I'm confused, are you implying it isn't worth watching, are you questioning the integrity of the facts
@PaulVanderKlay
7 ай бұрын
This went well! Kudos to you Alex for doing what others couldn't.
@06rtm
7 ай бұрын
It was brilliant
@baalstone675
7 ай бұрын
Hi Paul. Yes it was great.
@elektrotehnik94
Ай бұрын
Alex is on his way to embodying the best attributes UK's intellectual tradition was famous for. ❤ Godspeed Pastor Paul, your voice & your input in the comment sections of the wider KZitem is very much welcome & very much enriching 🏆❤
@renaud_gagne
7 ай бұрын
I think this calls for part 2 with a deeper exploration.
@bigol7169
7 ай бұрын
It really doesn't
@Bookswinters
7 ай бұрын
I'm not super interested in hearing JPs fanfiction about how the world works. For example, to the unindoctrinated like myself it comes off as double speak for JP to complain about ubiquitous economic pressures ruining architecture. Because in the same breath he blames "leftists", who broadly define themselves as opposing the flows of economic pressure. If he actually spoke with a leftist it's likely many would support state sponsored beautiful public buildings like the cathedrals he speaks of... I'm sure he has some rationale that makes sense through his mental contortions if you're willing to follow his twisted logics. Same way he rationalizes "you shall not make a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" as meaning simply avoid representing God the Father. To a layman he's just special pleading. It would come off as more honest if he simply said "we don't think the second commandant still applies" or "we interpret it as meaning simply no idols".
@egonomics352
7 ай бұрын
@@Bookswintersyou do not know what you talk about.
@feliped2443
7 ай бұрын
@@Bookswinters One-dimensional take
@clorofilaazul
7 ай бұрын
I hope Alex won’t ever invite this mediocre guy to his podcast.
@mad-official
7 ай бұрын
This conversation flew by. I can't believe how much I enjoyed this. Hope you have him back on again.
@JoshWiniberg
7 ай бұрын
Pageau is such an intriguing and interesting guest. I've been thinking recently that my atheism is really a reaction against reductionism. When you find religious people with a more sophisticated take, who are also wary of the "man in the sky" conception of god, it does make me think there are forms of religious thinking I can respect. It just seems that many modern religious types have an extremely unsophisticated interpretation of religion, and that often provokes an equally unsophisticated reaction from us atheists. A necessary reaction, in my view, when religion begins making scientific claims, but maybe we would do better to not only reduce ourselves to the same literalist interpretations as the people we oppose precisely for that same reductionism.
@youlig1
7 ай бұрын
Yes, And also i think atheism itself is not a sufficient answer to the death of God. Atheism only provides criticism but no real alternatives. The only thing an atheist can rationally want is progress and "understanding the universe". But atheists can't give us the ultimate why... Religion basically states that God IS the ultimate why of the universe. God is the source and the way and the purpose of things. So by loosely defining it, it actually makes it more practicable for an actual human being. An atheist can't tell you the purpose of life whitout writing 50 philosophy books about it. Or an atheist can say: Who cares what the purpose is, just live in the here and now man.
@bradspitt3896
7 ай бұрын
The nature of subjectivity and identity made me understand religious thinking. That's Jonathan's bread and butter.
@bobwilkinsonguitar6142
7 ай бұрын
Thank you for this comment, it's an excellent insight
@blumousey
7 ай бұрын
Absolutely agree, Jonathan is a unique mind worth listening to.
@machtnichtsseimann
7 ай бұрын
@JoshWiniberg - Thank you for your fair and honest comment. As a Theist/Christian, it has been very frustrating reading and watching comments and videos from Atheists who insist on caricatures of God ( man in the sky, flying spaghetti monster ) that come off as mere mockery. As much as I appreciated ( and miss ) Hitchens for strong, valid challenges, he also was lazy in going for cheap slam dunk insults instead of arguing in good faith. You sound like one who is for arguing in good faith, on both sides. I, too, have been frustrated by simplistic reasoning from fellow Christians, and it actually would bring tension upon myself when around Believers for asking uncomfortable questions. Then later in life it became unbearable to keep my questions to myself, so watching debate after debate has been helpful in my journey. Yes, there are much deeper Christian thinkers out there. I would say that Atheists reacting to unsophisticated thinking by Christians shouldn't bring a "necessary" reaction in kind from Atheists. Why not rise above it and do due diligence to investigate for oneself if such reactions from Atheists are warranted to the core and history of Christianity? Argue in good faith. I've consistently corrected fellow Christians when they reacted similarly to unsophisticated comments by Atheists with fleshing out stronger sophisticated reasoning on behalf of Atheists. Both sides, if you will, can do better. Partly why I watch Alex, for the respect he displays as well as striving for intellectual honesty in himself as well as his opponent.
@hearstboy
7 ай бұрын
Is it just me, or did this conversation feel short? I was fascinated by the conversation, it was great, and could have listened to the two of you go at it for a few more hours. I think it's because you both came into this conversation with the intent to understand each other while still being genuine to yourselves. I've always been interested in imagery and symbols as a juxtaposition of aesthetics and meaning. I was particularly intrigued by the explanation of how one can justify judeo-christian iconography in light of the biblical commandment to not make such images. Thank you for this interview!
@Hailfire08
7 ай бұрын
Same!
@boomguitarjared
7 ай бұрын
Ryte?! I feel the same, ahnd it was rahd to see them flesh out the nuances of their different perspectives, ahnd even come to a consensus for the most part 👌🤘
@hippipdip
7 ай бұрын
@@boomguitarjaredmy guess would be they agreed to a shorter discussion given J’s prior concerns. I thought it went rather well though, and would welcome a follow up.
@dionysis_
7 ай бұрын
For sure. I think they are testing the waters to see if it is going to be productive. It certainly was!
@SRose-vp6ew
7 ай бұрын
I wrote this as a standalone comment, but it makes sense to answer your question. To quote the scripture he’s talking about, Exodus 20, first let me say you can see the objection is not to follow, serve, obey, or bow down and worship the object or the evil that some objects of the time represented. Also other gods are listed as demonic principalities that are associated with a few things, but start the rabbit trail with the seven deadly sins. Two of these sins that lead to hell being self pleasure and love of success often sought with the sacrifice of your own infant offering. Use google image to see Moloch sacrifice to better understand the carved bull/cow bowing down and other “god” worship, although some still sacrifice kids in hopes of greater success and The commandment still say this will be wrong. “And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods besides me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
@No5TypeK
7 ай бұрын
wow I never imagined in a million years that Jonathan would come on this podcast. I'm surprised.
@alekhinesgun9997
7 ай бұрын
He would what now...
@r3fus32d13
7 ай бұрын
he said that he would cum on his podcast
@jeremybuckets
7 ай бұрын
man english is so hard i can't imagine trying to learn it
@winterphilosophy3900
7 ай бұрын
@@jeremybucketsimagine trying to learn a second language 😂
@ACslater1
7 ай бұрын
@@alekhinesgun9997ayo chill shun
@deadfr0g
7 ай бұрын
Yep, these here are load-bearing walls… but are they Lord-bearing walls? 🤨
@wgo523
7 ай бұрын
Can they bear the Lord's loads?
@totonow6955
7 ай бұрын
😂
@redmarson261
7 ай бұрын
Comment of the year
@stevenlight5006
7 ай бұрын
Gravity, balance,plum
@MartinLaforce
7 ай бұрын
Take em out and speak to your maker about it lol
@callunaherissonne662
7 ай бұрын
Well, I for one am glad Jonathan reconsidered. Great conversation, thank you both.
@lelezz3118
7 ай бұрын
As a first-time viewer of Alex, I am pleasantly surprised by his open-minded attitude in a dialogue about religion!
@StephenIC
7 ай бұрын
He's got a degree in Theology so if he wasn't willing to grapple with religious ideas he'd be in trouble!
@leegrant7333
7 ай бұрын
yes...but get him with Dawkins and they cackle together
@ahmedozturk2723
7 ай бұрын
@@leegrant7333 You're deluded if you think Alex takes Dawkins seriously.
@unduloid
7 ай бұрын
I wouldn't call spending almost an hour complaining about brutalist architecture a "dialogue about religion."
@b.melakail
7 ай бұрын
@@unduloid it most certainly is a dialogue about religion :) both implicity but also explicitly. I mean they directly referenced beautiful buildings and religion
@joshmuehlendorf8153
7 ай бұрын
Wow Alex. Great job letting this episode happen. You had some questions cued up and placed them in the exact right spot. I’d bet $100 that you had dozens of questions but you had the wisdom to let them go and let the conversation take its own life. Well done!
@allisthemoist2244
7 ай бұрын
It's crazy how positive the atmosphere is for these podcasts. Been hoping for this one
@alandiaz5184
7 ай бұрын
Big congrats Alex. This is one of the best interviews of Jonathan I have seen. Sad to see it end. Hope there is a part 2
@HAMETE
7 ай бұрын
I didn't know Jonathan and I found the conversation super interesting.
@ahmedozturk2723
7 ай бұрын
Recommend checking out his channel. It's good.
@davidr2421
7 ай бұрын
I love the irony of having this conversation in front of the ubiquitous rectangular IKEA shelf-lamp
@brotherben4357
7 ай бұрын
I love lamp
@camrobinson118
7 ай бұрын
Lest we forget, and to answer Alex's question about "atheistic structures," the well attended and sacred space beneath the "Golden Arches." Ronald McDonald be praised and amen!
@blondetapperware8289
7 ай бұрын
Thanks for having Jonathan Pageau on! He's awesome. I'm always interested in hearing what he has to say.
@BeyondDentistry
7 ай бұрын
I just heard Jonathan mention this on Paul Vanderklay’s podcast; thank you for having this conversation with Jonathan. Alex, you should definitely talk to Paul if you are able.
@vangoghsear8657
7 ай бұрын
Bump.
@daousdava
7 ай бұрын
You should talk
@bradspitt3896
7 ай бұрын
Seraphim Hamilton would be better.
@mostlynotworking4112
7 ай бұрын
Bump. Talk to pvk!
@drooskie9525
7 ай бұрын
@@bradspitt3896 Seraphim Hamilton would be phenomenal. That guy is wildly smart and articulate.
@danielharri5245
7 ай бұрын
Haha I met Alex in a spoons once in London and we chatted for about an hour almost exclusively on art and our favourite paintings. Think this is what he’s actually passionate about so glad to see him having talks on the topic. Found it interesting that his favourite painting is the prodigal son👀
@ionasmith1998
7 ай бұрын
Maybe it’s a sign he will come back to veganism 😂
@PoetlaureateNFDL
7 ай бұрын
Bright person!
@louismarx8269
7 ай бұрын
Alex, please please please try and get Fr. Stephen DeYoung on your show, he's a friend of Pageau and has perspectives on religion (especially the Old Testament,) that I'm sure will be completely new to you. He has a podcast called 'Lord of Spirits' that you should check out.
@zaccheusanton9470
7 ай бұрын
This please
@codycastillo4131
5 ай бұрын
ooo I'm down for this!
@elektrotehnik94
Ай бұрын
I want to see 1-2 more convos with Pageau, before Alex can readily digest Fr. Stephen DeYoung. It seems Jonathan Pageau is better at translating religious-sounding vocabulary into modern vocabulary. I might be undervaluing the extend of Alex's openness for uncharted waters though. If so, my bad. ❤
@yvoennsche
Ай бұрын
I thought the same thing some time ago. A lot of the criticisms and questions he has, Protestant apologists have no good answers for.
@ThatJetstream
7 ай бұрын
Absolute lad bringing on Pageau
@canonkeith5629
7 ай бұрын
This was an incredible conversation. Hope there is another one somewhere down the line 😊
@Popopopopopopipopipipip
7 ай бұрын
Great conversation. Alex, I am impressed by your willingness to listen to people who think differently to you. I think this conversation is a good example of how, often, someone who we think we will strongly disagree with is actually just thinking about things in a different way than ourselves, and it turns out that not only do we agree on many things but that we actually gain a lot from adopting their different perspective. I wonder have you heard of Daniel Schmachtenberger? If not, you should look him up. He's someone who I really think you should talk to.
@brunoserra4344
7 ай бұрын
Alex is rocking out of the park. Picking great choices to talk to. And they all seem quite content and entertained in the conversations, with 2 or 3 exceptions. You're being an awesome voice of discussion, Alex. Great job.
@hciuahwuiwa
7 ай бұрын
lol one pretty big exception
@brunoserra4344
7 ай бұрын
@@hciuahwuiwa yes, one of them quite expressive kkkkkk
@MrSplonger
7 ай бұрын
Besides the obvious, which are the other exceptions?
@brunoserra4344
7 ай бұрын
@@MrSplonger stopping to think about it, I didn't remember one that had a guest arguably discontent. What I can recall coming close someway was the discussion with Shapiro, which although Ben seemed outwardly enthusiastic, it was clear in his contrived demeanor how shattering to his intellect Alex's part on it was. I saw Constantin personally displeased in some lines of questioning with him as well. And recently saw Alex himself getting visibly annoyed (but composed) by the obvious dishonesty and manipulation of a guest. That guest being the skeptic who was modified genetically.
@AFringedGentian
6 ай бұрын
That was such a rich conversation. Alex, I sorely misjudged you- you really are a seeker. You brought out the best in Jonathan. Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful conversation with us.
@jessezandee9282
7 ай бұрын
Alex, I appreciate you having Jonathan on. Also, the questions you asked Dawkins were great. Keep it up.
@gracejh33
7 ай бұрын
A little surprised that Roger Scruton’s The Face of God and The Aesthetics of Architecture are neither mentioned here when discussing such a topic. All points covered in this conversation are beautifully elaborated in those two books.. Glad to see JP here with his usual open-mindedness and sincerity, binge watched many of his videos a couple of years ago, very interesting contents.
@Buttterscotch
7 ай бұрын
Great conversation. As someone nearing the end of my architectural training I would add though that most of the qualms relating to contemporary architecture raised in the discussion are not really to do with secularisation or even aesthetic judgments by architects, more so the economic model architects operate within. Take the Walkie Talkie raised by Alex, the bulbous form is simply to maximise the area of lettable floor plates. Rem Koolhaas’ idea of “Typical Plan” and the skyscrapers that are ubiquitous with central business districts have more to do with economics than belief or lack of belief in God. When contemporary architecture is given the ‘space’ to be about people, atmosphere and landscape, and not profit or efficiency, we can find examples that are awe inspiring whilst still reflecting our modern sensibilities. Peter Zumthors work is an example. He’s designed many incredible chapels, churches, memorials and museums that are seminal works - what these buildings have in common with medieval cathedrals are wealthy patrons to bankroll them…
@Andrew-AJNES
7 ай бұрын
This is the point Pageau was making. Economic concerns are not merely a limiting factor, but rather the ultimate.
@Bookswinters
7 ай бұрын
It comes off as a bit of double speak for JP to complain about ubiquitous economic pressure ruining architecture and at the same time blame "leftists", who generally define themselves as opposing the flows of economic pressure. I'm sure he has some rationale that makes sense through his mental contortions. Same way he rationalizes "you shall not make a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" as meaning simply avoid representing God the Father.
@egonomics352
7 ай бұрын
Except this "economic model" absolutely has to do with God or lack of God. Constructing the tallest structure in the center of city dedicated to ultimately...finance. Any pre-modern would understand that the people of that city are idolizing finance
@Fheflan11
7 ай бұрын
As another architect-in-training, I have to disagree. A simple google search for the works of Peter Zumthors' works makes it clear they are, though better than most of the modernist profit boxes, lacking in its formal composition. And why is this? Because the founders of the modernist movement rejected beauty as even relevant to architecture and hence also formal composition. Many of my professors and teachers explicitly teach that beauty is not even relevant to architecture at all, and those who do not say it outright, act and talk as if it is. The "B-word" I've heard someone call it, for it should not be even uttered. The problem with contemporary archtiecture is that it is largely modernist, and the problem with modernism is the rejection of beauty and formal composition.
@acex222
7 ай бұрын
@@egonomics352 idolising finance? They need a building to work from. Making it look nice is secondary.
@SirKneht
7 ай бұрын
Wonderful job interviewing as always. I had no idea who Pageau was before this but found him to be very interesting and great at expressing his ideas. Thank you for this introduction Alex.
@coreyander286
7 ай бұрын
I haven't finished the interview, but if Pageau doesn't explain why he believes in demons and exorcisms before it's done, then I don't really think it was a great introduction to Pageau. I remember also hearing him describe Alex Jones as a shaman. (That was before the QAnon shaman became famous.)
@unduloid
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286 Yeah, this discussion was pretty weak-sauce and disappointing.
@SirKneht
7 ай бұрын
@coreander286 I was focusing more on the opinions expressed regarding primarily art and architecture (since that was the primary conversation), as such I don't expect someone to explain their fundamentals in this type of conversation. The things I think he could have explained more which would be more relevant would be specific Marxist ideology (like maybe a quote or specific line of reasoning) which lead to it causing people to be treated as robots. Even though I agree with him on that, I I don't actually understand why it happens.
@NathanPK
7 ай бұрын
Consider something psychologically overwhelming, like an obsession with an idea or emotion. Someone who is captured by rage, responds to everything with anger. Or someone who is obsessed with how others see them to the point of madness. These obsessions are not unique, they recur at different times and with different people, because they are part of our psychology. The most infamous is the obsession with blaming others: anti-semitism, witch trials, etc. I think that’s something like a “demon.” Someone can be so captured by an idea or emotion that it takes over their rational faculties such that they respond as if that idea or emotion had “possessed” them. It’s a hypothesis.
@user-br6ve4lz6n
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286 Pageau is effective in these sorts of discussions because he doesn't jump into the deep end with people who aren't there yet (something I fail at all the time). I think if future discussions happen they can go deeper, but it's hard to start talking about demons and principalities with someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural to begin with.
@Suggsonbass
7 ай бұрын
This is such a fascinating and refreshing change from the usual boring old atheism vs religion debates that illumintate nothing and only serve to further entrench already entrenched views
@Aaron-SLC
7 ай бұрын
exactly.
@mkm1015
7 ай бұрын
They are boring because religious people don't have any good answers and solutions to anything that is better than secular morality.
@Aaron-SLC
7 ай бұрын
boy are you stupid @@mkm1015
@coreyander286
7 ай бұрын
I don't think this interview did much to un-entrench Pageau's beliefs in literal demons, possession, and exorcism, except insofar as it sets a precedent for future conversations that go beyond his vague commentary about architecture.
@Suggsonbass
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286 I don't think the point of the interview was to un-entrench Pageau's beliefs. Extremist beliefs aside, I don't know why anyone would want to do such a thing. Besides, it's a futile endeavour. Nothing's more effective at further entrenching someone's deeply held beliefs than the act of trying to un-entrench them. I found his comments very clear, especially regarding the distinction between idols and icons and the error of religiously minded people using quasi scientific discourse. It is possible to appreciate what he says without believing in god. We need more of that in today's world
@seantoal5261
7 ай бұрын
One of your best podcasts yet, really getting to the bottom of things. Would be great to hear you two talk again!
@clorofilaazul
7 ай бұрын
Why? This guy is so mediocre. He’s above average when it comes to Art knowledge and history. Most people really seem to know little about the art world…
@maninironmask7925
7 ай бұрын
That was the best “where do you go for wisdom” response I’ve heard yet.
@YSLRD
7 ай бұрын
Jonathan made me think about big picture societal relationships. If reproduction is essential to species survival, ( " Be fruitful and multiply...") respecting the wisdom of elders ("Honor your father and mother that it may be well with you ... ") and permitting them to share knowldege to be built on by following generations would be just as essential. Deconstruction is a survival threat.
@RykerMusic
7 ай бұрын
Probably the best conversation so far. Please keep bringing him in!
@coreyander286
7 ай бұрын
Next time Alex should ask Pageau what he thinks about demons and exorcism and Alex Jones.
@tombrown9679
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286 That's what I can't shake. I consider Alex Jones to be an evil PoS. It should be bloody obvious to anyone that he is. A greedy liar, narcissist & a sociopath. I can't get over Jonathan making excuses for him. If I believed in demonic evil, I'd say that was demonically evil. And ugly in the extreme!
@benry007
7 ай бұрын
Really enjoyed this conversation. No one was trying to score points or make the other person look bad. It was a pleasant listen and thought provoking.
@reuben.l.murray
7 ай бұрын
Wow! Jonathan Pageu is really interesting. Great episode. Thank you Alex.👍🏻
@AnaGonzalez-ww9jc
Ай бұрын
It was a great pleasure to see this two guys talking! Thank you Alex and Jonathan, I will look forward to see another conversation of you two!!
@brunosm.l2267
7 ай бұрын
19:25 It would be great to see another conversation of you guys and get more into detail and deep about some of Jonathan's ideas, more specifically about christianity. This was a great coversation but very general as well. There is the potential for more. Cheers
@jcontraros
7 ай бұрын
So happy Jonathan decided to do this interview! Alex is the best atheist to watch, he's honestly searching for Truth and it is refreshing.
@calebirishi12
7 ай бұрын
I'd like to see Alex have another dialogue with Jonathan to understand his religious view. I suspect Alex could clarify it (it can be abstract and hard to comprehend) and Alex may also find it interesting since I think it is very different from other religious people Alex has spoken with
@coreyander286
7 ай бұрын
At the end of the day Pageau does believe in an old man in the sky, despite his protestations, it's just that he adds a lot of philosophical-sounding word salad to justify believing in an old man in the sky. Search "jonathan pageau decoding the gurus".
@feliped2443
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286 Strawman
@larryjake7783
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286 man you love straw-manning smh
@bradleyperry1735
7 ай бұрын
@@coreyander286No.
@bradleyperry1735
7 ай бұрын
He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I think you might find a great deal of this sort of thinking there.
@RevolverOlver
7 ай бұрын
I have been following you both for years so it's great to see you two together! I hope to see more of you two coming together like this!
@D4n1t0o
7 ай бұрын
37:46 - "People think they're engaging in progress, but what they're actually doing is engaging in fashion." 👌💯
@damarcuscolfer1485
7 ай бұрын
Mm, insightful statement.
@geekexmachina
7 ай бұрын
I really enjoyed this it is quite clear that you attract in guests by meeting them where they are rather than forcing conversations, talking where there maybe commonality.
@bradspitt3896
7 ай бұрын
A talk with Seraphim Hamilton will push you to your limits if you want an apologetics conversation with an Orthodox guy.
@conorlowes33
7 ай бұрын
This would be interesting
@Joefrenomics
7 ай бұрын
Huh, this is definitely unexpected. I’m happy to see you guys conversing!
@jakobdowney355
7 ай бұрын
A note on the pyramids. The great pyramid was originally capped in perfectly smooth limestone blocka to give a perfevtly polished finish. It takes up over 30 acres of land and is built to perfection and alligned to the celestial bodies to an awe inspiring degree. So it seems unfair to try and put the pyramids in same vane as skyscrapers ect.
@suppression2142
7 ай бұрын
Johnathan is brilliant I loved this, look forward to seeing more conversations between you two :)
@maninironmask7925
7 ай бұрын
I felt the same way about Paris’ Notre-Dame as you did about the Sistine Chapel. Even though I loved the experience, even went twice, but it was more of a touristic excursion. As soon as you walk through the doors they sell coins and stuff lol
@sanityscove8917
7 ай бұрын
I like Jonathan. Truly unique voice in many of today’s discussions. His comments on sexuality were great
@catholicpog7183
7 ай бұрын
I was waiting for this one! Excellent choice in guests Alex.
@matthewslade6694
7 ай бұрын
That was actually very pleasant. I think you did a splendid job of facilitating the conversation and exploring a topic from your guests point of view.
@TyrellGlen
7 ай бұрын
These conversations are so interesting and important. Thank you, Alex. As much as I love Hitch, you’re proving to be a more open minded successor. I’m a non religious theist and I think you’re the strongest atheist online
@stevenlight5006
7 ай бұрын
Cheers
@redmed10
7 ай бұрын
So you're a deist.
@TyrellGlen
7 ай бұрын
@@redmed10 not exactly
@redmed10
7 ай бұрын
@@TyrellGlen i'm really not interested any more. You could have just explained but you chose not to and who knows if you ever will. Life's too short.
@TyrellGlen
7 ай бұрын
@@redmed10 I never cared whether you were interested 😅 was just letting you know you jumped to a conclusion
@JasenRobillard
7 ай бұрын
Beyond expectations on all fronts. Well done both of you on a predictively deep, yet surprisingly intriguing exploration. Left me thinking about the implications of our social choice architecture and how we might improve it by applying some of the systemic, life pattern language of Christopher Alexander and others. I eagerly anticipate round 2.
@aeiouaeiou100
7 ай бұрын
HOLY SHIT IT'S HAPPENING. I was hoping for this conversation for a long time! I'm hyped.
@theowlsarefun
7 ай бұрын
A lot of new skyscrapers are quite beautiful. Vancouver's new Alberni tower is an example.
@Bookswinters
7 ай бұрын
Yeah in a lot of ways this while conversation seems like a bit of a made up problem... Like sure we have ugly utilitarian buildings but that's what humans have lived in since time immemorial. There was never a time when all the buildings were beautiful cathedrals and suddenly now we build ugly ones. We have preserved the cathedrals because they are the exceptions.
@fus132
7 ай бұрын
@@Bookswinters It wasn't always like this.
@westcoastramen
7 ай бұрын
I can appreciate Pageau's passion for religious iconography, art, and architecture. Still, as a former Christian turned agnostic, the conversation feels wanting when he doesn't just answer straightforwardly what God he believes in, why he believes in that specific God, and why anyone else should believe in it either.
@Wolfboy607
7 ай бұрын
Yep, not 2 minutes after saying how normally he dislikes such interviews as they consist of two people talking past each other, he immediately ignores and non-answers the very first prompt. I guess this is going to be something.
@Dioliolio
7 ай бұрын
Did you not listen to him at all? He clearly stated he’s uninterested in such a conversation. If you’re interested in his views go watch his videos.
@Fernando-ek8jp
7 ай бұрын
I mean, he did say he was Christian Eastern Ortodox, for one. For another, that wasn't the point of this conversation, this isn't Atheist Experience. That being said, I don't find it a particularly interesting discussion either.
@wingamwila4113
7 ай бұрын
@@Wolfboy607 It has gotten to the point that believers have carried upon themselves the burden of convicting others. It's like the believer should believe on behalf of the unbeliever and should go out of their way to do the work that they should be doing themselves. Christianity works on principles that most people are not willing to go by until it gets real dark. I love it here.
@westcoastramen
7 ай бұрын
Come to think of it, perhaps I would have more enjoyed: "your ass is on mute. . . no no no, you're done!" lolol
@kronk2294
7 ай бұрын
This is a combo I didn’t see coming! Definitely saving to watch
@Paraselene_Tao
7 ай бұрын
Jonathan's way of thinking about worship, idols, and icons is a very different way of looking at them than I'm used to thinking about. Honestly, it's confusing me. It's like a different language with the same words.
@brando3342
7 ай бұрын
@Paraselene_Tao One thing to keep in mind while listening to Jonathan is "fractals". Always imagine whatever he is talking about can be zoomed out to view it on a bigger scale, but have the pattern appear the same.
@m0rgentraum
7 ай бұрын
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks Alex!
@aaronclarke1434
7 ай бұрын
Alex, DW has a whole documentary on how St. Peter’s was designed and made by a succession of architects and Popes. Well worth a watch.
@winterphilosophy3900
7 ай бұрын
Fantastic conversation! I look forward to hearing you two talk again!
@user-ld4yi2ki5k
7 ай бұрын
13:50 If I may insert a minor points of subconscious importance: imagine a typical medieval peasant looking down at plants and rocks and hands and feet all day and then having the opportunity on whatever is the service to enter into a church with holy sounds and lights and scriptures and actually rest for a few hours and look up at those dazzling lights. That enough could induce a trance like religious state and someone overworked and always looking down
@mikelion2743
7 ай бұрын
Such a wonderful and insightful conversation.
@soozofay1825
7 ай бұрын
I think the implication that modern architecture is worse is based on the strange assumption that functional, everyday architecture should live up to the standard of a chapel that probably took decades to build. Not all old shit was stunningly beautiful, they had their own share of strictly functional buildings. If you expect everyday buildings to look like a gothic cathedral or a decadent palace, you're kind of asking to be disappointed imo.
@friendlybane
7 ай бұрын
Completely agree.
@lampad4549
7 ай бұрын
Based comment
@bradspitt3896
7 ай бұрын
He never said that. First, the church does serve a function, and he would say the church should be the most beautiful thing. His point is that we don't care about anything that binds us universally, so the public buildings have been reduced to universal function. All we get is idiosyncratic "beauty" that sucks. Like the bean. The only thing that would bind us is entertainment, and barely. Look at the Vegas sphere.
@curmudgeon1933
7 ай бұрын
@@bradspitt3896. It might be more helpful for the future of all people, if the buildings could be beautiful and functional, without having to adhere to one particular ideology. Whether church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or whatever, it does assume that everybody believe in the same idea of 'universality'. Beauty is subjective. Personally I find many religious buildings either austere, brutalist, 'overegged', or sickeningly gaudy...but that is just my opinion. The large investment of resources could surely be better utilized to be inclusive, rather than divisive. You've only got to look at Jerusalem to see that religious buildings have less to do with people's personal spiritual connection with existence, and more to do with political pissing contests, and power.
@bradspitt3896
7 ай бұрын
@@curmudgeon1933 If beauty is subjective to them how can we make it universal?
@maxfunk5773
7 ай бұрын
The crossover I was not expecting but I'm so glad.
@suzanneforsyth9059
7 ай бұрын
An exceptional conversation, thank you.
@darrenpenley9601
7 ай бұрын
Love Jonathan Pageau. Thanks for having him on. Respectfully done and informative.
@soggycheese8485
7 ай бұрын
Glad this conversation ended up happening
@el88997
6 ай бұрын
i could listen to jonathan for hours.
@vichomangiola
7 ай бұрын
The reason for tall skyscrapers is the same hierarchy Jonathan defends. The reason for the absence of ornaments (in great part that´s how beauty is being refered here) is literally functionalism, which Jonathan also seems to defend. It is also the expression of industrialization and the powers that took hold of that process. Today that power is capitalism, the fundamental source of alienation. I mean, the beauty of big box stores, stroads, malls and the US suburb is questionable at the very least. Does Jonathan opposes capitalism as an ideological thing? Anyway, there are tons of modern and contemporary architecture that is considered as beautiful, or at least as impressive, as 'old churches'. Niemeyer's buildings are praised by a lot of people; Zaha Hadid's buildings are astonishing for a lot of people; Calatrava´s iconic structures are loved by a lot of people; Jean Nouvel's buildings are loved by a lot of people. Why do people find them beautiful? Is beauty really intrinsic as Jonathan suggests, or is it cultural? Instagram is filled with Boffil's colorful spaces, with the impressive Safdie´s Singapur airport, even with the dramatic atmospheres created by Peter Zumthor... and let´s not even begin with the japanese. Yes, Instagram. How we showcase what we find beautiful also says a lot about how we define beauty. On the other hand, a lot of the old buildings we find beautiful today, were considered hideus for people who came after them. Rococó was appalled by the neoclassicists, and neoclassicism was considered outdated and inadequate at some point. My point is, beauty is not only about forms and the supposed 'tune' we humans have with certain proportions, it also has a lot to do with the meaning societies give or project to the enviroment they build and surrounds them.
@luxtenebris7246
7 ай бұрын
Jonathan does not defend a hierarchy where money making is at the top (which is what the skyscrapers; usually owned by banks or other large corporations, represent). He supports a hierarchy where God is at the top.
@Mamothrept
7 ай бұрын
I would add that Jonathan doesn't exactly advocate for hierarchy, as much as he recognizes it is an inevitable description of society. As well as a description of how the world exists (from a human vantage point) at every level of existence. For your standard pencil to exist as such, the lead, the wood shaft, and the eraser, all come together under the higher order of "pencil". And in turn, on a lower level, all the graphite molecules come together under the higher order of the "lead". Your ability to perceive anything at all, is dependent on hierarchy. Social hierarchies are analogous, and just as inevitable for the existence of societies. How you want to try arranging those hierarchies is another discussion altogether. Capitalism has issues like anything else we finite humans are involved in.
@ClassicalMontessori
4 ай бұрын
Good question from Alex, and great answer by Johnathan: "Worship is the highest point of your attention." Thank you for hosting this conversation!
@ArtemMalian
7 ай бұрын
Lovely episode, I wish it were longer, would've loved you guys to go more into detail on some of those topics.
@immortalityprjct
Ай бұрын
Hoping for a part 2 in the near future!
@tylerswedan4742
7 ай бұрын
What a fantastic conversation. Maybe one of my favorite podcast episodes I’ve seen, of any podcast! This makes me eager for a p2 with him, getting a little more in the weeds of religion. Great job, Alex.
@Aaron-SLC
7 ай бұрын
exaclty, a christian and athiest talking wihout any animosity or defensiveness.
@nigelnyoni8265
3 ай бұрын
43:30 this whole segment about ordering a hierarcy of purpose so that things are serving a higher good, and are not the end in themselves, is brilliant!
@boombam5214
7 ай бұрын
I enjoyed hearing new views as always, but couldn't find myself agreeing with much of what this guest said. Would like to see more on this topic though.
@robertsmith4474
7 ай бұрын
Mr. O'Connor seems to be on some kind of journey. I've subscribed to see where his journey takes him.
@celinehynes3336
7 ай бұрын
Sometimes he forgets he is an atheist.
@mirceanicula9198
7 ай бұрын
I think Alex is a good listener and that Jonathan can open his eyes and show him what the symbolic view of the world is and how reality functions. I know that it's possible because I was an atheist and Mr Pageau made a believer out of me. It was a pretty fruitful conversation a part two would be very welcomed.
@MrAchile13
7 ай бұрын
Talking about the Vatican Museum and great art, I strongly recommend the Borghese Galey in Rome, it won't disappoint. Not only it displays the best works of Bernini, but they used the light so efficiently, that the marble almost glows. Photos don't make it justice.
@j.v.5499
7 ай бұрын
@Alex O'Connor - if you have to ask the question, the answer is money. It costs so much money to create "beauty" above "functionality."
@stevenlight5006
7 ай бұрын
Touche
@Flamable1
7 ай бұрын
Why though, are the religious more willing to sacrifice money to fund beautiful buildings? They sacrifice it for the common good and to partake in something unifying to the collective. Modern people are atomised individuals with no strong connection to a unified collective so are not willing to sacrifice for it
@Foogi9000
7 ай бұрын
There's plenty of billionaires who could do it, and governments could easily make it.
@JohnSmith-oe5kx
7 ай бұрын
@@Foogi9000Governments do not make money. They print it. Not the same thing.
@JohnSmith-oe5kx
7 ай бұрын
Billionaires would be criticized for such ostentatiousness, rather than putting the funds to better use
@dandare1001
7 ай бұрын
Well done for asking the correct questions, Alex. A good exposé.
@patrickwilkerson6303
7 ай бұрын
Love the final question about wisdom, please keep it going!
@DavidJamesHenry
7 ай бұрын
It really annoys me, as someone who is autistic, to hear him say that autistic people have no connection to the human condition, that somehow just because we are autistic we by necessity focus on brutalism. I find that there is something beautiful about brutalism, but i would never once ever say that it is because it defies the human relationship to physical space. I think it's also quite clear that Leonardo da Vinci was autistic, but he was absolutely not focused on removing the human scale from art.
@joanabug4479
7 ай бұрын
I'm an architect and that rubbed me the wrong way, the way he went to that as a means to justify whatever he was arguing at that point. It's not even a good justification - at all. There are plenty autistic architects who find classicism more enjoyable. What even was his point? He also never mentioned Le Corbusier's whole Modulor theory - the man came up with his own quest for finding fitting proportions in humans and nature and the built environment... something not many architects do... with or without any particular condition or whatnot. It was infuriating to hear it come down to that. Maybe he just isn't informed. I'd rather brush it off as ignorance than ill intent...
@jason-iy7vs
7 ай бұрын
He didn’t say they have no connection to the human condition, but that their fixation on certain aspects can be detrimental to the perception on the whole
@jason-iy7vs
7 ай бұрын
Of the whole*
@Vladythebest96
7 ай бұрын
He probably said it because usually severely autistic people are characterised by having a significantly different connection to other humans. So I suppose the implication is that this difference can be observed in their designs…? Regarding your example, I would argue that his “autism” is why he was so successful to depicting new ways to understanding “humanity”. What do you think?
@gusandthetv
7 ай бұрын
Maybe it has less to do with autistic artists, and more to do with sociopathic elites who commission such projects
@monkeyt1554
7 ай бұрын
Yes! Finally! I have been waiting for you to have a conversation with Pageau. He makes compelling arguments for religion, though they're not rationally structured, but appealing more to intuition. Very happy to see it
@kattihatt
7 ай бұрын
Can intuition sometimes lead us wrong?
@elilerch772
7 ай бұрын
@@kattihattrelax
@joanabug4479
7 ай бұрын
He seems to be appealing more to intuition when it comes to architecture as well... Maybe adding an architect to this duo next time wouldn't be a terrible idea.
@mitzzzu_tigerjones444
7 ай бұрын
@@elilerch772 take your reply and jam it… …right up your pinky toe Intuition is fukkd That’s why we science. When we have an intuitive experience it’s easily observable through Nero research.
@andresdubon2608
7 ай бұрын
I can't stand the way he talks. Not just religion, but just how he makes a point. I kept syung out loud "what do you exactly mean, how is it you are relating those two points" through this conversation, the result he wants to convey is clear. It just feel an abusive way to produce such result.
@EarnestApostate
7 ай бұрын
I think this fit well with a recent humanist talk I went to about "recapturing awe" and how we still need to feel this even as secular people. Architecture is a key place where this can happen.
@newtonia-uo4889
7 ай бұрын
Become a scrutonite, seek BEAUTY, beauty leads to Truth, and Truth is Him
@amphernee
7 ай бұрын
I appreciate the conversation. It seems rather obvious to me when it comes to churches vs office or residential structures. They each serve such a different purpose and intention at their cores that saying the latter is soulless much like saying a monkey is wingless. Office and residential has gotten more streamlined in order to reduce cost and maximize space and therefore profits but mega churches have certainly done the same to an even greater degree. Some are giant corrugated steal barns sitting in a dirt lot.
@ethanholmes7624
7 ай бұрын
And I think that's precisely the point. The fact that places of business and residential are built to be soulless (only to accommodate more or less meat for less money) points a problem of how we, as a culture, conceive of the purpose of business in general.
@Mcphan9946
7 ай бұрын
I really enjoyed this conversation.
@OptimalAlpha
7 ай бұрын
There was a pyramid built in the Las Vegas Strip back in the 1990s
@fritzco55
6 ай бұрын
I love Jonathan Pageau. He has definitely opened the way I think about things. So glad to see him here.
@macdougdoug
7 ай бұрын
As a European, I tried walking as a form of transportation around Miami (in the 1990's). I failed. The cops actually stopped me for acting suspiciously. People were unable to give directions for someone on foot. And a lot of the time it was like an obstacle course. Walking around San Francisco was fine though.
@asagoldsmith3328
7 ай бұрын
I can't believe you don't appreciate the """freedom""" of being forced to use a car to get everywhere. What are you some kind of socialist?
@stevenlight5006
7 ай бұрын
I believe you
@Y0UT0PIA
7 ай бұрын
Reminds me of Bradbury's shrotstory about a pedestrian Imagine being interrogated by the police for taking a walk...
@concernedcitizen5988
4 ай бұрын
The main issue here is conflating modern architecture’s hostile design with “secularism” when it’s more of a political issue rooted in concepts such as authoritarianism and capitalism than it is in religion
@concernedcitizen5988
4 ай бұрын
This is abundantly apparent when you consider the religious views of nzi’s as well as their contributions to architecture/design
@laurajarrell6187
7 ай бұрын
Alex, you're a good interviewer! 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
@arrownibent5980
7 ай бұрын
Good job on this discussion, I think you directed it in a very thought provoking direction as I'm not sure Jonathan himself notices how absolutely narrow some of his premises are which makes it both difficult to follow and a sort of a mine field of philosophical walls. Having good faith goes a long way to understand what others propose even if ultimately agreement is that difficult. I had an interesting thought regarding the definition of icon Jonathan used, which brings me to a discussion you had in another podcast about the sloganisation of political movements. Under this analysis slogans would be meant to serve the value of an icon, not to be venerated directly but to always refer to an idea that has richer meaning, unfortunately due to how fragmented communication is they end up becoming the thematic idols of a specific political discussion that end up possessing a sacredness they shouldn't. Anyhow, thanks for the flow of ideas.
@Hailfire08
7 ай бұрын
I disagree that beauty is just or largely from something being old; for one, there are things we consider beautiful that are very modern (lots of people in the modern day make art, after all). Secondly, some older Medieval art is, well, _bad._ Creatures with weirdly human faces, no foreshortening, awkward poses, and so on. We appreciate the history of it, but oftentimes the art itself is not very beautiful. Overall a very good and interesting discussion!
@rachelbassett4942
7 ай бұрын
Really enjoyed the conversation and what lovely interesting guest
@NotBlandBlandina
7 ай бұрын
Alex should interview Dr.John Lennox
@stevenlight5006
7 ай бұрын
To bad , can't have a interview with John Lennon .
@taratasarar
7 ай бұрын
Well, this is getting really interesting. Would definitely be up for another conversation!
@pablocarrion3875
7 ай бұрын
I think the reason buildings nowadays seem lifeless is because huge companies make them with practicality in mind. Not sure if it has to do with secularist worldviews, more than it has to do with everything being as profitable as possible. Im from Ecuador, and there is one skyscraper in the city I live in. It is different than every other one, pretty special and interesting arquitecture. "Torre The Point" if you wanna look it up. I think because it was such a meaningful building to the skyline that they decided to make it stand out.
@sanniepstein4835
5 ай бұрын
Much modern architecture has been affected and impractical, as well as ugly. But yes, the Soviet style, the army barracks style, results from the imperative to spend as little as possible.
@eldhose101
2 ай бұрын
Alex . As a Theist myself you are one of the Atheist i really admire . I request you to talk to Bernado Kastrup if possible.
@alantelemishev9335
7 ай бұрын
When Jonathan characterizes putting the "excess" back into the community as a "sacrifice" I thought that that showed the gulf between his Christian values and his humanist values.
@HillBelichick
7 ай бұрын
I agree. Not sure Pageau thinks I'm obligated to make a sacrifice to center his preferred religious beliefs in our culture if I don't subscribe to them. What's the actual reason he wants it forced on me, I wonder? 🤔 Honestly he just sounds salty about his worldview losing its special place at the center of society. I can sympathize with that up to the point that he wants to make it my problem or my obligation to help "fix." Hard pass.
@nergethic7759
7 ай бұрын
Yes, "excess" and "sacrifice" used in this context are strong words. I understand his line of thinking so I'll just leave these examples here, maybe this different perspective could be useful: A sports team functions effectively because players contribute their "excesses" back to the team as a form of "sacrifice." If every player focused solely on individual success, ignoring the presence of teammates, it would detrimentally affect the team as a whole. Families operate smoothly when members invest their "excesses" back into the family as a "sacrifice." This might involve simple acts, like someone who enjoys very spicy food choosing to prepare a meal that is palatable for all. These sacrifices accumulate and strengthen the family bond over time, as each person diverts a portion of their focus from themselves to what unites the family. If family members rigidly enforced their preferences without compromise, it would harm the familial dynamic. For Jonathan, the concept of sacrifice is universally significant and ties back to the essence of existence. Unity is comprised of individual parts, and these parts must engage with the whole to maintain the unity (otherwise, they wouldn't be part of it). Participation necessitates a degree of sacrifice. If the components cease to sacrifice, the unity disintegrates, and the parts scatter into isolated fragments. What Jonathan said about the Church could also apply to central structures in other traditions. His idea was not exclusive to Christian beliefs.
@SugarFupa
7 ай бұрын
There are several ways to interpret the comment. Could you please explain what you mean in more details?
@alantelemishev9335
7 ай бұрын
@@SugarFupa Sure. Jonathan's Christian value is to value sacrifice, which is why he denotes community building as such. But people naturally want to do that; we want to share things with the people around us and we want to live in better environments. It's not a sacrifice in the same way that spending money on hobbies isn't a sacrifice.
@olgakarpushina492
7 ай бұрын
Tell your wife the money you spend on your damn hobby is not a sacrifice. It is indeed, but not to the family, and that's why she is mad. You sacrifice on the alter of your own little narcissist "me"god.😅
@iraklimgaloblishvili7047
7 ай бұрын
Great Interview! As questions are good, answers are better,. better way to say it, Question engages answers.
Пікірлер: 1,4 М.