Podcasts about nietzsche

This episode is a replay from The Existential Stoic library. Enjoy! Existentialists and Stoics recognize the importance of choice. Our choices define us, through our choices we make ourselves and establish what is meaningful. In this episode, Danny and Randy discuss how to choose like an existentialist and stoic.Subscribe to ESP's YouTube Channel! Thanks for listening!  Do you have a question you want answered in a future episode? If so, send your question to: existentialstoic@protonmail.comDanny, Randy, and their good friend, Russell, created a new podcast, CodeNoobs, for anyone interested in tech and learning how to code. Listen to CodeNoobs now online, CodeNoobs-podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

What does it mean to become worthy of the event? In this episode, we're joined by Justin, longtime collaborator and host of our current reading group on Pierre Klossowski's Living Currency. Together, we explore Deleuze's stoic metaphysics, Nietzsche's ethics of affirmation, and the revolutionary stakes of releasing ourselves from resentment. Along the way, we consider how play, pedagogy, and the dissolution of the self open us to the transformative force of the event.Support the showSupport the podcast:https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/Linktree: https://linktr.ee/acidhorizonAcid Horizon on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/acidhorizonpodcast Boycott Watkins Media: https://xenogothic.com/2025/03/17/boycott-watkins-statement/ Join The Schizoanalysis Project: https://discord.gg/4WtaXG3QxnSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438Merch: http://www.crit-drip.comSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438 LEPHT HAND: https://www.patreon.com/LEPHTHANDHappy Hour at Hippel's (Adam's blog): https://happyhourathippels.wordpress.com​Revolting Bodies (Will's Blog): https://revoltingbodies.com​Split Infinities (Craig's Substack): https://splitinfinities.substack.com/​Music: https://sereptie.bandcamp.com/ and https://thecominginsurrection.bandcamp.com/

In this episode of the Ascend to the Great Books podcast, Deacon Harrison Garlick welcomes back Grayson Quay to discuss his new book, 'The Transhumanist Temptation.'The conversation delves into the ideological roots of transhumanism, its implications for humanity, and the historical context that has led to its rise. Quay emphasizes the importance of teleology in understanding human nature and critiques the modern conception of freedom as it relates to technology. The discussion also touches on the challenges posed by technology, the influence of Nietzsche, and the need for a moral framework to navigate the complexities of modern life. Join us for a great conversation!BOOK: The Transhumanist Temptation by Grayson QuayYou can read the great books with Ascend! Visit thegreatbookspodcast.com for our reading schedule.NEXT WEEK we start our study on Plato!Summary of BookFrom the dawn of creation, the serpent's whispered lie—“ye shall be as gods”—has echoed through history, and today it manifests itself in the growing transhumanist movement.Our world stands at a crossroads with commercial surrogacy, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and “gender-affirming care” threatening to radically reshape human nature. Will we stand firm on ancient wisdom or risk losing our humanity altogether?Grayson Quay deftly overturns the lies of transhumanism and cautions readers about the dystopian brave new world that has already arrived and will only get worse. And yet, he argues, transhumanism has more to do with philosophy than technology. The seeds of transhumanism were all there in the various isms of centuries past, but, under the harsh light of twenty-first-century science, they're growing as never before.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Ascend and the Great Books01:06 Exploring Transhumanism: The Book Introduction02:54 Inspiration Behind the Book04:31 Defining Transhumanism and Its Ideological Roots06:40 Target Audience and the Purpose of the Book09:40 Historical Context of Humanism and Transhumanism12:15 Understanding Teleology and Its Importance17:41 The Ethics of Medicine and Technology19:45 The Concept of Freedom in Modernity23:47 Technology's Role in Transhumanism27:42 The Moral Framework for Technology30:02 The Impact of Technology on Humanity35:40 Transhumanism and the Nature of Man42:34 The Asymmetrical Warfare of Parenting in a Digital Age46:44 Theological Implications of Transhumanism54:34 Two Competing Visions of TranshumanismVisit thegreatbookspodcast.com for more information!

The great divide in politics is all around us. Sometimes the best way to engage in a difference of opinion is to 'pass it by.' Political theorist Shalini Satkunanandan suggests we take that lesson from Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy. Yeah, that guy — the one most known for his wrestling with nihilism. Satkunanandan argues that the constant need to engage and correct, refute or criticize "is making partisan divides even more pronounced." She views Nietzsche's method as a valuable way to navigate the highly polarized discourse of today. *This episode originally aired on Jan. 20, 2025.

Ralston College presents a lecture by Dr Jason Pedicone, distinguished scholar and classicist and the co-founder and President of the Paideia Institute. In this rich and compelling address, Dr Pedicone introduces the subject of philology - the study of language in its historical context - before embarking on a historical tour of philological interventions – times when people have decided to pay particularly close attention to language for societal, historical or technological reasons. Our tour takes us from the ancient Greek and Roman worlds of Plato and Pisistratus through Charlemagne, Valla, Erasmus, Nietzsche and up to the present day and the inexorable rise of AI. For the latest Ralston College updates visit: www.ralston.ac/sign-up.   Authors and Works Mentioned in this Episode: C.S Lewis Plato Suetonius Pisistratus Homer - The Iliad; The Odyssey Aristophanes of Byzantium Aristarchus of Samothrace Callimachus of Cyrene Quintus Ennius Livius Andronicus St. Boniface Jerome Charlemagne Alcuin of York Boniface Lorenzo Valla Desiderius Erasmus - Novum Instrumentum Omne Nietzsche - The Birth of Tragedy Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff - Philology of the Future Friedrich August Wolf - Prolegomena ad Homerum Derrida Plato - The Phaedrus Roland Barthes - The Death of the Author Wilhelm von Humboldt Heidegger - Being and Time Camus Shakespeare Marsilio Ficino Nick Bostrum - Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World Ray Kurzweil  

A Sunday morning sermon by Pastor Brett Deal. I think Mark Twain was right when he said, “Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.” The little book of Ruth is driven by kindness. Amid famine, decimation, and loss, the whisper of kindness soothes deafened ears. In the clashing cymbals of time, when the cacophony of anxiety and worry flood our vision, kindness reveals the movement of God's invisible hand. To paraphrase Nietzsche, an enduring kindness in the same direction is transformative. Where Naomi was left embittered by past pain, kindness led her into renewed freedom for today. Where Ruth, a young widow was left caring for her devastated mother-in-law, kindness led her into a renewed assurance for the future. Where we have been is not permanent. It's where we are, but it doesn't have to be where our story ends. Kindness, born from the love of God into our lives and relationships, transforms our doubt and despair into renewed hope for eternity. This week, be inspired by the kindness that transformed Naomi's life. In the first chapter she was blinded by her loss, unable to escape the shroud of bitterness that consumed her past. In the second chapter, she was semi-conscious as Ruth went out to provide for them in their present poverty. But in the third chapter, Naomi was the one looking to the future. Kindness rekindled the fire in her eyes. Transformed by kindness, Naomi told Ruth, “Wash, put on perfume, get dressed in your best clothes and go” (Ruth 3.3-4a). Naomi was inspired to hope again by the enduring kindness of those around her. May the same be said of us.

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), también conocido como Benedictus de Spinoza, fue un filósofo neerlandés de origen sefardí portugués, considerado uno de los pensadores más influyentes del siglo XVII y una figura clave en el surgimiento de la Ilustración y el racionalismo moderno. Spinoza nació en Ámsterdam en una familia judía que había huido de la Inquisición en Portugal. Recibió una educación religiosa tradicional, destacándose en los estudios del Talmud. Sin embargo, sus ideas filosóficas heterodoxas lo llevaron a ser excomulgado de la comunidad judía en 1656, a los 24 años, mediante un severo edicto de herem que nunca fue revocado. Tras su expulsión, Spinoza adoptó una vida modesta como pulidor de lentes, dedicando su tiempo al estudio y la escritura filosófica. Rechazó cátedras universitarias y vivió de forma independiente, manteniendo correspondencia con destacados intelectuales de su época. Ética demostrada según el orden geométrico (1677), Esta obra, publicada póstumamente, es su tratado más conocido. En ella, Spinoza aplica un método geométrico, similar al de Euclides, para desarrollar una visión sistemática de la realidad, la mente y la moralidad. Propone que Dios y la naturaleza son una misma sustancia infinita (monismo), y que todo lo que existe es una manifestación de esta única realidad. Tratado teológico-político (1670), Publicado anónimamente, este tratado defiende la libertad de pensamiento y expresión, argumentando que la teología y la filosofía deben mantenerse separadas. Critica la interpretación literal de las Escrituras y sostiene que los milagros pueden explicarse mediante leyes naturales. Además, aboga por un gobierno democrático que garantice la libertad individual. Principios de la filosofía de Descartes (1663), En esta obra, Spinoza presenta una exposición de la filosofía de René Descartes utilizando el método geométrico. Incluye también pensamientos metafísicos propios, mostrando tanto su admiración como sus críticas hacia el cartesianismo. Ideas filosóficas: Monismo: Sostiene que solo existe una sustancia, Dios o la naturaleza, y que todo lo que existe es una manifestación de esta única realidad. Determinismo: Cree que todo ocurre según leyes necesarias, negando el libre albedrío en el sentido tradicional. Ética racional: Propone que la virtud y la felicidad se alcanzan mediante el conocimiento racional de uno mismo y del universo. Crítica religiosa: Rechaza la idea de un Dios antropomórfico y los dogmas religiosos, promoviendo una comprensión naturalista de la religión. Las ideas de Spinoza influyeron profundamente en el pensamiento moderno, anticipando conceptos de la Ilustración y el secularismo. Filósofos como Hegel, Nietzsche y Einstein reconocieron su impacto. Su defensa de la libertad de pensamiento y su visión racional del mundo continúan siendo relevantes en debates contemporáneos sobre religión, política y ética. Crítica religiosa: Rechaza la idea de un Dios antropomórfico y los dogmas religiosos, promoviendo una comprensión naturalista de la religión.

POUR COMMANDER MON LIVRE : Sur Amazon : https://amzn.to/3ZMm4CY Sur Fnac.com : https://tidd.ly/4dWJZ8ODepuis quelques années, l'intelligence artificielle progresse de manière exponentielle, à tel point que certains pensent qu'elle sera bientôt capable de remplacer l'être humain dans la plupart des tâches intellectuelles, y compris en philosophie. Et vous, croyez-vous cela possible ? Éléments de réflexion dans cet épisode.---Envie d'aller plus loin ? Rejoignez-moi sur Patreon pour accéder à tout mon contenu supplémentaire.

Don't worry, we're still doing Dialectic of Enlightenment next week, but my tour schedule and personal demands on my time (I'm moving) prevented me from finishing a full episode before departing for another week. Thankfully, I had this reading guide finished and decided to release it now. Back next week with a full length episode. Cheers!

Why We're Starving for Myth: Identity, Meaning, and the Images That Fail UsIn this episode, we dive into why our age is drowning in identity — yet starving for myth.Drawing on Charlie Chaplin's warning that images alone are not enough, Werner Herzog's desperate search for adequate images, and Nietzsche's insight that we ourselves are the creators of meaning, we explore why modern life feels so hollow.We'll look at how myth was once a polymodal, lived experience that trained us to see the world as sacred and ourselves as part of something vast. And why, without it, we reduce identity to something shallow, marketable, and brittle.Ultimately, this is a call to rediscover the mythic dimension of life — to live many lives within this one, to be seized by stories that shape us, and to dare to become more than mere spectators of our own existence.#Myth #Identity #Meaning #Nietzsche #WernerHerzog #Chaplin #Philosophy #Culture #ModernLife #Storytelling #AestheticTruth #Psychology #SelfDiscovery #MythMaking

Theodor Adorno afirmou certa vez não possuir hobby algum, o que inicialmente pode parecer radical: o que uma pessoa sem hobbies faz na vida? Falamos neste episódio sobre o fenômeno do tempo livre no capitalismo e suas conexões com padrões de comportamento, tédio, a cultura do “do it yourself” (faça você mesmo), indústria cultural e alguns outros temas relacionados.- Nossa chave PIX: filosofiavermelha@gmail.com- Curso "Introdução à filosofia - dos pré-socráticos a Sartre": https://www.udemy.com/course/introducao-a-filosofia-dos-pre-socraticos-a-sartre/?couponCode=F12B3616964FA6AB0482- Curso "Filosofia para a vida: refletir para viver melhor": https://www.udemy.com/course/filosofia-para-a-vida-refletir-para-viver-melhor/?couponCode=8EECC0AF66D8DA12E5BE- Curso "Crítica da religião: Feuerbach, Nietzsche e Freud": https://www.udemy.com/course/critica-da-religiao-feuerbach-nietzsche-e-freud/?couponCode=8DA324F5CEF90917F959- Curso "A filosofia de Karl Marx - uma introdução": https://www.udemy.com/course/a-filosofia-de-karl-marx-uma-introducao/?couponCode=BDAC9250CEBD0B08E266- Inscreva-se gratuitamente em nossa newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://filosofiavermelha.org/index.php/newsletter/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- Apoia.se: seja um de nossos apoiadores e mantenha este trabalho no ar: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://apoia.se/filosofiavermelha⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- Nossa chave PIX: filosofiavermelha@gmail.com- Adquira meu livro: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.almarevolucionaria.com/product-page/pr%C3%A9-venda-duvidar-de-tudo-ensaios-sobre-filosofia-e-psican%C3%A1lise⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- Meu site: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.filosofiaepsicanalise.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- Clube de leitura: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWEjNgKjqqI⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Sunday, 6 July 2025   For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.' Matthew 11:18   “For, he came, John, neither eating, neither drinking, and they say he has a demon!” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus gave an example of what “this generation” is like, saying, “We piped to you and not you danced. We bewailed to you and not you breast-beat.” He continues now with, “For, he came, John, neither eating, neither drinking.”   The meaning here is more than just his limited diet, which is recorded in Matthew 3:4 –   “And he, John, had his apparel from camel's hair, and a leathery girdle around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.”   The thought of eating and drinking extends to social life, where eating and drinking are a part of the natural course of human interaction. In other words, John's life was that of a prophet preparing the way for the Lord. He did this in the wilderness, living a life of austerity and isolation.   In this state, someone may have come and said, “I'd like to talk to you about your message, come and join us at our meal tonight.” This is something John would have likely refused, maybe offering them a bowl of dried locusts instead and saying, “Join me here for a meal. This is where I belong.”   John limited his diet and everything that goes along with eating. Parties, feasts, dinner invitations, etc., would all have been shunned by him. Therefore, because of this obscure and difficult to understand lifestyle, Jesus next says, “and they say he has a demon!”   This is what it says about the demoniacs in Chapter 8 –   “And He, having come into the beyond, into the country of the Gergesenes, two ‘being demon possessed,' they met Him, coming out from the tombs – exceedingly dangerous – so too, not anyone capacitate to pass through that way.” Matthew 8:28   They lived in an area shunned by others, cut off from the normal ways of life. Because John was somewhat like this, instead of recognizing him as a prophet and grasping the importance of his ministry, they accused him of having a demon.   Life application: One of the traits that is often seen in people who are exceptional in their field is eccentricity, even to the point of being thought to suffer from mental instability. People with great intellects who have made some of the most profound discoveries in their occupations have been considered unconventional, and their lives troubled.   Van Gogh, da Vinci, Nietzsche, Hemingway, Tesla, Mozart, Bonaparte, Byron, Freud, Einstein, and so many others were, at times, close to being off their rocker. Van Gogh cut off his own ear, something not normally thought of as a sign of sharp mental acuity.   Fortunately for them, their skills in their professions were recognized and they were appreciated, despite their often-bizarre behavior. If you come across someone who seems a tad eccentric or doesn't fit into the traditional paradigm that society has set, don't underestimate him or dismiss him outright. It may be that his focus is so poignantly directed that the normal rules for social behavior don't interest him.   At the same time, he may be as crazy as a loon, so don't just assume that everyone who is odd is a genius.   Lord God, may our judgments about those we encounter always be carefully considered. First and foremost, may we look at each person as an individual who needs Jesus. If we remember this, surely we will see them in a different way than if we judge by mere appearances. Help us to look for Your image in those we encounter. Amen.

A philosophical deep-dive into reincarnation, dimensional theory, and the possibility that we're all serving time in a cosmic prison. Joli (@Joli.artist) and @Staysch explore whether Earth is actually a 3D penitentiary for higher-dimensional beings.From unexplained Victorian art obsessions to unconscious reality manipulation, Joli shares personal evidence of consciousness bleeding between lifetimes and dimensions. The conversation explores the theory that our reality might exist as a dystopian counterbalance to a 4D utopia, where advanced beings could periodically descend to "serve time" as humans.Key themes include:• Nietzsche's eternal return and why memory gets wiped between lives• Personal evidence of past-life bleeding through art and preferences • The prison planet hypothesis vs. collective coping mechanism theory• Why we might switch roles between incarnations (general to woman, etc.)• Unconscious reality manipulation and multidimensional abilities• Human evolution, anxiety, and our predator nature trapped in modern life This mind-bending exploration challenges assumptions about free will, consciousness, and what it means to be human.youroneblackfriend.comInSanity Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@Staysch •••

När gud är död och inga absoluta värden går att luta sig emot, vad ska människan göra då? Den tysk-schweiziske filosofen Friedrich Nietzsche (1849-1900) placerade människan i just detta tillstånd – och skrev en både livsbejakande och uppfordrande filosofi som svar. Nietzsche ville att människan skulle bejaka både livskraft och mörker, och ställde höga krav på hennes kraft och moraliska omdöme. Vad går Nietzsches mest inflytelserika teorier ut på? Och vad kan hans tankar säga oss idag? Bildningspodden ger en introduktion till Nietzsches liv och verk, från ungdomsåren och genombrottet med Tragedins födelse (1872) till det ökända sammanbrottet i Turin 1889 och de sista febriga fragmenten. Gäst i studion: filosofen Hans Ruin. Avsnittet publicerades första gången den 22 december 2021.

Jim talks with David Chapman about rethinking nobility for the modern age through his recent "nobility tetralogy" of essays. They discuss character & virtue as "risible" concepts, noblesse oblige & elite education, nobility as intention vs status, "The Battle of Maldon" poem & its lessons, postmodernism & postmodernity, the failure of elite universities, effective altruism & Sam Bankman-Fried, Elon Musk & hubris, meritocracy & institutional change, Nietzsche's master-slave morality, Tolkien's models of nobility, Vajrayana Buddhism's life-affirming approach, software engineers eating the world, meta-rationality & the tech industry, new institutions, visions for a more playful & connected future, and much more. Episode Transcript "Nobility: table of contents," by David Chapman "Ofermöd," by David Chapman "You should be a God-Emperor," by David Chapman Meaningness, by David Chapman "Software engineers are eating the world," by David Chapman "Why Software Is Eating the World," by Marc Andreessen David Chapman writes and speaks about understanding meaning, purpose, and culture through resolving fundamental, unthought emotional stances that can make us miserable; leveling up technical work by going beyond formal rationality; Vajrayana, the life-affirming branch of Buddhism offering a vaster, brighter, freer way of seeing, feeling, and acting; and artificial intelligence (he has a PhD in it).

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

Is it possible that war, for all its horror, once played a vital role in human flourishing—and that its disappearance has left a cultural and spiritual void? In this episode, we explore the provocative thesis that war has historically served not only as an engine of destruction, but as a forge for meaning and social cohesion. Drawing on J. Glenn Gray's The Warriors, with insight from William James, Nietzsche, and Durkheim, we examine what modern society loses when it loses war—not just as a military phenomenon, but as a psychological and cultural one. What happens to masculinity when its most historically sanctioned outlet evaporates? What fills the vacuum when existential struggle is no longer a shared reality? And could space exploration become the next great crucible that gives our civilization meaning without violence? This is not an argument for militarism—but a call to confront what war once offered, and to ask what might replace it in a civilization that seeks to remain vital. To support the show and unlock *supporter-only episodes, join me on Patreon or subscribe in Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Nietzsche's inaugural lecture at Basel, given in 1869, provides an insight into the young Nietzsche's mind. Surprisingly, even here we find the groundwork laid for his later philosophical project. Nietzsche takes on the issue, rather esoteric and focused on the internal debates of classical philology, of whether or not Homer really existed, and what this means the discipline of philology if he did not exist.

This episode is a replay from The Existential Stoic library. Enjoy! Are you trying to prove your worth? Do you want others to see you? What happens when we die? In this episode, Danny and Randy discuss validation, success, death, and more.   Subscribe to ESP's YouTube Channel! Thanks for listening!  Do you have a question you want answered in a future episode? If so, send your question to: existentialstoic@protonmail.comDanny, Randy, and their good friend, Russell, created a new podcast, CodeNoobs, for anyone interested in tech and learning how to code. Listen to CodeNoobs now online, CodeNoobs-podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The boys try and fail to do a police interogation bit, and get meta wit it. Then Dave asks Breht what the shape of the universe is, leading to an extended conversation about cosmology, including whether the universe is infinite or finite, what leading scientists deduce from the curvature of space time, the size of the observable universe, the speed of light, and whether or not our entire universe is actually inside a black hole... Then they explore the psychology of crowds - at sports games, protests, concerts, etc. - before finally launching into a discussion on the philosophy of Existentialism and the question of Free Will.

What can JD Vance's arguments with Pope Francis teach us about selfishness, altruism, and the morality of the modern world?Join the team at the IAI for four articles about egoism, self-sacrifice, and everything in between, analysing a range of subjects, including: Friedrich Nietzsche and his rivalry with former maestro Arthur Schopenhauer; the 10 Commandments and their relationship to jealousy; why God might be "stupid, indifferent, and evil"; and of course the aforementioned showdown between JD and the Pope.These articles were written by Slavoj Žižek, Steven D. Hales, Kristján Kristjánsson, and Guy Elgat.Slavoj Žižek is a Hegelian philosopher, a Lacanian psychoanalyst, and a Communist. He is the author of 'Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist'. Steven D. Hales is Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, and author of 'The Myth of Luck: Philosophy, Fate and Fortune'. Kristján Kristjánsson is Professor of Character Education and Virtue Ethics at the University of Birmingham. His work spans topics in moral philosophy, moral psychology, and moral education. He is also the editor of the Journal of Moral Education. Guy Elgat is a lecturer at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He is the author of 'Nietzsche's Psychology of Ressentiment' and 'Being Guilty: Freedom, Responsibility, and Conscience in German Philosophy from Kant to Heidegger'.And don't hesitate to email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This summer, we're taking a short break from our regular podcast format, and instead have selected various installments from past message series given by James Emery White at Mecklenburg Community Church where he serves as the Senior Pastor. Today's episode comes from a series we called "The Science of God" with this installment focusing on "The Science of Faith." You see, there are many deal-breakers for those who are unchurched when it comes to the Christian faith. The biggest deal-breaker, though, seems to be what lies in the realm of public truth, meaning science. The existence of God, creation, evolution, the latest discoveries in astrophysics... that's where people long for answers. But how do you find answers when it comes to something like faith? Episode Links Below you'll find the link to the full series if that's something you are interested in checking out, along with the sources that were used in the development of the message itself: "The Science of God" Ed Stetzer, “When Will Churches Be Back? Vital Information for Churches and Christian Leaders,” Christianity Today, January 13, 2021. Ian Barbour, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (London: SPCK, 2000). For an informed critique of many of the more popular aspects of applied naturalism, see Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995). Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1995). How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science, ed. by Kathryn Applegate and J.B. Stump (IVP). Nietzsche's famed “God is dead” passage can be found in section 125 of The Gay Science, available in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin, 1982). For those of you who are new to Church & Culture, we'd love to invite you to subscribe (for free of course) to the twice-weekly Church & Culture blog and check out the Daily Headline News - a collection of headlines from around the globe each weekday. We'd also love to hear from you if there is a topic that you'd like to see discussed on the Church & Culture Podcast in an upcoming episode. You can find the form to submit your questions at the bottom of the podcast page HERE.

How dyslexia, bilingualism, and myth created a Canadian identity no one expected.An imagined appendix to Northrop Frye's The Educated Imagination, based on a true story from Northern Ontario — where a bilingual, dyslexic teen survived the failures of Canada's education system by reading Nietzsche in the bush. A reflection on imagination, identity, and survival in the margins.Northrop FryeThe Educated ImaginationCanadian IdentityDyslexia and EducationFrench ImmersionNietzschePhilosophy of EducationCanadian LiteratureTrauma-Informed LearningOral TraditionBilingual EducationMarginalized VoicesMyth and MetaphorLiterary Survival

In this episode, I sit down with Steve Kim, a speaker with Apologetics Canada and a PhD student researching transhumanism, to explore one of the most pressing worldviews emerging in our time. We talk about what transhumanism is, why it matters, and how it's already shaping how people think about identity, purpose, and salvation. Drawing on the ideas of Nietzsche and Chesterton, Steve helps us see what's at stake in the push to become “more than human”—and how the Christian gospel offers a far more hopeful, embodied, and grounded vision of what it means to be human. In his early 20s, Steve experienced a faith crisis due to intellectual undernourishment. Through this experience, he has come to see apologetics as the “intellectual care of the soul” and now feels a personal burden to walk with others who may be struggling with doubt and/or seeking sincerely. Steve holds a diploma in Worship Arts and a BA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Bible College in Abbotsford, BC. He has completed a master's degree in Christian Apologetics through Biola University in La Mirada, CA. He began his PhD studies through the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland, exploring any proper limits of human enhancement. https://www.ryleyheppner.com https://apologeticscanada.com/ryley-heppner/

✨ In this episode/video:    I will unfold the conversation about delays and how God's rejection is God's protection (which is in no way a religious notion). Then, I will discuss how we can increase our intuitive abilities, why everyone's is intuitive and what does Nietzsche have to do will all of this. The unknown is an uncomfortable place to sit but being uncertain about the future and sitting with that uncertainty will increase your intuition and ability to see synchronicities all around you. Finally, we will close off with talking about creativity.  Whether you're here to [emotion / purpose] or just [gentle invitation], this one is for you. ⏱️ Timestamps:   00:00 – Sometimes life slows you down  00:43 – Learn to listen to the whispers of your intuition   05:04 – Good and Evil  09:19 – Follow your calling   12:34 – Fear of AI  16:45 – Dopamine comes from doing something difficult  19:12 – The Artist's Way 22:32 – Stop trying to walk through shut doors  24:24 – Importance of looking into the darkness of the soul     

Nichilismo: significato e definizione della dottrina filosofica con approfondimento sull'interpretazione in due autori come Nietzsche e Foscolo.

There’s been a drastic shift in the understanding of the self over the last 200 years. We now tend to think of ourselves as unencumbered, expressive individuals who are most… Download Audio

In this episode, we discuss Alasdair MacIntyre's landmark book After Virtue. MacIntyre, an ex-Marxist and committed anti-liberal, offers a defense of the Aristotelian tradition and its search for the truly common good against the dominant tendency of liberal societies to reduce morality to individual preferences. Modern society, MacIntyre believes, is one where we live fragmented lives, unable to narrate a coherent story of the relationship between morality and politics. Our invocations of morality ring increasingly hollow as we cannot even imagine what it would mean to convince others of what is good. We explore how the loss of morality coincides with all of us becoming moralists, why it seems we have to choose between Nietzsche and Aristotle, the costs of teaching morality like a choose-your-own-adventure buffet, and whether MacIntyre offers a compelling solution to our nihilistic times. The least we can say is that living without virtue is a real bummer!GET YOUR TICKETS FOR THE LIVE SHOW HERE:https://epiphanychi.com/events/whats-left-of-philosophy-live-show-karl-marxs-communist-manifesto/This is just a short teaser of the full episode. To hear the rest, please subscribe to us on Patreon:patreon.com/leftofphilosophyReferences:Alasadair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 3rd Edition (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007).Émile Perreau-Saussine, Alasdair MacIntyre: An Intellectual Biography. trans. Nathan J. Pinkski (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2022).Michael Lazarus, Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2025). Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

This episode is a replay from The Existential Stoic library. Enjoy! When was the last time you really considered some deep philosophical questions? Questions like: Why does suffering happen? Is there anything wrong with being selfish? Does morality come from within or outside ourselves? In this episode (part 2), Danny and Randy ask and answer additional thought-provoking philosophical questions.   Philosophical Question List used in this episode: 240 Thought-Provoking Philosophical Questions [Sorted By Category] - Homeschool AdventureSubscribe to ESP's YouTube Channel! Thanks for listening!  Do you have a question you want answered in a future episode? If so, send your question to: existentialstoic@protonmail.com  Danny, Randy, and their good friend, Russell, created a new podcast, CodeNoobs, for anyone interested in tech and learning how to code. Listen to CodeNoobs now online, CodeNoobs-podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Schönherr-Mann, Hans-Martin www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Politisches Feuilleton

In her sermon, Shari uses the metaphor of the Camino de Santiago—a long spiritual pilgrimage—to illustrate the Christian journey of moving continually toward peace and away from chaos. She reflects on her own experience walking the Camino, emphasizing that the daily, intentional choices made on the trail mirror the spiritual decisions we make in life. Life, like the Camino, is not static. Everything is always in motion—physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Shari ties this constant movement to the second law of thermodynamics, highlighting humanity's natural tendency toward disorder unless we intentionally choose otherwise. Spiritually, we're always moving toward either peace (shalom: wholeness, well-being, safety) or chaos (slavery, disorder, retaliation). Shari contrasts biblical peace with today's culture of “my truth” and ethical relativism, which echo the times of the Judges when "everyone did what was right in their own eyes." She argues that freedom in Christ means intentionally choosing the path that leads to peace, even when it is counterintuitive or difficult. The lie from the Garden of Eden—that we are the exception to the rule—still misleads us today. We often believe we can harbor resentment, avoid forgiveness, or justify sin without consequences. Shari emphasizes that choosing chaos—like revenge, bitterness, and pride—leads us back into spiritual slavery. Through examples from both Scripture (Gideon, the Exodus, Judges) and literature (Nietzsche's philosophy, Crime and Punishment, Macbeth, Hamlet, East of Eden), she shows how refusing to forgive, holding onto bitterness, or believing ourselves exempt from consequences always results in suffering. Forgiveness, though often seen as illogical or undeserved, is the path to freedom. She tells real-life stories—like her friend Bob who justifies meanness because “they started it”—to show how childish and harmful these justifications are. True peace begins with us, not with others. We often claim we want peace but refuse to let go of pride, pain, or perceived justice to get it. Shari closes by urging the congregation to choose the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control—as the “good fruit” in contrast to Adam and Eve's wrong choice. Like the biblical figures and literary characters she referenced, we too stand at a crossroads daily: toward peace and freedom in Christ, or chaos and slavery in sin. The Gospel gives us the power through the Holy Spirit to undo our wrong choices and walk “The Way” that leads to true peace. Discussion Questions Shari says we often believe “we are the exception to the rule.” How have you seen that idea play out in your own life or culture? What does the word “shalom” (biblical peace) mean to you? How is it different from simply not fighting or being calm? Are there any areas in your life where you are choosing chaos (bitterness, revenge, pride) instead of peace? What would it look like to choose differently? Who is someone in your life that you feel “started it”? What would it take for you to forgive them anyway? Which of the fruits of the Spirit do you most need to grow in right now to walk in peace? What's one practical way you could pursue it this week?

What does it mean to write philosophy in a time of catastrophe? In this episode, we're joined once again by Stuart Kendall to explore Georges Bataille's On Nietzsche, a fragmented, intimate, and disorienting text written in the final years of World War II. We examine how Nietzsche becomes not just a philosophical reference but a companion for Bataille—a figure through whom Bataille grapples with sovereignty, death, and the limits of knowledge. From Sartre's accusations of mysticism to the will to chance as a response to fascism and nuclear horror, we trace how On Nietzsche opens up an ethics of risk, uselessness, and survival.Support the showSupport the podcast:https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/Linktree: https://linktr.ee/acidhorizonAcid Horizon on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/acidhorizonpodcast Boycott Watkins Media: https://xenogothic.com/2025/03/17/boycott-watkins-statement/ Join The Schizoanalysis Project: https://discord.gg/4WtaXG3QxnSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438Merch: http://www.crit-drip.comSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438 LEPHT HAND: https://www.patreon.com/LEPHTHANDHappy Hour at Hippel's (Adam's blog): https://happyhourathippels.wordpress.com​Revolting Bodies (Will's Blog): https://revoltingbodies.com​Split Infinities (Craig's Substack): https://splitinfinities.substack.com/​Music: https://sereptie.bandcamp.com/ and https://thecominginsurrection.bandcamp.com/

Today David talks about what he learned six months ago that is fundamental to the "secret" behind a Christian view of law. It helped him see why his worldview was more informed by Darwin and Nietzsche than Christ, and it further reformed his approach to legal and public policy advocacy.

BBQ Judging, Scythe Harvesting, and Christian MarriageBarbecue Competition Judging: Adam shares his first experience as a barbecue competition judge at a local Catholic church and school fundraiser in Tulsa, where he was joined by his son Jude (assistant judge) and two priests.Judged four categories: chicken, pulled pork, ribs, and brisket (Adam insists brisket is the primary measure; David (wrongly) argues for ribs).12 pit masters competed; judged on appearance, taste, tenderness, texture, uniqueness, and overall (max score 25).Advice from Joe Martin's son: Take one bite per entry to avoid overeating (48 bites total across 40 minutes).Adam judged strictly (e.g., scores as low as 14, zero for appearance), while priests gave higher scores (23–24), highlighting differing standards.Event fostered camaraderie among pit masters (12 hours together) and service to attendees, teaching kids sacrifice, friendship, and craft articulation.Shout-out to Brian Schooley for organizing; Adam and David plan to enter as The Catholic Man Show next year, with Jim in a dunk tank.Main DiscussionWheat Harvest with a ScytheDavid's Experience: David harvested two 45x45-foot wheat plots using a scythe, finding it soothing, peaceful, and in tune with nature despite being exhausting.Quotes Wendell Berry: “The means we use to do our work almost certainly affects the way we look at the world” (via an X account, @minahan8).Compared to last year's sickle (felt “commie”), the scythe was efficient for small-scale farming; not practical for large-scale but satisfying.Kids raked straw (post-harvest, nutritionless due to seeding) for pig bedding or garden mulch; straw vs. hay explained (hay retains nutrition).Adam plans to borrow David's scythe for his own wheat harvest, nervous about back strain.Wendell Berry Reflection: Hosts revisit Berry's essays, appreciating his beautiful, idealistic conclusions but finding his reasoning insufficient (e.g., abandoning tractors would starve people).Compare Berry's idealism to J.R.R. Tolkien and Guardini's Letters at Lake Como; both depict lovely worlds but lack practical solutions for modern challenges.Christian Marriage and Pope Leo XIIIIntroduction to Pope Leo XIII: Adam introduces Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903), a prophetic figure who addressed modernity's challenges (secularism, communism, liberalism) in the late 19th century.Known for Rerum Novarum (1891, Catholic social teaching), reviving Thomism in seminaries (to counter Nietzsche, Hegel, and communism), and engaging modern society.His encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae (1880) emphasizes Christian marriage as a divine, not secular, institution, foundational to society.Critiqued rise of divorce, moral relativism, and civil interference undermining marriage's sanctity; argued church, not state, holds primary authority over marriage.Marriage as Trinitarian Image: Marriage mirrors the Trinity's relational society, where spousal love is so real it produces a third (child), reflecting Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Secular view (Enlightenment-era and today) reduces marriage to a consensual contract, ignoring its sacramental, stable, and permanent nature.State has a role in regulating marriage per natural law, but church's supernatural authority supersedes.Ephesians 5 and Mutual SubmissionScriptural Basis: Leo XIII references Ephesians 5 (footnoted), where St. Paul instructs mutual submission out of reverence for Christ, with specific roles: wives submit to husbands, husbands love wives as Christ loved the church.Secular society fixates on “wives submit,” ignoring mutual submission and...

Today David talks about what he learned six months ago that is fundamental to the "secret" behind a Christian view of law. It helped him see why his worldview was more informed by Darwin and Nietzsche than Christ, and it further reformed his approach to legal and public policy advocacy.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of 'The Friday Habit,' Mark Labriola and Benjamin Manley are joined by Kayvon Kian, an entrepreneur, teacher, and senior advisor at McKinsey & Company, to discuss his latest book, 'What Is Wisdom?' The conversation covers various philosophical approaches from ancient thinkers such as Socrates, Nietzsche, and Hippocrates, and how their wisdom can guide business decisions. Kayvon shares personal anecdotes, discusses the importance of skeptic capital, and emphasizes strategies for dealing with uncertainty, making better decisions, and focusing on values. The episode concludes with practical advice on preparing for 2022, highlighting the significance of controlled thinking, surrounding oneself with diverse perspectives, and making intentional decisions. Key Takeaways:Skeptic Capital Matters: Kayvan encourages building “skeptic capital”—surrounding yourself with people who challenge your assumptions and help prevent costly mistakes.Ask the Wisdom Question: When facing tough decisions, ask: “What would a wise person do in this situation?” This reframes the decision-making process through timeless values.Use Philosophers as a Thought Board: Kayvan introduces the concept of using historical thinkers (like Socrates, Nietzsche, and Hippocrates) as an advisory board to gain diverse perspectives on modern challenges.Socrates – Embrace Healthy Skepticism: Question your assumptions. Ask “Is that really so?” before jumping into new opportunities or narratives.Nietzsche – Eternal Recurrence: Act as if your decisions will recur infinitely. Would you still choose this path if you had to live it over and over again?Hippocrates – First, Do No Harm: Even with good intentions, interventions can worsen a situation. Sometimes, restraint is the wisest choice.Watch for Patterns (Taoist Influence): Recognize patterns in personal and business life. Understanding recurring cycles can help you predict outcomes and avoid mistakes.Be Present, Not Just Reactive: Don't live on autopilot. Be mindful of how your words, actions, and energy affect others and yourself—especially in moments of stress.Intentional Decision-Making: Big decisions should be values-driven, not reactive. Slowing down and switching between philosophical frameworks leads to wiser outcomes.Plan for Uncertainty: 2022 (and any year) will bring challenges. Focus on what you can control, invite diverse perspectives, and be open to shifting your mental models.Connect with Kayvan: kayvankian.comhttps://linkedin.com/in/kayvanLearn More: Visit TheFridayHabit.com for show notes, resources, and to download the guide on working on your business rather than in it. Stay Connected: Subscribe to The Friday Habit for more real-life business lessons, candid conversations, and actionable strategies to elevate your entrepreneurial journey.

The Violence of Reading: Literature and Philosophy at the Threshold of Pain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024) expounds the scene of reading as one that produces an overwhelmed body exposed to uncontainable forms of violence. The book argues that the act of reading induces a representational instability that causes the referential function of language to collapse. This breakdown releases a type of "linguistic pain" (Scarry; Butler; Hamacher) that indicates a constitutive wounding of the reading body. The wound of language marks a rupture between linguistic reality and the phenomenal world. Exploring this rupture in various ways, the book brings together texts and genres from diverse traditions and offers close examinations of the rhetoric of masochism (Sacher-Masoch; Deleuze), the relation between reading and abuse (Nietzsche; Proust; Jelinek), the sublime experience of reading (Kant; Kafka; de Man), the "novel of the institution" (Musil; Campe), and literary suicide (Bachmann; Berryman; Okkervil River). Dominik Zechner is currently an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Violence of Reading: Literature and Philosophy at the Threshold of Pain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024) expounds the scene of reading as one that produces an overwhelmed body exposed to uncontainable forms of violence. The book argues that the act of reading induces a representational instability that causes the referential function of language to collapse. This breakdown releases a type of "linguistic pain" (Scarry; Butler; Hamacher) that indicates a constitutive wounding of the reading body. The wound of language marks a rupture between linguistic reality and the phenomenal world. Exploring this rupture in various ways, the book brings together texts and genres from diverse traditions and offers close examinations of the rhetoric of masochism (Sacher-Masoch; Deleuze), the relation between reading and abuse (Nietzsche; Proust; Jelinek), the sublime experience of reading (Kant; Kafka; de Man), the "novel of the institution" (Musil; Campe), and literary suicide (Bachmann; Berryman; Okkervil River). Dominik Zechner is currently an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

The Violence of Reading: Literature and Philosophy at the Threshold of Pain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024) expounds the scene of reading as one that produces an overwhelmed body exposed to uncontainable forms of violence. The book argues that the act of reading induces a representational instability that causes the referential function of language to collapse. This breakdown releases a type of "linguistic pain" (Scarry; Butler; Hamacher) that indicates a constitutive wounding of the reading body. The wound of language marks a rupture between linguistic reality and the phenomenal world. Exploring this rupture in various ways, the book brings together texts and genres from diverse traditions and offers close examinations of the rhetoric of masochism (Sacher-Masoch; Deleuze), the relation between reading and abuse (Nietzsche; Proust; Jelinek), the sublime experience of reading (Kant; Kafka; de Man), the "novel of the institution" (Musil; Campe), and literary suicide (Bachmann; Berryman; Okkervil River). Dominik Zechner is currently an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

O herói está em crise, e não estamos falando só do Superman de capa amassada. No episódio de hoje, Rafael Arinelli, Freddy Costa, Manel Messias e Reinaldo Feurhuber se reúnem para debater por que a velha e conhecida Jornada do Herói parece não funcionar mais como antes.Baseada na teoria de Joseph Campbell, essa estrutura narrativa já foi o pilar de grandes histórias (de Buda a Luke Skywalker), mas hoje parece cambalear diante de um mundo hiperconectado, desconfiado e cada vez mais fragmentado.Será que estamos vivendo o fim do herói clássico e a ascensão do anti-herói imperfeito, falho e mais humano? Ou será que o que está em jogo é uma transição: da jornada individual para a jornada coletiva?Neste episódio, os participantes exploram as críticas contemporâneas ao modelo heroico tradicional, discutem o papel das redes sociais na construção de narrativas e refletem sobre o desejo de protagonismo em uma sociedade saturada de informação e esgotada pelo neoliberalismo.A conversa passa por Nietzsche, Black Lives Matter, Game of Thrones, TikTok, Harry Potter, Pantera Negra, Marvel 2099 e muito mais - tudo para tentar responder a uma pergunta inquietante: quem são os heróis de hoje? E, mais importante, quem precisa deles?Aperte o play e venha com a gente nessa discussão provocativa sobre narrativas, cultura e os caminhos possíveis para a imaginação heroica no século XXI.• 04m09: Pauta Principal• 1h19m31: Plano Detalhe• 1h19m06: EncerramentoOuça nosso Podcast também no:• Spotify: https://cinemacao.short.gy/spotify• Apple Podcast: https://cinemacao.short.gy/apple• Android: https://cinemacao.short.gy/android• Deezer: https://cinemacao.short.gy/deezer• Amazon Music: https://cinemacao.short.gy/amazonAgradecimentos aos padrinhos: • Bruna Mercer• Charles Calisto Souza• Daniel Barbosa da Silva Feijó• Diego Alves Lima• Eloi Xavier• Flavia Sanches• Gabriela Pastori Marino• Guilherme S. Arinelli• Katia Barga• Thiago Custodio Coquelet• William SaitoFale Conosco:• Email: contato@cinemacao.com• Facebook: https://bit.ly/facebookcinemacao• BlueSky: https://bit.ly/bskycinemacao• Instagram: https://bit.ly/instagramcinemacao• Tiktok: https://bit.ly/tiktokcinemacaoApoie o Cinem(ação)!Apoie o Cinem(ação) e faça parte de um seleto clube de ouvintes privilegiados, desfrutando de inúmeros benefícios! Com uma assinatura a partir de apenas R$5,00, você terá acesso a vantagens incríveis. E o melhor de tudo: após 1 ano de contribuição, recebe um presente exclusivo como agradecimento! Não perca mais tempo, acesse agora a página de Contribuição, escolha o plano que mais se adequa ao seu estilo e torne-se um apoiador especial do nosso canal! Junte-se a nós para uma experiência cinematográfica única!Plano Detalhe:• (Freddy): Audiobook: O Crepúsculo dos Ídolos• (Reinaldo): Livro: Você não merece ser feliz• (Reinaldo): HQ: Marvel 2099• (Maneu): HQ: Palestina• (Maneu): HQ: Guerra em Gaza• (Maneu): Podcast: Perdidos na Paralaxe - Palestina• (Maneu): HQ: Rei de Lata• (Maneu): HQ: Juan Solo• (Rafa): Vídeo: Fantástico: Seu Jorge abre o jogo para um grupo de entrevistadores curiososEdição: ISSOaí

The Violence of Reading: Literature and Philosophy at the Threshold of Pain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024) expounds the scene of reading as one that produces an overwhelmed body exposed to uncontainable forms of violence. The book argues that the act of reading induces a representational instability that causes the referential function of language to collapse. This breakdown releases a type of "linguistic pain" (Scarry; Butler; Hamacher) that indicates a constitutive wounding of the reading body. The wound of language marks a rupture between linguistic reality and the phenomenal world. Exploring this rupture in various ways, the book brings together texts and genres from diverse traditions and offers close examinations of the rhetoric of masochism (Sacher-Masoch; Deleuze), the relation between reading and abuse (Nietzsche; Proust; Jelinek), the sublime experience of reading (Kant; Kafka; de Man), the "novel of the institution" (Musil; Campe), and literary suicide (Bachmann; Berryman; Okkervil River). Dominik Zechner is currently an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Today David talks about what he learned six months ago that is fundamental to the "secret" behind a Christian view of law. It helped him see why his worldview was more informed by Darwin and Nietzsche than Christ, and it further reformed his approach to legal and public policy advocacy.

Finally, we reach the conclusion of our exploration of Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche. This time we consider another lecture on will to power, from Volume II of Heidegger's collected lectures on Nietzsche, in which will to power is considered instead as a framework for knowledge, and the principle of a new valuation.

Odemkni celý tenhle díl + další díly a k tomu desítky krátkých úderných VIP dílů! na našem Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ jen za stovku / měsíc. Odemkneš jich tím rovnou 47!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brainweare/subscribeCo je ultimátní test přijetí života? Na to se podíváme slovy Nietzscheho ve dnešním dílu, kde nás navštíví myšlenkový démon! Ale mimo to také probíráme zajímavé novinky ze světa evoluční psychologie, řešení konfliktů a (ne)citlivosti.„Nepotřebujeme se stát někým jiným. Potřebujeme se znovu stát sebou.“Parťákem dnešního dílu je ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠GymBeam⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://gymbeam.cz/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://gymbeam.cz/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ zadej kód BWA5 pro 5% slevu a koukni na naše oblíbené produkty od proteinů, až po nootropika. ⁠Odebírej VIP krátký formát RED PILL na našem Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ jen za 100,- / měsíc. Odemkneš jich tím rovnou 42! Kam dále?Kup si jeden z našich online kurzů ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Průvodce Mozkem a Myslí⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, nebo ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mentální Modely⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ a s kódem "BWA30" je tam SLEVA 30%!Zadej kód "BWA" pro slevu 10% na vybrané zboží na eshopu ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠uplife.cz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠herbal-store.cz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sledujte Brain We Are na sociálních sítích: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ( ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/brain_we_are⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ) nebo⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook ⁠Minutáž:00:00 Úvod03:58 Lipstick efekt – proč v recesi saháme po malých „luxusech“06:46 Coping strategie a „metafora akvárka“ pro emoční regulaci11:22 Evoluční koncept nejevního realismu: první 3 biasy13:37 Další 3 biasy a jejich dopad na rozhodování16:15 Jak komunikovat v konfliktu: „já“ místo obviňování20:38 Stresové situace & Jak se přenáší naše chování na okolí25:29 Nietzsche a věčný návrat – ultimátní test přijetí života28:38 Amor fati – láska k vlastnímu osudu i v utrpení32:55 Jak tvoříme smysl: kurátorství vlastních momentů41:17 Intelectual negativity bias vs „romantizace života“43:49 Emoce jako primární datový kanál pro racionální rozhodnutí55:56 Přechod do VIP částiMusic from #InAudio: https://inaudio.org/track/feelin-fine-rnb-fashion/Music from #InAudio: https://inaudio.org/track/go-funk-funk-hip-hop/

Step back into the Hyborian Age as the Born to Watch team revisits the sword-swinging, snake-worshipping, bass-drum-thumping fantasy epic that turned Arnold Schwarzenegger from a musclebound oddity into a bona fide cinematic icon. In this week's episode, Matt, Damo, and Will the Worky unsheath their mics and tackle John Milius' 1982 cult classic in our Conan the Barbarian (1982) Review, a film where dialogue is sparse, but biceps and barbarism are abundant.From the first clang of steel to the last decapitated villain, the team dissects how Conan carved a path for modern sword-and-sorcery flicks. They marvel at Basil Poledouris' thunderous score, which practically carries the film on its symphonic shoulders, because let's face it, Arnie wasn't hired for his monologues (all 76 words of them). The music, paired with breathtaking cinematography and operatic violence, sets a tone so grand it makes modern blockbusters feel like children's theatre.Matt reminisces about watching Conan far too young, the kind of early exposure to gore and magic that forges lifelong genre fans, or scars. Damo is surprised by how little he remembered and how much more there was to appreciate in the rewatch, especially the high fantasy structure and iconic character archetypes. Meanwhile, while watching it for the first time, Will finds joy in the bizarre mix of stoic barbarism and pseudo-philosophy, and even draws connections to his favourite cult flicks.The team dives deep into the lore, from Nietzsche quotes (anachronistically inserted, of course) to the Riddle of Steel, and unpacks Conan's journey from orphaned child to vengeful demigod. They salute James Earl Jones' haunting performance as Thulsa Doom, complete with snake eyes and an even more chilling voice and appreciate how he lends gravitas to a film otherwise packed with loincloths and camo body paint.There's plenty of laughs, too. From the bizarrely tame “orgy” scene (more twister than temptation) to the ineptitude of Thulsa Doom's guards who fall like dominoes, no absurdity is safe. The guys revel in the moments where the film leans into camp, noting that sometimes a little cheese makes the fantasy feast even better.But it's not all satire and side-eyes. They pay proper homage to the movie's impact on pop culture and its clear influence on everything from Game of Thrones to Willow. There's admiration for the throwback practical effects, the majestic (if questionably choreographed) sword fights, and the sheer cinematic ambition that poured from every dust-covered frame.Of course, no Born to Watch episode would be complete without some detours into the ridiculous. You'll hear about suspiciously hygienic cave-dwellers, the logistics of snake cult recruitment, and even a story involving an orgy, a wall, and a very confident swinger. Yep, it's that kind of episode. So, whether you're a lifelong Conan fan or just now discovering that sword and sorcery can be both epic and unintentionally hilarious, this episode is a glorious deep-dive into a film that helped define 1980s fantasy cinema and the Born to Watch crew wouldn't have it any other way.Listen now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts!Join the conversation:Is Conan the most iconic role of Arnold's career?Does Basil Poledouris' score make this an all-time great?What's the most badass moment in the film?Please drop us a voicemail at BornToWatch.com.au and be part of the show!#BornToWatch #ConanTheBarbarian #ArnoldSchwarzenegger #SwordAndSorcery #80sMovies #FantasyEpic #MoviePodcast #BasilPoledouris #JamesEarlJones #CultClassics

Is your brain a one-person show or an ensemble cast of rivaling neural networks? How do we manage the conflict between different drives, and what does this have to do with literature, deities, maturation, and what Nietzsche meant when he said “every drive wants to be master, and it attempts to philosophize in that spirit”? Join Eagleman this week with Jordan Peterson as we examine the way lives are built on conflicting wants.

A new approach to the theism-scientism divide rooted in a deeper form of atheism.Western philosophy is stuck in an irresolvable conflict between two approaches to the spiritual malaise of our times: either we need more God (the “turn to religion”) or less religion (the New Atheism). In Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond, (University of Chicago Press, 2024) Brook Ziporyn proposes an alternative that avoids both totalizing theomania and atomizing reductionism. What we need, he argues, is a deeper, more thoroughgoing, even religious rejection of God: an affirmative atheism without either a creator to provide meaning or finite creatures in need of it—a mystical atheism.In the legacies of Daoism and Buddhism as well as Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Bataille, Ziporyn discovers a critique of theism that develops into a new, positive sensibility—at once deeply atheist and richly religious. Experiments in Mystical Atheism argues that these “godless epiphanies” hold the key to renewing philosophy today.You can download the supplementary materials here. Other works recommended by Brook Ziporyn in this Interview Mercedes Valmisa, All Things Act, Oxford UP. Jana S. Rošker, Chinese Philosophy in Transcultural Contexts, Bloomsbury Academics Gregory Scott Moss, Absolute Dialetheism, forthcoming. But for a taste of a similar argument in a book chapter format, please check here. Blaise Aguera y Arcas, Whiat is Intelligence? Penguin Random House Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Participants: John Steppling, Hiroyuki Hamada, Daniel Broudy, and Dennis Riches. Topics covered: Palestine, a few words in honor of the life of Christopher Black, police actions in Los Angeles against migrants and minorities and their defenders, Mike Davis' “No One is Illegal” (2006), Alexandre Havard-Dianine on Descartes, Rousseau, and Nietzsche, Jacinda Adern's career after the covid years in New Zealand, digital money vs. travelers' checks, the occupation of the mind of the target population, Jacques Ellul: agitation and integration propaganda. Music track: “Spanish Key” by Miles Davis (public domain).

Continuing with Heidegger, we consider his first lecture on Nietzsche, "The Will to Power as Art", in which Heidegger gives an unorthodox but very enlightening reading of will to power, then hinges the second half of his argument on a passage where Nietzsche describes art as will to power's most perspicuous manifestation.

That Dwight D. Eisenhower became Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, orchestrating the largest amphibious invasion in history on June 6, 1944, was far from inevitable.He came from the middle of nowhere — Abilene, Kansas — had never led men in battle, spent most of his career as a staff officer, and didn't make general until he was in his fifties.How, then, did he become the leader on whom the fate of the world would rest?Today, we trace the making of Ike with Michel Paradis, author of The Light of Battle. We talk about how Eisenhower's Midwestern upbringing shaped his character, and how his most important education happened outside the classroom. Michel shares how crucial mentors were in Ike's development, and how Eisenhower made the most of those relationships. We discuss the books that were most formative in shaping his thinking, including what he got from Nietzsche. We also get into some of the practices Eisenhower used to lead effectively, including how he budgeted his time to maintain his morale while under the pressure of planning D-Day and what he did the evening before the invasion to deal with the stress.Resources Related to the PodcastAoM Podcast #641: How Eisenhower Led — A Conversation with Ike's GranddaughterAoM series on Eisenhower's leadershipAoM Podcast #996: Remembering D-Day 80 Years LaterThe Line Man's Bible: A Football Textbook of Detailed Instruction by Ernest Graves.Sunday Firesides: You Never Know How Many Chapters Are Still to ComeFox ConnerThe Czar of Halfaday Creek by James B. HendryxConnect With Michel ParadisMichel on LinkedInMichel's faculty page