A lot of people who enjoy philosophy will not read the works of the Catholic monks and clergyman. And that’s a shame. Many wrote books with very little religious talk. Others created ground breaking concepts in science.
Recently, I watched a video someone posted on YouTube about the work of Carl Jung. The video touches on how Jung saw Meister Eckhart as much more integrated than Nietzsche. If I understand correctly, Jung believed Nietzsche was correct in his analysis but allowed his anger to scold society as opposed to being a teacher. Jung believed Eckhart had the same insight but used it to the benefit of society. He called Eckhart a “bridge between East and West.”
I had bought a collection of Eckharts work some years ago. It’s one of those books I put by my bed believing I would read a little each night but have yet to follow through. I buy to many books and probably over whelm myself attempting to take it all in to rapidly
That’s a very interesting distinction, and it makes sense to me! I haven’t read as much of Eckhart as I’d like, but I know the fundamental difference is he had a reverence for the traditions that preceded them, whereas Nietzsche’s philosophy was like a great wrecking ball to the beliefs and applied wisdom of the past haha.
By the way, I believe you are doing a great job covering the classic. The Count of Monte Cristo intrigues me. I have seen other content creators discuss it followed by comments that say something like, “that is not a great classic. It’s all about revenge.” I do not agree. The protagonist is named “Dantes” for a reason. He like the other Dante travel down into the underworld to learn then return with more wisdom than before. Dantes, Virgil is the old Priest he meets in Chateau D’iff. He went in without the ability to read. The old Priest changed his whole perception of the world. To me, this is the significance
You will see what I mean by “bedside read”. Some of it is his sermons some just short writing. It would probably be helpful to all of us to pick something out in there to read before we sleep
Hmm, which Scriptures are you referring to? What is the goal of recommending "scripture"? I suggest that focusing on the "Western Canon" is a little narrow and limiting, and "Scripture" should probably start with a good translation of the Upanishads, an unedited but fully annotated Tao de Ching, a comparison of early Pali texts of Buddha's sermons, and Tibetan Buddhist texts of Vimalamitra's 17 works, and a close reading and contemplation of the ecstatic Gnostic poem, "Thunder, Perfect Mind", before exploring the writings of the patriarchal religions, namely some version of the Bible, and some version of the Koran.
The bible is vital context for all the philosophers and theologians he mentions. He is talking about understanding specifically the Great Books in this article and the authors of said books have studied scriptures. So to understand the context you need to read the bible. Focusing on buddha instead would be random and unhelpful for understanding the great books and western civilization.
So he just needs today Christian scriptures, if that’s what he means. But really, all those scriptures I mentioned are also integral to understanding the literature of early European thought, as well, doesn’t it? Well maybe not the Tao, which is pretty specific, but tracking how Indo Asian, and Gnostic thought influenced the Bible as we know today is pretty important
Yes reading those would help with some of the books I am sure. However, they are not as integreal to most of the great books as you might think. I've read Freud, Aristotle, Jung, Nietzsche, Virgil, Tolstoy, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein... more than I can count, heavy on religion and philosophy. I found the Bible, Old and New Testament, to be FAR more influential on the great books. Tolstoy and others definitely pulled a lot of Buddhist ideas but they are in the minority. But again, you are right that reading those can help understand some of them. I wouldn't call it integral to all of them though, least not as vital as the bible
Yes, sorry to be cranky. Misreading the Bible would happen less often if people had a better background and broader view, before and beyond the Bible, is all I am saying. Less twisting of what the Bible says to justify their own little concerns. Which often happens with that tone of absolute certainty which set my teeth on edge. So in fact, it is my issue. La la.
Oooh, sorry I didn't get what you were saying. YES FOR REAL! People can't just read and interpret the bible however they please. They have got to have outside information and help. Justifiying whatever the heck they want with the Bible without understanding it at all is frustrating for me as well. Augustine of Hippo was a brilliant scholar and, even though he came after (obviously), offers great ways to interpret it. They could read Thucydides and Herodotus to get some additional historical context. So yes I for sure agree with you there.
Honest question for you though: does reading Buddha help understand the bible? I mean, I can see how it offers a different religious view which has huge consequences philosophically but I don't believe it influenced the Bible much at all. Buddha was not well known in the Roman Empire part of the world, nor in Jesus' time. Do you think I am wrong about this?
Buddha lived several hundred years before Christ, and Buddhist thought spread along the trade routes going east and west, before and along with the spread of early Christianity-the early churches were not as compartmentalized and closed off from other faiths as some would like us to believe. The Gnostics and various threads of Christianity that got labeled heretical after the councils in the 400’s to standardize Christian dogma clearly had contact with Buddhism, and these contacts continued along the Silk Route, with documentation by various travelers, Jesuit priests who made journeys to China, traders like Marco Polo, etc. Nestorian Christianity, Manicheaism, distinctions in the various Eastern Orthodox traditions compared to the tradition of the Roman Catholic orthodoxy, all benefit from some understanding of what was a primary spiritual thread through most of the civilized world during the early development of Christianity. I admit, I have had too many arguments either uneducated and narrow minded people who say the words of the King’s James Bible are the direct words of God, and all other religions are made up and blasphemous, so I tend to be a little cranky about this.
You perfectly capture the essential humility, structure, and communal dialogue required to engage the Great Books not as a vanity, but as a transformation. A vital reminder indeed.
Its a masterful articulation of true education's purpose: not merely to fill the mind, but to form the soul in love of truth.
> Nietzsche’s work was largely a response and polemic to Socrates and Jesus, etc.
This is such a perverse take on Nietzche’s writings with the sole purpose of centering philosophy on cristianism
The main body of his work gravitates towards a break from dogmatic discourse such as this, and a rejection of the imposition of faith that was already on it’s last legs when it was written
By focusing on the work developed millennia ago, you reject all that came after.
It’s also insane to suggest that one should read the bible to understand rationalism. Plato came way before and still manages to be significantly more relevant than anything written in any “holy” text
Augustine’s quote as a younger man, “Lord, make me Good, but not yet!”
One of my all time favorites from him haha!
A lot of people who enjoy philosophy will not read the works of the Catholic monks and clergyman. And that’s a shame. Many wrote books with very little religious talk. Others created ground breaking concepts in science.
Agree! There’s a treasure trove of wisdom to be found amongst the monastic tradition
Recently, I watched a video someone posted on YouTube about the work of Carl Jung. The video touches on how Jung saw Meister Eckhart as much more integrated than Nietzsche. If I understand correctly, Jung believed Nietzsche was correct in his analysis but allowed his anger to scold society as opposed to being a teacher. Jung believed Eckhart had the same insight but used it to the benefit of society. He called Eckhart a “bridge between East and West.”
I had bought a collection of Eckharts work some years ago. It’s one of those books I put by my bed believing I would read a little each night but have yet to follow through. I buy to many books and probably over whelm myself attempting to take it all in to rapidly
That’s a very interesting distinction, and it makes sense to me! I haven’t read as much of Eckhart as I’d like, but I know the fundamental difference is he had a reverence for the traditions that preceded them, whereas Nietzsche’s philosophy was like a great wrecking ball to the beliefs and applied wisdom of the past haha.
So this definitely tracks to me!
By the way, I believe you are doing a great job covering the classic. The Count of Monte Cristo intrigues me. I have seen other content creators discuss it followed by comments that say something like, “that is not a great classic. It’s all about revenge.” I do not agree. The protagonist is named “Dantes” for a reason. He like the other Dante travel down into the underworld to learn then return with more wisdom than before. Dantes, Virgil is the old Priest he meets in Chateau D’iff. He went in without the ability to read. The old Priest changed his whole perception of the world. To me, this is the significance
The YouTube video I watch Nietzsche appears around 26 minute mark
https://youtu.be/aea3VEOCvNw?si=S6vvKMsvaqWXd0ST
absolutely
Here is the Eckhart collection I have.
https://a.co/d/fDIJaTF
Looks great! I might start with this edition myself if you recommend it!
You will see what I mean by “bedside read”. Some of it is his sermons some just short writing. It would probably be helpful to all of us to pick something out in there to read before we sleep
Not sure I see how to attach 🤔
Hmm, which Scriptures are you referring to? What is the goal of recommending "scripture"? I suggest that focusing on the "Western Canon" is a little narrow and limiting, and "Scripture" should probably start with a good translation of the Upanishads, an unedited but fully annotated Tao de Ching, a comparison of early Pali texts of Buddha's sermons, and Tibetan Buddhist texts of Vimalamitra's 17 works, and a close reading and contemplation of the ecstatic Gnostic poem, "Thunder, Perfect Mind", before exploring the writings of the patriarchal religions, namely some version of the Bible, and some version of the Koran.
The bible is vital context for all the philosophers and theologians he mentions. He is talking about understanding specifically the Great Books in this article and the authors of said books have studied scriptures. So to understand the context you need to read the bible. Focusing on buddha instead would be random and unhelpful for understanding the great books and western civilization.
So he just needs today Christian scriptures, if that’s what he means. But really, all those scriptures I mentioned are also integral to understanding the literature of early European thought, as well, doesn’t it? Well maybe not the Tao, which is pretty specific, but tracking how Indo Asian, and Gnostic thought influenced the Bible as we know today is pretty important
Yes reading those would help with some of the books I am sure. However, they are not as integreal to most of the great books as you might think. I've read Freud, Aristotle, Jung, Nietzsche, Virgil, Tolstoy, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein... more than I can count, heavy on religion and philosophy. I found the Bible, Old and New Testament, to be FAR more influential on the great books. Tolstoy and others definitely pulled a lot of Buddhist ideas but they are in the minority. But again, you are right that reading those can help understand some of them. I wouldn't call it integral to all of them though, least not as vital as the bible
Yes, sorry to be cranky. Misreading the Bible would happen less often if people had a better background and broader view, before and beyond the Bible, is all I am saying. Less twisting of what the Bible says to justify their own little concerns. Which often happens with that tone of absolute certainty which set my teeth on edge. So in fact, it is my issue. La la.
Oooh, sorry I didn't get what you were saying. YES FOR REAL! People can't just read and interpret the bible however they please. They have got to have outside information and help. Justifiying whatever the heck they want with the Bible without understanding it at all is frustrating for me as well. Augustine of Hippo was a brilliant scholar and, even though he came after (obviously), offers great ways to interpret it. They could read Thucydides and Herodotus to get some additional historical context. So yes I for sure agree with you there.
Honest question for you though: does reading Buddha help understand the bible? I mean, I can see how it offers a different religious view which has huge consequences philosophically but I don't believe it influenced the Bible much at all. Buddha was not well known in the Roman Empire part of the world, nor in Jesus' time. Do you think I am wrong about this?
Buddha lived several hundred years before Christ, and Buddhist thought spread along the trade routes going east and west, before and along with the spread of early Christianity-the early churches were not as compartmentalized and closed off from other faiths as some would like us to believe. The Gnostics and various threads of Christianity that got labeled heretical after the councils in the 400’s to standardize Christian dogma clearly had contact with Buddhism, and these contacts continued along the Silk Route, with documentation by various travelers, Jesuit priests who made journeys to China, traders like Marco Polo, etc. Nestorian Christianity, Manicheaism, distinctions in the various Eastern Orthodox traditions compared to the tradition of the Roman Catholic orthodoxy, all benefit from some understanding of what was a primary spiritual thread through most of the civilized world during the early development of Christianity. I admit, I have had too many arguments either uneducated and narrow minded people who say the words of the King’s James Bible are the direct words of God, and all other religions are made up and blasphemous, so I tend to be a little cranky about this.
I have said many times on my life , " in big scheme of "things" , I know nothing" . It's truth
Great write up. Hope I can make the next live discussion.
You perfectly capture the essential humility, structure, and communal dialogue required to engage the Great Books not as a vanity, but as a transformation. A vital reminder indeed.
Its a masterful articulation of true education's purpose: not merely to fill the mind, but to form the soul in love of truth.
Shine on.
> Nietzsche’s work was largely a response and polemic to Socrates and Jesus, etc.
This is such a perverse take on Nietzche’s writings with the sole purpose of centering philosophy on cristianism
The main body of his work gravitates towards a break from dogmatic discourse such as this, and a rejection of the imposition of faith that was already on it’s last legs when it was written
By focusing on the work developed millennia ago, you reject all that came after.
It’s also insane to suggest that one should read the bible to understand rationalism. Plato came way before and still manages to be significantly more relevant than anything written in any “holy” text
I’m sorry I missed your talk. I just found your posts. Please do another one sooner than later!
Why virtue of all things?