Summary of Dios de la filosofía y Dios cristiano… ¿INCOMPATIBLES? 🧐 (ft. AristarchusX)

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

AristarchusX discusses the possible incompatibility between Christianity and philosophy. He argues that, because Christianity and philosophy rely on the principle of non-contradiction, they must be compatible. However, he points out that there are examples in which this principle does not work, such as the paradoxical case of Green Repair. He concludes that, in any case, it is difficult to believe that something could be both alive and dead at the same time.

00:00:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the incompatibility between the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Christianity. He argues that, if by "passible" we mean something that is possible if it can be causally affected, and if by "impasible" we mean something that is not possible to be causally affected, then there is a contradiction between what you say Santiago in the video and what I believe you said to him in person. However, AristarchusX also believes that this contradiction can be resolved by understanding that God in the philosophy of the ancient Greeks is considered to be impasible, while God in Christianity is considered to be passible.
00:05:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the incompatibility of Dios de la filosofía and Dios cristiano. He points to an example of a thing having two nature that something because one thing is what it is not also completely different. He goes on to say that if something has two natures, it is not what it is, and that it is completely different. He says he is following but can't explain himself yet. He then has a problem: what if something has two natures, but is still totally different? For example, water can be liquid and solid, but still be water. He comes up with an example of a thing he calls the grinching. This is water in this cup and also the phone in his pocket. But be careful, he doesn't mean that the grinching is a compound of the two things; it is just totally and only water in this cup and also totally the phone in his pocket. He also says that the phone is totally and only water when it is in his pocket, and totally the phone when it is in the cup. He then argues that if something is completely different than its natural state, it is not a person. He then goes on
00:10:00 The video discusses whether Christianity and philosophy are incompatible, and argues that the Christian should accept the classical view of theism. It goes on to say that there are two senses in which nature can be called rational, and that human beings are a sub-class of rational beings. Finally, it points out that nature in an abstract sense and nature in a concrete sense are both used by Aristotle and that he is one of the philosophers discussed in the video.
00:15:00 In this video, it is discussed whether the Christian God and the Greek philosopher, AristarchusX, are compatible. Tomás Aquinas, in his treatise "On the Trinity," distinguished between two natures in Christ: the nature of God the Father, which is eternal and infinite, and the nature of Christ, which is finite and temporal. This distinction is taken further in the Conciliar Reformations, where it is stated that Christ has two natures "in the sense of concrete reality." This is understood in a specific, concrete way, meaning that Christ is an individual instance of X, for example, a human nature in its concrete, particular form. AristarchusX provides a philosophical explanation of the concept of 'hipóstasis,' or 'subsistence within oneself.' He states that an entity is subsistent if it exists independently of any other entity, and that accidents, or properties that do not belong to the entity itself, do not exist in something that is subsistent. In this sense, Christ is subsistent, as He does not inhibit or subsume another entity within Himself. This difference between accidents and substances has always been present in philosophy, and can be understood in a strict, logical way. However, for the layperson
00:20:00 The video discusses the philosophical concepts of "Dios de la filosofía" and "Dios cristiano... ¿INCOMPATIBLES?," and the implications of their incompatibility. AristarchusX argues that, if you cut off his hand, it would ultimately be considered a part of his body gone, because it would pass through the stage of being separated from the organism and continuing to exist separately. This might be true for a period of time, depending on how long it takes for the hand to decay. This is indeed true for the monistic priority of Jonathan Sheffer, who believes that there is only one hypostasis--the universe--and that each individual is a hypostasis of that universe. From this perspective, one person would be seen as the highest entity possible, because they would have two unique natures. However, this view is problematic because it is not logically consistent. Another problem with this perspective is that it does not take into account the fact that nature is complex, with many parts that are not hypostases. Instead, it reduces everything to hypostases, which is not true for nature. In the end, the discussion turns to the nature of the person, and Arist
00:25:00 In this video, Marco explains how the doctrine of the Trinity can be explained using the example of a chair. First, we discuss how the doctrine of the Trinity can be explained within the context of seven ecumenical councils. Next, we explore how the doctrine of the Trinity can be understood philosophically and theologically. Finally, we discuss why humanity is not considered to be in a state of sinfulness but in fact has two natures, divine and human. This leads us to the conclusion that humanity is not an independent entity but rather exists in union with the divine. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be simplistically understood by understanding only one nature of humanity.
00:30:00 The video discusses the incompatibility of Christianity and philosophy, with AristarchusX arguing that while Christianity contains some elements that are not fully understandable by the human intellect, ultimately it is understandable. He believes that analogies between human nature in Christ and the normal cases of things that humans experience in their everyday lives are sufficient to intuitionally understand why Christianity does not fulfill the conditions for being a metaphysical entity. Various authors, including Thomas Aquinas, hold that the nature of Christ's human nature is not fully realized until it is subsumed by divine nature, but Tomás argues that this is not the case- Christ's nature is fully realized even if the union between human nature and divine nature is broken.
00:35:00 In a philosophical sense, one's nature could be human nature, shared by everyone, but in a concrete sense, because I was born in Barcelona, with these specific genetic characteristics, everything about me is defined only by me. There are no other people who share all of those attributes. I have to think about this because, of course, there we would be putting things that are merely accidents into the definition of a thing. So, for example, I might have some traits that are considered accidental, that flow from the essence of a thing, and always occur when that thing exists. We could discuss which of my characteristics are essential, and which are accidental. For example, maybe my genetic code is essential for me to be who I am, and therefore some of my attributes would be considered essential, while others would be considered accidental. But we'd agree that something has at least some essential attributes, and if it lost those attributes, it would no longer be that thing. We could discuss which attributes are essential. For example, someone might say that the essence of a person is their rational nature. But another person might say that being human is an accidental attribute of being rational, because people can be rational and not have a human nature. So,
00:40:00 In this YouTube video, AristarchusX discusses the possible incompatibility between Christianity and philosophy. He first explains that there are three essential persons in the universe--God, humans, and the soul--and that only one of these essences has a divine nature. He then goes on to say that, although it may appear at first that these two essences are compatible, in reality they are completely incompatible. For instance, a human and divine soul can never be the same thing, and Christianity is committed to reconciling these two opposing views. AristarchusX argues that, if this reconciliation is impossible, then Christianity is false. He then goes on to mention another principle that he believes is intuitively clear--that each thing has a specific nature. If Christianity is true, then this principle would require that God also has a specific nature--a human nature--which is impossible. AristarchusX concludes his talk by saying that, if Christianity is true, it must be based on other principles that are also intuitively clear to him.
00:45:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the incompatibility of Christianity and philosophy, pointing out that there is a contradiction in the idea that Jesus is both God and human. He argues that the terms "pasible" and "impasible" cannot be contradictory, because if "pasible" means something that can be potentially affected, and "impasible" means something that cannot be potentially affected, then "impasible" must also be able to be potentially affected. Therefore, Christianity and philosophy cannot both be true at the same time.
00:50:00 AristarchusX discusses the possible compatibility of Christianity and Plato's philosophy, arguing that the Christian definition of "valiant" is not really a change in the meaning of the word, but instead a metaphysical analysis and what is happening in the world in order to be able to preach that concept. He then provides a second answer, that even if the meaning of the word changed, it would still be legitimate for a Christian to make the change because the concept is ultimately based on truth as first proposed by Plato. As long as there is evidence to the contrary, he believes a Christian can legitimately define terms as they see fit and ask whether the theory is consistent. Additionally, he argues that the person who is changing the definition is the one who is persistently insisting on the original conditions of truth for a theory to be valid. He believes that Santo Tomas is also saying these things, but is being a bit arrogant thinking that no one would be able to understand what he is saying. He believes that Santo Tomas would be wrong to think he was not aware of what he was saying and writing five contradictory statements in a row. He concludes that it is more plausible that Santo Tomas is actually thinking something similar to what he is saying, which is that two concepts
00:55:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the apparent contradictions between Christianity and philosophy. He argues that, because Christianity and philosophy rely on the principle of non-contradiction, they must be compatible. However, he points out that there are examples in which this principle does not work, such as the paradoxical case of Green Repair. He concludes that, in any case, it is difficult to believe that something could be both alive and dead at the same time.

01:00:00 - 01:45:00

AristarchusX discusses the incompatibility of Christianity and philosophy, arguing that while there is a contradiction, ultimately Christianity accepts that there is a special type of union between a specific human nature and a divine nature. He does not believe that we have reached a good solution yet, as we are still discussing the issue of mobility and immutability.

01:00:00 AristarchusX discusses the possibility that there is a difference between the divine nature of God and the human nature of Jesus Christ. He argues that, if this were the case, then there would be a contradiction between the two. He provides an example of how this might work: if Brazil were to have two halves, one with a 90-degree angle and the other without, then everything with two halves would be considered to be Brazil Doblado. He argues that this is analogous to our ordinary experience of reality, in which we assume that everything has only one nature. Christological Christian philosophers would disagree with this view, because they believe that the divine nature of Jesus Christ includes the ability to exist in two different states.
01:05:00 The video discusses the idea that there is a difference between the Christian God and the philosophical God, and argues that the Christian God is simpler than the philosophical God. It suggests that this is intuitively apparent, and that we accept this principle of non-contradiction without questioning it often. The video then discusses a contradiction: the idea that Juan cannot be both alive and dead. It argues that this is because we assume that Juan has a simple nature, which is composed of parts.
01:10:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the compatibility of Christianity and philosophy. He argues that there is no contradiction in philosophical arguments because they are all based on a common premise: that all things have a single nature. He goes on to say that, even if one accepts Christianity as a valid source of religious authority, it is still reasonable to hold onto the idea that all things have a single nature.
01:15:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the compatibility of Christianity and philosophy, arguing that while there may be some contradictions between certain aspects of the two religions, at a fundamental level they are both plausible. He goes on to say that there is a higher level of incompatibility, at which Christianity and philosophy cannot both be true. He argues that at this level, it is still possible to accept that the world is greater than our intuitions, and that some contradictions in religious teachings can be salvaged by explaining them in terms of two separate but equal realities.
01:20:00 In this video, AristarchusX argues that, philosophically speaking, there is no difference between the Christian God and the Greek God of Philosophy. He says that, using the example of a phone and a cup, if something is both liquid and solid, it can be considered to be in a state of "between" the two. He argues that, in this case, the object is both liquid and solid, and is thereforemetaphysically possible. He then goes on to say that, although Christianity accepts the possibility of a God who is both solid and liquid, Tomás does not believe that such a God actually exists.
01:25:00 AristarchusX discusses why it might be legitimate for someone to say that there is no contradiction between Christianity and philosophy, despite the two having different intuitions about the nature of things. He argues that both positions can be upheld epistemologically, and that the latter is more justified.
01:30:00 AristarchusX discusses the compatibility of Christianity and philosophy, arguing that the cost of accepting Christianity is not too high when seen from either perspective. He talks about how someone can perfectly say that the cost of Christianity is too high, because it includes giving up many of one's intuitions when trying to apply it to God and divine things. However, only accepting that God is able to do what he has already done once is required, and this is different from the case of someone being conceived without any sexual relationship. He concludes that this is why Christianity and philosophy do not conflict, because it is important to understand that something can have multiple natures. However, it is fundamental for him to understand that the concept of nature does not end up being what he believes it is, as it cannot be measured in a scientific way and is based on intuition rather than evidence.
01:35:00 In this YouTube video, AristarchusX discusses the compatibility of Christianity and philosophy. He says that for him, it is too strong an intuition to believe that other intuitions that he has led, for example, to a supposed hierarchical, uncaused cause, could be repudiated. He says that, in this case, the principle of difference in cause does not hold, and that, in the case of Jesus, it is much more clear because the resurrection is more easily understood due to the fact that it is a matter of empirical fact that people behave in a certain way after they have died. He maintains that, even when applying principles that are fundamental to logic, in matters that are very removed from our ordinary experience, the intuition cannot be applied fully, and that, in such cases, it is probable that the intuition will not be applied at all. He concludes by saying that this is a question of clash of intuitions and that, in this case, someone who clings to an intuition would be considered irrational.
01:40:00 The video discusses the possibility that Christianity and philosophy are incompatible. It features AristarchusX, a philosopher, discussing the matter. He says that, in some cases, people might lie, for example when playing life or when it matters. However, he does not believe that is always the case. For example, when the apostles were alive, people would not usually lie about what they had seen. This is based on a principle that is reasonable, for example, when summarizing a complex argument. However, it depends on the context in which the apostles were speaking. It is also possible that, if someone has a primordial intuition that is used systematically in their rational reasoning, they might have to abandon that intuition when considering this particular case. In other words, it is not necessarily rational to hold onto an intuition when it does not apply to this particular case. Philosopher AristarchusX believes that, overall, this is a less problematic issue for a Christian. He suggests that, when people have primordial intuitions that can be applied to many cases, they can still save all of the contradictions by saying that the intuition has multiple natural properties. He concludes by saying that, in his opinion, this is a somewhat minor issue for a Christian.
01:45:00 In this video, AristarchusX discusses the incompatibility of Christianity and philosophy, saying that while there is a contradiction, ultimately Christianity accepts that there is a special type of union between a specific human nature and a divine nature. This does not mean that anything can have two natures, as philosopher's argue, but rather that it is clear and valid. He does not believe that we have reached a good solution yet, as we are still discussing the issue of mobility and immutability.