

Dans cet épisode : Andorre-la-Vieille, Emmanuel Kant, Cap Saint-Vincent, Couchsurfing, Vélos Roy-O, Vélocité Café, Teruel, Darvaza, Lausanne, Anneau d’ingénieur, Ronda, Gin Ungava, Puebla del Principe, Don Quichotte.

Seminario sobre creación literaria impartido por el escritor nicaragüense Sergio Ramírez. En esta primer sesión se expone a la imaginación como un espejo múltiple de la realidad.

Immanuel Kant nació en 1724 y murió en 1804, filósofo alemán, considerado por muchos como el pensador más importante de la era moderna. Descubridor de las galaxias.

I. Introduction: Guarding the Treasure That's a marvelous song. How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news. And I have the joy and privilege of Bringing good news to this morning. In this passage, we have a fantastic description of the gospel itself and I'm looking forward to being able to explain to you just how beautiful is the Gospel that we cherish and that we treasure. Perhaps you didn't know this, but 30 miles south of Louisville, Kentucky, there's a treasure as well, a treasure more vast and more measurable than any of you can imagine, greater than Bill Gates and Ted Turner put together. Probably you never thought of Louisville, Kentucky in this way. I didn't either, until we went there and realized that we were just 30 miles north of Fort Knox. So, we wanted to go down there and see all that gold. Christi and I got the kids, and we put them in the car and we drove down to see bricks of gold. I don't know why I wanted to see that. I saw a National Geographic article on it, so we drove down there and there's a military museum and some other things down there. But when we came to the place where the actual gold was held, we were somewhat disappointed, because instead of a visitor center we saw a guard booth and instead of some kind of a museum or some tour that we could take, we saw barbed wire and an ugly blockade look, reinforced concrete, sunk below the surface of the earth, impervious to bombing and also in impervious to visitors. So, we had hoped to visit this gold and see it, but we had no chance of doing so. There was going to be no visit that day. And nor is there a visit at Fort Knox any day. And why is it so protected? It's because the federal government has the majority of their gold holding there. Now, we're not on the gold standard anymore, but they understand if that gold were somehow to be tampered with, if it were to be stolen, that the United States economy and the whole world economy would be devastated. And so they think they will stop at nothing to protect it. There's no length that they'll go to protect it. But we have a treasure in the gospel that is of far greater worth than all those bricks of gold. And in the passage this morning, the Apostle Paul charges Timothy to spare nothing to protect that gospel message. To spare nothing to cherish the words of the gospel that we're entrusted to Paul by Jesus Christ himself, and then through Paul to Timothy, and through Timothy and others ultimately to us. Spare nothing to protect that message. This is Paul's third charge to Timothy. What I'm going to do is I'm going to read the first 14 verses of Chapter One, just to get a start and then we're going to look more carefully at the beautiful, the good deposit that was given to us. We're going to survey it. We're going to feel it’s worth and its value, and then we're going to look at how it is we are to protect it. So listen out of verses one through 14. "Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus. To Timothy, my dear son, grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus, our Lord. I thank God whom I serve as my forefathers did with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. Recalling your tears, I long to see you so that I may be filled with joy. I've been reminded of your sincere faith which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded now lives in you also. For this reason, I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you, through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love, and of self-discipline. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord or ashamed of me, His prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the Gospel, by the power of God who has saved us and called us to a holy life. Not because of anything we have done, but because of His own purpose and grace, this grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. But it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and brought life, and immortality to light through the Gospel. And of this gospel, I was appointed a herald and an apostle, and a teacher. That is why I'm suffering as I am. Yet I'm not ashamed, because I know whom I believed and I'm convinced that He is able to guard, what I have entrusted to him for that day. What you have heard from me keep as the pattern of sound teaching with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you, guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us." II. Paul’s Circumstances: Persecution under Nero What a charge. The third charge that Paul gives to Timothy. Now let's remind ourselves of the context. Paul was suffering persecution at the hands of the insane Roman Emperor Nero. As you remember, Nero head for one reason or another, burned half the city of Rome, and had decided to blame it on the Christians. This was the first persecution by the Roman government of the Christian people and the Apostle Paul was to die under that persecution, and Paul knew it. When he sat down to write this letter, he knew he was going to die, he'd already had his first trial. Second trial was coming up very soon. And he knew he was going to die. And so he wants to write a final letter to Timothy, to entrust to Timothy a serious charge, the Gospel ministry. That charge have been entrusted to him by Jesus Christ and now he was going to entrust it with all seriousness to Timothy who had been his right-hand man on his missionary journeys. We've already looked at the first charge that Paul gave to Timothy in verse six. He says, "Fan your gift in the flame." We know that this is Timothy spiritual gift of preaching and teaching. The second charge, we discussed a couple of weeks ago. Namely that Timothy should never be ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or of Jesus Christ or the people of Christ, but rather, with boldness, with fearlessness, he should preach this Gospel message. III. Assessing the Good Deposit (vs. 8-10) So, now we come to the third charge that he should guard the good deposit. Now, we need to survey this deposit in order to understand what Paul was commanding Timothy to do. Thankfully, in a beautiful way, Paul condenses the Gospel in just a few verses. In verses 8-10, we can survey the whole good deposit. There we see the character of our salvation, we see the source of our salvation and the ground of our salvation. In verse eight, it says that God has saved us, and He's called us now to a holy life. And then in verse 10, it says that Christ has destroyed death, and brought life, and immortality to light through the Gospel. He has saved us. I could say He is saving us now and He will save us in the future. The character of this gospel message is that it's comprehensive. It's a total salvation from sin. The character of salvation Some people have summed it up into three P's. That Jesus Christ has saved us from the penalty of sin. He is saving us now from the power of sin and some day he's going to save us, we who are his children, from the very presence of sin. Oh, what a day that'll be. No more temptation, no more suffering, or struggle with sin, what a day. To be totally free from sin, and all of its manifestations. It's a comprehensive salvation. Well, when we say that Jesus Christ has saved us from sin's penalty, what are we saying? Romans 6:23 tells us what that penalty is, it says the wages or what we deserve for sin, is death. The wages of sin is death. What do we mean by death? Well, we all know about physical death, physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Now, we know from Romans 5 that death entered the world because of sin, physical death. We don't say that people die because they committed this specific sin, but just death entered and hangs over all of us because of sin. But the scripture has more to say about death than just physical death, there's a spiritual death as well. Ephesians chapter two tells us about that. It says in Ephesians two that all people who do not know Jesus Christ are dead in their transgressions and sins while they live. That's somewhat of a paradox, dead while you live, living dead. If you don't know Jesus Christ, you're dead in your transgressions and sins, and you can't respond to God, you can't understand what he's saying to you. You're like a spiritual corpse until Jesus Christ, by His power, raises you from the dead you won't respond, but he has that power. And all of you who are born again who know Jesus Christ, you know what I'm talking about. The power of God to raise you from the dead, spiritually. But there is a more serious death, and it's where that spiritual death that we experience now, when we don't know Jesus becomes permanent, eternal, final on Judgment Day. It's what scripture calls the second death. Revelation Chapter 20:14 says that the lake of fire is the second death. Jesus Christ came to save us from that, to suffer on the cross so that we would not have to suffer eternally away from God. He came to save us from sin's penalty and by His death on the cross, that's what he's done. But he's also come to save us from sin's power. It says that He has saved us and has called us with a holy calling. He's called us to a holy life. He's called us to be different, to come out of the world and to be different. The church of Jesus Christ is to be a holy church. We're not to be like the world. We're to imitate, to follow Jesus Christ and all of His ways. He's called us with a holy calling. Are you taking that calling seriously? If you're a born again Christian, you should be holy, you should be growing in holiness, you should be more holy a year from now than you are now. More faithful in putting sin to death. This is the holy calling, that He's called us for. And in the end, He will save us from sin's very presence. He will save us from the existence of sin in our lives. 1 John 3 says that when we see Him, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is. When you see Jesus Christ face-to-face, all sin will be removed forever, there'll be no more temptation and no more suffering under temptation, and under sin. So, this is the character of our salvation. And isn't it comprehensive? Isn't it beautiful? It's a total salvation from sin. It's a salvation in the past, because Jesus died on the cross. We have been saved from sin's penalty. Salvation in the present, as God's power works in us. Holiness and righteousness and it will be a salvation in the future, when Jesus Christ comes back and we see Him face-to-face and all sin is removed. The character of our salvation. The Source of Salvation But what is its source? Where does it come from? As we look at the river of our salvation.Where are the headwaters? The cataracts of this? As we trace it back, what's the origin of it all? In 1860, a British man, named James Hanningspeak traced the Nile River back to its origin. Now this had been a problem that had eluded people for 2000 years. They wanted to know what was the source of the Nile. And so they had traced it from Egypt up, following along into Sudan, but they reached physical difficulties, they couldn't keep following, it was too hard and no one knew where the Nile came from. Well, James Hanningspeak found that it originated in what he called or named Lake Victoria in the center of Africa. 4150 miles away from where it's spilled out into the Mediterranean sea, longest river on earth. As we look at the river of our salvation, we trace it back to its origin, where is it? Well, Paul answers that, both negatively and positively. Negatively in verse 9. He says, it's not because of anything we have done. Not because of anything we have done. This message of salvation is not about what you have done, or have accomplished, it's not about your actions at all. It's about what God has done through Jesus Christ, on the cross. That's the origin. It's not anything that we have done. Paul taught the same thing in Ephesians 2:8-9, it says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves. It's a gift of God, not by works. So that no one can boast." I won't stand any boasting before Him on that great day. Salvation is His gift, He offers it freely. It's not because of anything we have done, negatively. He says. But positively, he says it is because of God's purpose and His grace. God's purpose means his will, his reason, his decision, it's what he wanted to do. You look at the first verse of the entire book, he says Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, what, "By the will of God, God wanted me to be an apostle, and that's what I am." The will of God. Each one of you who is a Christian, you're a Christian because the will of God. His purpose, also His grace. What is grace? We sing that wonderful hymn, Amazing Grace. What's so amazing about grace? Well, let me say, if you meditate on sin and understand yourself before a holy God, you'll see what's so amazing about grace. Grace is amazing. Why should He give His beloved son for you? Because He loves and not because of anything He sees in you or me, just because He loves. That's what's so amazing about grace, it's His purpose and His grace. But when was this grace given to us? When was this plan worked out? Well, here's a mystery, but it says that this grace was given us in Christ Jesus, before the beginning of time. Before the beginning of time. I was reading a book recently by what many people consider to be the most brilliant man alive, today, Steven Hawking, some of you have heard of Stephen Hawking, he's a British physicist. Confined to a wheelchair because of Lou Gehrig's Disease, but his mind is active and sharp. And he wrote a book called "A Brief History of Time." A Brief History of Time. Many of you perhaps have seen it, it was on the New York Times Best Seller list. It's physics made simple for people like you and me who are laymen, don't really fully understand physics. But what he sought to do and he spent about 30 or 40 pages doing is proving that time had an origin. Many Physicists believe that there is no origins of time, that the universe has always been here, and will always be here, etcetera. That time had an origin. He proves it through mathematics and through observation and other things like that. Well, sometimes I think this is really wonderful. Physicists are somewhat like mountain climbers, climbing up the mountain of truth. And when they get to the top, they find that the theologians were already there, especially believers. All you need to do is read it in the Bible. This grace was given us when? Before the beginning of time. Time had a beginning and before that, God was active, He was doing thing. He was giving you grace. Well, how can that be? I wasn't even made yet. In the mind of God, you were. God has been having a relationship with you, if you're a Christian, before the world began. Jeremiah 31:3 says, "Since I have loved you with an everlasting love and therefore in love and kindness, I have drawn you." Our salvation comes out of an everlasting changeless love of God. Your relationship with God is not like the stock market going up, going down. Up, down, up, up, up, down, down. I think about that. I think, "Is my relationship, is God's love for me affected by how I behave?" No, there's a settled assurance on God's part that I'm a child of God and that He is going to bring me into His very presence at the end of the world, and he made up his mind about this, if we can speak in that kind of language, before the world began, before there was a sun shining in all its radiance, before the moon reflected the sun's light, before there was an earth to walk on, before there was a Nile River flowing down from the center of Egypt into the Mediterranean, God gave us his grace in Christ, Jesus. That's what it says. This idea, this doctrine should produce in us simply two things, deep humility and total security. Deep humility because our salvation is not based on any achievement on our part, nothing we can boast about. The only thing we contribute to our salvation is the sin made that makes it necessary. But it should also produce in us total, complete security in Christ. We will be saved when that great and final day comes. We've seen the character and now we've seen the source of our salvation. The Ground of Salvation What of it's ground? What's it based on? What's the structure of our salvation founded upon? It says this grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed, or it has now appeared through the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ. When Jesus entered the world, in Bethlehem born as a baby, born of a woman, born under the law at just the right time, God's salvation plan became evident. And as he grew and lived a sinless pure life, and as He did the things He did, and said the things He said, performed those great miracles. And as He was nailed to the cross, suffering for sin. And as He was raised from the dead on the third day, God's salvation plan has become explained and made known, and that story is the ground of our salvation. It's the foundation on which we rest. It was hidden and now it's revealed. Now, that ground again, Paul describes both negatively and positively. Negatively, he says that Jesus Christ has destroyed death. Positively, he says that he has brought life, and immortality to light through the Gospel. Now, what does it mean negatively when he says that he's destroyed death? Now, I talked earlier about the three kinds of death, we see that. But this word "destroyed" is very interesting. You could say, some translations say abolished. I prefer to look on it as rendered impotent, strip the power away from death. You can imagine a scorpion for example, with its tail curving up over its head, with that stinger ready to strike, deadly poison. But then an expert coming and removing that stinger, the scorpion has no sting. There's no power left to death or you can imagine, perhaps, a man, in a rumpled German private officer May 21st, 1945, very end of World War II. Trying to make his way through the British lines, had 11 other men with him. Just trying to get back to his homeland in Bavaria. They pull him off to the side, begin to question him, find out that he's Heinrich Himmler. Heinrich Himmler was the leader of the Gestapo, one of the most feared, one of the most evil man in history. Two or three, four years before then, he had all his power, all his army around him. And he could do all of his evil deeds. But now, he's been stripped of his power by the Allied victory, the military victory. He had no power left, he was a rumpled man. No power. Still alive, still there, but no authority. This is what Jesus Christ has done to death and all of its evil power, its ability to terrorize. And here is the Apostle Paul seated in this prison cell, waiting to die. Is he terrified of death? Oh, absolutely not. "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." He just wants to finish his earthly work, he knows he's being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for his departure. He's not afraid of death at all. There's no fear in Paul, he just wants to finish his work. Jesus Christ has abolished death, he's pulled the stinger out of it. We as Christians have no need for fear of death any longer. That's negative. What about positive? He's brought life, and immortality to light through the gospel. Jesus said, "I came that they may have life and they might have it abundantly." Jesus came to show us a life that apart from Him, we would never know. A life of joy, a life of fellowship with God. John 17:3, he says, "This is eternal life, that they may know you. The only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Knowing God, walking with Him, living with Him, that is life and Jesus alone can give it, and He does give it freely. The word "immortality", which we translate immortality, you could translate or say as freedom from corruption or surrounded by rust, withered flowers, things that age. The life that Jesus gives is free from all that. Jesus holds on to it and protects it. Paul says, "I know whom I believe, and I'm convincing that He is able to guard what I've entrusted to Him." What you entrust to God is safe. Your life is hidden with Him in God. Protected and safe. But I love what it says that he has brought this life, this immortality to light through the Gospel. A beautiful illustration of this. King's chapel Cambridge, England, has the most magnificent display of stained glass in all of Europe. Made in the 15th and 16th century, 13,000 square feet of it. Can you imagine? I don't know how many square feet there are here in this sanctuary, but I doubt it's 13,000 square feet. But these are spectacular stained glass windows. Well, during World War II, they thought it was wise to remove the stained glass and get it out of the chapel, bury it, so that it wouldn't be destroyed by the Luftwaffe, by the German bombers. And so that's exactly what they did. Well, after the war was over and enough time had past, they knew it was time to bring these stained glass out of hiding and re-install them at King's Chapel, and so that's what they did. The workers covered them with shrouds and cloths to keep them protected, during their installment, and then at the right time when everything was prepared, everything was ready, the word went out and all the local populous came and they surrounded King's Chapel from the outside, and it was night. And at just the right moment, the word was given and floodlights from inside the chapel were turned on and the light streamed out through those steamed glass windows and all the people gasped, they'd forgotten the beauty of the windows, the glory of all the colors. That is what Jesus Christ has done by His resurrection from the dead, and by the Gospel that we preach in His name. People walking in darkness see a great light, the light of life, freedom from sin, freedom from fear of death, eternal life forever. The shining of the light, and that's what God has called us here at First Baptist Church to do, to shine that light. The light of this beautiful Gospel that he's entrusted to us. We've seen the character of salvation, how comprehensive it is, past, present, and future. We've seen the source of salvation, not anything that we have done, but God's own purpose and grace given us before the world began. And we've seen the ground of salvation. In the past, hidden in the mind of God, but now revealed through the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So now Paul commands Timothy, to guard this message because it's so precious. He says, "What you have heard from me keep as the pattern of sound teaching with faith and love in Christ Jesus, guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you. Guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us." IV. Guarding the Deposit Well, what does Paul mean to guard this message? He said, "What you have heard for me, the words you heard from my mouth, hold on to them. They're precious, they're valuable, keep them safe." He says, "Guard them as a pattern." There's a sense in which he's given an outline, like an architect sketch, have you ever seen these architects sketch of what a building is going to look like? A pen and ink description? ] This is exactly what Paul did with the doctrine, he said "Timothy, color it in. Make it brilliant, but don't color outside the lines, stay inside those lines. Don't innovate, don't change it, don't rearrange it. Give them the sound doctrine that I've given to you." Now, the word sound means, sound doctrine means healthy. Like, for example, when you have a last will and testament, you say, "I Andrew M. Davis being of sound mind do here by such and such." It means I've got a healthy mind. This is healthy doctrine and it strengthens and it gives life. "Don't change it Timothy, but stay with it." Why does the gospel message need to be protected? Well, first and foremost, because it's from God, God gave it to us. Paul says in Galatians 1, he said, "I want you to know, brothers, that the Gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. He revealed it to me, showed it to me, I got this message straight from him. And I preached it faithfully. Now you, Timothy, don't change it. Don't rearrange it, don't leave out unpopular parts of it, preach the whole message. You don't have a right to change it, it's from God." This message is life. You also, it says, were dead in your transgressions and sins but you were included in Christ, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. These words are your life, protect them, hold them safe. But we also need to protect it because Satan hates this message, he really does, he hates the Gospel, that I'm preaching in front of you today. He'll fight against it. He has in every generation throughout history, there's been an attack on the Gospel. Early on, false teachers came up and they questioned whether Jesus Christ was really man. Or, perhaps the question whether he was really God. God raised up faithful teachers to fight back against those heresies. In recent years however, there's a more subtle attack on the Gospel. It started in the enlightenment when a man named Emmanuel Kant came and said, "You know something, you really can't know truth as it really is, you can only know truth as it appears to you." This other man, a theologian named Schleiermacher said, "That's especially true in religion. You can't know religious truth, the Bible is not full of religious truth but only people's spiritual experiences, that's all this is, just a record of spiritual experiences." And you also can't know the truth but only have experiences of religious fervor, etcetera. And so people come to church now and they come expecting to have some kind of religious experiences, they're not looking for truth. All of this is an innovation, it's a twisting. It's ultimately a heresy, it's falsehood because there is a truth. The truth is that the tomb is empty, that Jesus Christ has in fact risen from the dead. Believe it or not, there was a theologian at the end of the 1800s, who said it really doesn't matter to me if Jesus ever lived or not. It doesn't matter if the tomb is empty, or full. All that matters is the life and the experience that we have from studying the Bible as it's come to us today. And his motto was, "Life not doctrine." Do you see what a changed this is? This is a perversion, it's a twisting. The life we have in Jesus Christ comes from the teaching, from the doctrine. Well, how is Timothy to guard this life, this doctrine, how is he to protect it? Well, it says guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. Only with the help of the Holy Spirit can we guard this message. There are two threats that we have to fight against. The first is surrounded by a culture of people who hate the message, surrounded by a culture of people who are drifting further and further away from Christianity, true Christianity. We are tempted to start to change the message a little bit, or maybe include some things that would be a little more popular, kind of broaden the tent a little bit, get the stakes a little wider. Include some things and leave out some other things, change it a little bit. It's temptation, or there's another issue and that's something we would do knowingly by the way. Something that we would do ignorantly, where false teachers come in and deceive us, trick us and we begin to change the message because we didn't really know what the true message was and were tossed back and forth by every wind of teaching. Either one can happen. By the Holy Spirit, neither one needs to happen. In the first case, we realize by the power of the Spirit, we don't need to be afraid of what surrounding culture says. We don't have to be afraid of death or anything, we live to God, we live to Jesus Christ and we preach this message. People hear it, and they come and they are saved because it's a true message from Jesus Christ. And we don't need to be afraid of false teachers coming in either because we're going to study the message, we're going to know it. We're going to understand what it says. Last week, I was in Washington, and I met a man who was a member of the Capital Hill Baptist Church. And his profession is that he works for the Secret Service and I didn't know that much about the Secret Service. Of course, we know that they protect important officials, elected officials, but one of their original purpose, original function, after the Civil War was to discern true and false currency. They actually work for the Department of the Treasury, and they work against counterfeit money. Counterfeiters. So, I talked to him, I said, "Well, how do you go about doing this?" He said more than anything, "We study the genuine article. We study how the bills were made. We understand the ink, we understand the paper, the procedure." Now, I think you've seen the new bills with the watermark in it, looks like Monopoly money. I think it's kind of funny looking. I actually look at it twice and think that it's counterfeit but it's a new dollar, you hold it up to the light and you see that watermark. I asked him how it was made, he said, "that's top secret". They can't tell what that is, that watermark. But what they do is they study the genuine bill so well that as soon as the counterfeit comes along, they know it and they recognize it. So, it is with the church. We immerse ourselves in this book, we get to know the Scriptures. We memorize, we meditate on them and then as soon as the falsehood comes along, we say, "That's just not true." For it says in Galatians such and such, or it says over in Ephesians such and such. We recognize it immediately, and we have no fear of false doctrine. And that means that a next generation, the people who come in behind us, our disciples, our children, they're teaching the same doctrine that Paul taught. That's how it works. God has given this Gospel message, this beautiful deposit to us as a sacred trust. We are to proclaim it boldly, and faithfully, not to innovate or change it in any way, but to give it to the people so that they may have eternal life. We have to guard this message more faithfully than the gold is gone at Fort Knox. N ow today, you've heard the Gospel message in the midst of this exposition. It could be that some of you have never heard the message preached in this way, it could be that the Holy Spirit is speaking to you. But today is the day of salvation for you. If you feel the leading of the Spirit, don't resist, give your life to Jesus Christ. Let Him take the death penalty that hangs over your head if you're not a Christian. Let Him stand in your place and give you eternal life. For all those of you who are Christians, re-commit yourself to the gospel ministry. You know that tomorrow night we are beginning our visitation ministry, it's a practical application. Come and be with us. 7:00, Morgan Hall. We're making a commitment to visit the visitors of our church, share the Gospel with them, find out what their needs are. I've told people on my staff, I'm trusting God for one person to come on Monday night, a church member who's stepping out in faith and doing something that they've never done before. And I'm also asked them that that person come and tell me who he or she is. I'm that person that's trusting God to be here. I hope there's going to be a lot of people like that. But God has committed this Gospel ministry to us and we are to be faithful.