Библия и религия: смысл и влияние на цивилизацию!

Библия и религия: смысл и влияние на цивилизацию!

2. Смысл библии и религиозных оснований цивилизации 📖

Введение:

Джордан Питерсон и Джо Роган о библии и вере ✨

Раздел 1: Библия как фундамент для цивилизации

1.1 Влияние Библии на формирование Западной цивилизации 1.2 Понимание Библии как литературного канона 1.3 Библия как основание веры и культурных ценностей

Раздел 2: Роль слов и языка в формировании культурного понимания

2.1 Слова и их влияние на мировоззрение 2.2 Власть языка и его возможные злоупотребления 2.3 Проблема лжи и способы преодоления в библейских текстах

Раздел 3: Библия и постсекулярное общество

3.1 Затухание влияния секуляризма и появление постсекулярной эры 3.2 Восстановление роли религиозности в обществе 3.3 Библия как источник истины в постсекулярном мире

Раздел 4: Историческая и культурная значимость Библии

4.1 Библия и западный культурный канон 4.2 Влияние Библии на музыку, искусство и архитектуру 4.3 Укоренение правовой системы в библейском наследии

Раздел 5: Эпифания и откровения в музее Библии

5.1 Посещение музея Библии в Вашингтоне 5.2 Отражение влияния Библии на современное общество 5.3 Значимость Библии как культурного феномена

Заключение: Библия и наша современность 🌍

Возможности и сложности новой постсекулярной эры

Примечание: В данной статье будут рассмотрены исключительно идеи, высказанные Джорданом Питерсоном и Джо Роганом в их популярном подкасте. Мы не претендуем на исчерпывающий анализ или интерпретацию Библии и ее значения для различных культур и религий.

Смысл библии и религиозных оснований цивилизации

Введение

Многие из вас, наверное, слышали о последнем эпизоде подкаста Джо Рогана, в котором он беседовал с известным Джорданом Питерсоном. Во время их разговора они неоднократно обсуждали взгляды Питерсона на христианство, включая глубокое объяснение роли Библии в становлении западной цивилизации. Роган был поражен, когда Питерсон подробно описал, что на самом деле представляет собой Библия и какое значение она имеет для формирования нашего мира. Меня увлекло объяснение Питерсона, потому что оно сильно соответствует наблюдениям культурных антропологов о врожденно религиозных основаниях всех цивилизаций в мире и почему наше современное секулярное общество начинает распадаться. Что я хочу сделать, это показать вам объяснение Питерсона о Библии, а затем я сравню его с тем, что говорят культурные антропологи, чтобы мы могли лучше понять, почему секулярный либерализм уступает место новой постсекулярной эпохе. Если категории просто распадаются, особенно основные, культура рассыпается, потому что культура есть структура категорий, вот что это. Точнее, культура есть структура категорий, которыми мы все делимся, и поэтому мы видим вещи одинаково, поэтому мы помогаем это теперь, когда-то разбираемся. Так я как раз прошел через музей Библии в Вашингтоне, это было очень круто, очень круто. Это очень крутой музей, поэтому структура – это то, что лучшее. Это то, что я понял, я только что понял это на этой неделе, это было круто, это было круто. Просто воспринимал идею с разных точек зрения. Ну, это не совсем так, это действительно то, что это история книги. В нашей западной культуре речь идет о книге, и какое-то время там действительно была только одна книга. In case There was only one like a You know that, as far as our Western culture is concerned? There was one book, and then before it was the Bible, it was a, you know, scrolls? And it was writings on, papoti. but it we were starting to aggregate written texts together, and it went through all sorts of technological transformations, and then it became books that everybody could buy, the book everybody could buy. And then it became all sorts of books that everybody could buy. But all those books in some sense emerged out of that underlying book. And that book itself, the Bible, isn't a book, it's a library. It's a collection of books. And so what I figured out was partly because I was talking to my brother-in-law, Jim Keller, who's, the world's greatest chip, designer, and he's now designed a chip that's as powerful as the human brain or something like that, which is optimized for artificial intelligence by the way. And so I talked to him about that. He said, You've heard of the internet. I said, yeah, Jim, I've heard of the internet. And he said, This is way more revolutionary than that. So in any case, we were talking about meaning. And text because we were talking about translation and the problem of understanding text. And Jim said, the meaning of words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another. And the post-modernists make the case that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That's wrong because what about rage? That's not words. And what about moving your hand? That's not words. So it's wrong. But part of it's right because the meaning that we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So now, then you think, well, let's think about the relationship between words. Well, some words are dependent on other words. Some ideas are dependent on other ideas. The more ideas are dependent on a given idea, the more fundamental that idea is by that that's a definition of fundamental. So now imagine you have an aggregation of texts in a civilization. You say, Which are the fundamental texts? And the answer is the text upon which most other texts depend. And so you put Shakespeare way in there in English because so many texts are dependent on, Shakespeare's literary revelations, and Milton would be in that category and Dante would be in that category, at least in translation. Fundamental authors part of the Western canon not because of the arbitrary dictates of power, but because those texts influenced more other texts. And then you think about that as a hierarchy, with the Bible at its base, which is certainly the case. So now imagine that's the entire corpus of linguistic production all things considered. Now, how do you understand that? Like, literally, how do you understand that? The answer is you sample it by reading and listening to stories and listening to, to people talk. You sample that whole domain. You build a low-resolution representation of that in your inside, you know, the kind of thing that you're aware of, and then you listen and see through that. And so it isn't that the Bible is true. It's that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth, which makes it way more true than just true. It's a whole different kind of true. And I think this is, I think this is not only literally the case factually. I think it can't be any other way. It's the only way we can solve the problem of perception all right. So what Jordan Peterson just said there in many respects should shake all of us out of our ridiculous secularized stupor that's been operative in the West from at least since the end of the 18th century Enlightenment that spent so much time and effort marginalizing the Bible and pushing it to the periphery of human life. All we need is science, you know, blah, blah, blah. What Peterson just said there exposes how ridiculously empathetically foolhardy that secularized project has been and why it's losing, why we are more and more entering into what scholars call a post-secular world. Now, what Peterson was dealing with there was the profound question, how does a civilization share a common understanding of the world? How is it possible for tens, if not hundreds of millions of people to come to share an overall fundamental point of view, a point of view that's not only shared but is also unique to any given civilization? Obviously, each one of us has our own unique sense of things. We all have our personal understanding of that fundamental civilization point of view. But in order for us to communicate, we have to share some perspectives in common. And those perspectives are unique to civilizations. And so in answering that question, Peterson singled out both the verbal and the literary domain as the place in which that shared point of view is derived and cultivated. So for Peterson, and for many scholars, how we perceive the world, our collective point of view, is inevitably shaped by our language, by the words we use both in speaking and in reading because words provide a library of meaning for us, which, of course, in many ways starts with our own personal names, right? Our names define us as over and against others, particularly our last names. So words inform our worldview because they provide definition and meaning to life. But what Jordan Peterson didn't mention there is that this has been a major issue for cultural anthropologists for at least the last 100 years in their studies. Cultural anthropologists recognize that words and language can be a huge problem for a functioning social order. I mean, think about it. With words, I can certainly do all kinds of wonderful things, right? I can talk and imagine concepts like cosmologies and qualities like good and evil and abstractions like capitalism and, you know, values like honor and chivalry. I can express wishes and dreams. I can use the future away to talk about things to come and the past tense to talk about things that were. But I can also use words to deceive, to manipulate, to mislead, in short, to lie. It's so fascinating that in the Bible, the very first sin involved deception with the question, did God really say… So lies are a major problem for any society. And the question is, how do we know who we can trust when we're all capable of lying to each other? But there's another problem as well, and that's the problem that anthropologists call Babel. And this isn't just the problem of not understanding other languages because those would be different civilizations. No. Here, the problem is the inevitability of contradiction within the civilization. If I say Zeus is Lord, inevitably someone's going to come around and say, No, Zeus is not Lord. If I say that person over there is a good person, inevitably someone else is going to come in and say, No, no, that person is a bad person. And here's the problem: who's right? Two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same context, as Aristotle would point out. All you'd have to do is argue with me, and you've proved the point you'd be arguing for one position as over and against its opposite. Two contradictory views cannot both be true at the same time in the same context. So how do we know who's right, especially if we all could be lying? The use of language is a major obstacle to a functioning social order. Now, cultural anthropologists have long recognized that there's actually only one solution to this problem of the lie in a Babel. There's only one thing that can ultimately overcome this confusion, and that one solution is in a single word: religion. Cultural anthropologists have long recognized that religion alone provides a solution to the problem of the lie in the Babel. And this is because historic religions forge what scholars call the sacred. And the sacred is a particular kind of discourse. It's a particular kind of speech or text that's set apart from everything else. That's what we mean by sacred, right? It's completely and wholly removed from mundane in life. It's set apart from everything else in that it expresses what is unequivocally, absolutely, and unquestionably true. And the point here is that the sacred has to be true. It's not proven to be true because, why? Because whatever you're using to prove its truth is itself the sacred. Its truth is unquestioned and absolute, you see, and there's really no way we can get around this. Every civilization has to have a fundamental starting point that not only is absolute, it has to be absolute. It has to be unquestionable in and of itself. Otherwise, we'll never get past the problem of the lie. If the sacred could just as easily lie as anything else, then by definition, it's not sacred. It's not completely set apart and uncontaminated by the mundane. The sacred, by definition, cannot possibly lie. And so once we have a sacred word given to us by a source that is itself sacred, hence God or the gods or divine being in some sense, once we have a sacred word, now we can resolve the problem of the lie. We have absolute truth upon which to establish our social order. The sacred establishes truth and is therefore able to decide who's right among all the Babel, right? All the differing contradictory opinions. This is what Jordan Peterson means when he talks about the Bible being way more true than just true, right? For Western civilization, the Bible is the foundation of truth, it's the precondition for the manifestation of truth, and therefore, it is no coincidence that the more we marginalize the foundation of truth from our society, the harder it will be to define what a woman is. Now, of course, Rogan has said some pretty dumb things about the Bible in the past, particularly the New Testament. And what Peterson is calling him out on, at least inadvertently, is that the moment Rogan starts beating up on the Bible, whether he likes it or not, Rogan is ultimately deferring to an alternative sacred. An alternative foundation that is assumed to be every bit as unquestionable and absolute as Western civilization believed the Bible once was. And I'd be very curious to probe whether that alternative sacred, could even remotely match the civilizational power and influence the Bible, which civilizational scholars admit is utterly extraordinary. Peterson got into the verbal domain, the literary canon, inspired by the Bible, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Solzhenitsyn, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Our musical tradition from Gregorian chant to Johann Sebastian Bach, our artistic tradition of Michelangelo and Raphael and Rembrandt rooted in the church's iconography, our architectural tradition inspired by visions of the new creation: many European cathedrals are 144 cubits tall, which corresponds to the height of the city of God in the Book of Revelation, our legal tradition which is rooted in the medieval canon law of the church, our economic system: credit is a term derived from the Latin credo, which means "I believe." Credit was considered in the medieval church a domain of faith. We could go on and on and on. The Bible is indeed the foundation for how Western civilization developed over the last 2000 years, which makes it the single most unique book of our culture and society. Jordan Peterson mentioned having this epiphany while he visited the Bible Museum in DC. I've been there, and after walking up a cascading set of glass stairs to the first floor, I encountered a prominent sign summarizing the museum. "Perhaps no other book in history has had a greater impact than the Bible. It is the most widely published book ever read by people in thousands of languages all over the world. In some cultures, its stories, expressions, and ideas have been so thoroughly absorbed they seem almost invisible. The exhibits in these galleries invite you to discover the Bible's presence around you, often in unexpected places, hidden in plain sight." I can think of no better description for what Jordan Peterson has just done for all of us. Now before you go, you will definitely want to check out my other video on Jordan Peterson teaching Joe Rogan about the cross. You're not going to want to miss that, so make sure to click on the link, and I'll see you over there. God bless you.

Возможности и сложности новой постсекулярной эры

• 🌟 Процветание взаимопонимания в постсекулярном обществе
• 🌟 Укрепление социального порядка через религиозные основы
• 🌟 Значимость подлинности истины в новой эпохе
• 🌟 Распад секулярного либерализма и возрождение религиозности

Примечание: В каждой эпохе и культуре мнения могут сильно различаться по поводу того, как Библия интерпретируется и какова ее роль в обществе и культуре. Представленные здесь идеи основаны на взглядах Джордана Питерсона и взглядах культурных антропологов из его подкаста с Джо Роганом.