You could also try more that lay off today's beaten track .. Cécile Fabre, GEM Anscombe, Edith Stein, Juana Inés de la Cruz and Elisabeth of Bohemia, Tullia d'Aragona and Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena and many, many others...

Then start with the first christ: Medea 🙏 Hekate 🙏 ask the Muse and she will provide. 🍷

Then years later, witch hunts happened.

And shortly after the witch hunts, Europe was gripped by Saturn's plague which killed 70% of the population. Karma. There's now speculation that the bubonic plague was not caused by rats, as originally thought, but brought to Europe and the middle East through the Mongol invasions. "If you were not sinners, the Gods would not have sent me to destroy you" ~Gengis Khan

That and she also was "in the way" of a violent ruler's ambitions - if she'd been Christian, she'd been called a heretic and skinned alive. If she were a man, she'd be called a traitor and skinned alive. She was the epitome of "wrong place wrong time," which makes it all the more tragic... But honestly? It makes her story more powerful to me - her gender was secondary to her actions in life.

@@sammyjones8279 She very much was not in the way. She was not a party to the dispute between the rival factions in the church. She did not have a voice in the arena in which this battle was fought. She was useful the faction that scapegoated and murdered her because she was an outsider to the church. Somebody that was in the church would have been more likely to stir sympathies among other church members.

@@sammyjones8279 I think you misunderstand the power balance in the early church. It was less centralised. There was no papal primacy. The Nicene creed was not a thing.

All the gods want blood... doesnt matter what they preach.

Well, that's patriarchal masculine paranoia and violence for your, as projected into the mythology of Abrahamic monotheism, at least the Roman Catholic brand. Love andrea

I think that philosophy leads the other way. At least it lead me in a different direction.

How do you know here philosophy? The video made it clear she didn't leave any writings of her own. Just commentary. . .

@@Nexus-jg7ev where did it get you?

@@arturhashmi6281 In the opposite direction of that of the OP. It lead them to theism, while it lead me to atheism.

@@Nexus-jg7ev I understand, but which philosopher or idea made you atheist?

Yes, religions have become captivated with materialism, right down to seeking the authentic story of the past. The love of wisdom is the wisdom of love. Learning through meditations on movement, not in the moment. Materialism is itself a divine enquiry. Its beginnings, even before natural science, it was born from a sense of something wondrous in the life experienced. The difficulty is that we are asked to make sense of our awareness and experiments, not learn to profit from them. A true religion invites examination and variation, to find common interpretation. It golds no answers but it describes a path through divine mysteries with some outlines and sketches of the terrain others have crossed in the past. All religions speak of one God of Love, there is no other. It is a mistake to insist God is allowed no guises. We are not allowed our own ideas, only natural thoughts. Energy moves and materialises. Expression holds natural essence, spirit. Meditating on movement guides you to the spirit of movement and the ages. Spirit is what materialism extracts from the living process to say there's no special ingredient. God is a transmission, a signal wave, flow is the source.

The absurdity lies in the fact that the name giver of one of the religions involved made his non-violent stand very clear. It is the core of his teachings, yet people still brutally murder outsiders for thinking differently. If this is possible on such a scale, humanity seems to be beyond saving. If it is possible to manipulate big groups of people to become violent murderers even with teachings of pacifism, one can do it with anything. It doesn't matter. People will kill for Jesus, Beyoncé, the Denver Broncos, the Cookie Monster, Pop tarts... You just need a demagogue skilled enough to make it happen. It is so depressing to think of it.

Only religion can make otherwise decent people commit evil acts.

​@@tuomasronnberg5244 'only religion' Yeah nevermind: - Capitalism - Communism - Nationalism - Literally dozens of other factors that make human beings treat each other like shit

@@onemoreminute0543 Sure, but none of those can make good people treat others like shit.

That's too simple, people are swept up into doing bad and unwise things under the right circumstances; if people are satisfied with the current state of things, they're a much heavier object to move for would-be demagogues. Thinking that people are generally some kind of fickle herd on their own, without the necessary context of stress and strife, will lead to some pretty dicey, misanthropic conclusions. Conclusions that lead to more pain and suffering. I think if all that misery is to be avoided, 'the People', (define them as you wish, it doesn't really matter), should think for themselves and draw their own carefully processed conclusions, instead of being lead around by some wannabe 'outsiders' or the established order.

i've been so busy lately that i had entirely forgotten about the shwep.

Get them, Jack Rackham and Overly Sarcastic Productions in for a collab. I'd be down for that!

I was just writing a comment about that when I saw yours! Hahaha

I'll think I'll stick with LTR.

Good thing we get an accurate version.

For me personally, I stumbled upon her Wikipedia page for the first time just yesterday.

She is a light for many people who don't dwell in mindless barbarism

All you have to do is make her corpse dance to your tune.

She has barely any written works and was one of many classical teachers.

​@@Terriblyexplainingcomics But not so many classical teachers were martyred in this way.

Not really. Neoplatonism had some pretty irrational, mumbo-jumbo beliefs; it's not like she was some 21st-century atheist.

But KZfaq douchebags have to be smarter than the normies.

Some nuance! What would you recommend for reading on this period? Would appreciate your input. Can be academic or not.

I would also like some recommendations for this part!

Or perhaps Cyril was indeed a petty little bitch.

I too think this video was hastily overgeneralized. This whole thing is way more insidious than what others lead on. I mean someone was literally ripped apart and experienced a gruesome death. Fanatical sociopathic behavior and we get told that Hypatia’s death is too popular of a point to mark the end of polytheistic antiquity lmao 😅 there is a clear collective reason why she should never be forgotten or shrunken to appease the patriarchy. Hard stop.

@@BernardCharles Completely Agree. Too much noise in the comments as well.

If your a christian, the very idea of you questioning the sainthood of cyril of Alexandria would be pretty hilarious😂

​@@Razi290There's not a shred of virtue on that man, wherever he is now in the afterlife, he's not having a good time.

@@doomermensch5242 If it weren't for him arguing valorously using his cunning political maneuvers, that he learned from athanasius of alexandria and defeat nestorious(bishop of constantinople) at the council of ephesus, there wouldn't have be NO theological underpinning for the crucial christian theological concept of THEOTOKOS(mother of god). I'm telling you this unbearable fact as a former Ethiopian orthodox tewahido christian and now an agnostic-atheist, lol.

@@Razi290 That doesn't change my opinion the least bit, I'm not a Christian of any kind, I'm a Vajrayana Buddhist with some sympathy for Greek thought in general, but Jamblichos in particular.

@@doomermensch5242 If you have some soft spot for greek thought(hellenism) then by Default you should commend the most hellenistic, ancient christian school(alexandrian school) and it's disciples such as athanasius, cyril, theodosius...

Nothing but problems with other Christian sects

He was powerful and rich

The other comment is cynical and ignorant. Cyril was one of the most important and influential theologians ever, therefore he his considered a saint and church father.

​@@dale6947His life and way of living goes against Christ's teachings. Not that it matters a lot as neither the church follows them.

He performed a very good deed and lived a sanctified life later on in his life, that's it Me personally, I think he had a trip through purgatory just before he gets heaven

I hope for better luck next time

@@LetsTalkReligion You should embrace it and talk more about neoplatonism

Well… thanks

it was unconscionably vicious, a truly salient illustration of mob mentality at work.

I was shocked to see how many others here are having this coincidental experience viewing this episode on Hypatia too.

@@lordoflightning7506 it's called Synchronization. The Universe always finds a way.

@@QWERTYUIOP-wu6ht the universe keeps taking me back to Carl Jung, it seems...

Buddy it's called the algorithm, and if you're like me you saw the "HistorybyMae" short (sad girl who shows sad paintings). I commented on that short, and then was recommended this video about Hypatia.

Many Genshin characters are named and profiled after the real persons. Alhaitham is a great example. Dig deeper on the topic of Genshin's lore, you'll love it.

Shut up

Please tell me you did not remove my other comment......... I cant see it ny more....

​@@magickmagazine7675I also have experienced this problem a lot of times so it's probably a bug.

I don't think Filip was trying to imply that the two were separate. I think he was just trying to show that Hypatia was really killed because she was caught in a power struggle between Christian leaders and not because of her personal theological beliefs.

No, it's not from greek philosophy. It comes from the Christians. I confirm the fact as a real Greek and former Christian.

​@@Tanno_Buchino And as a non- Christian Greek myself I disagree with you.

I feel all his videos are collectively an example of how to approach the subject of religion from a sober scholarly perspective.

@@barrymoore4470 i meant like sources to find info and how to find them and where to start on (even on a specific topic)

@@user-go6jv sooo.... basically, you want the 'how to study religions 101' university course?

Modern western philosophy is like an inverted pyramid with the ancient greeks at the bottom (tip of the upside-down pyramid) and exponentially more philosophers building on top of it over time. So ya in some ways the metaphysical stuff can be at the bedrock of modern western philosophy, even if we have different names and interpretations for it now.

​@Reignor99 I understand what you are saying; that modern philosophy has its roots in ancient times. But are metaphysical ideas about Being itself, for example, still discussed as they were in antiquity, or are they considered settled? I know that they are still alive in some theological circles (e.g.: David Bentley Hart). I'm vaguely aware of Heidegger discussing it, but my impression of modern philosophy, and of the culture of modernity that it underlies, is relatively neglectful of such considerations. Thank you for your indulgence.

To attempt to answer your question briefly, I would say no. It seems to me that modern western philosophy tends to ignore the metaphysical questions of what I would consider the true philosophers, the ancient Greeks who coined the term. Modern philosophy seems to focus more on epistemology, logic, and ethics ( but not in the sense of how to live a good life, but more in a sociological power dynamics and social-hierarchy sense). I am of the opinion that they get bogged down by semantics, ignore the classical thinkers as outdated, uninformed, and superstitious while contributing little to nothing of value themselves. I propose that if we look back to the ancients with a more open mind we could learn quite a bit about the nature of reality, our place in it, how to think and contemplate such, and how to live a healthy and balanced life. Just my opinion.

Yeah, men sure do love to try to make what they do sound pretty, don't they?

She's is here ❤ 1212🪽✨️

@@amypramuk7203 My dear one, what is the meaning of "1212" Are you an Oracle of some sort? (And I agree, she be hear, it will just take sum thyme for the scales to fall from men's eyes. Slowly, so the don't see too much Truth at once. And freakout and possibly get rowdy in the streets.)

I'm an Incarnate for the divine feminine priciple here now ✨️ Yes I'm an oracle as well. 🪽 1212 is my number my birthday. Our Lady of the Guadalupe, who is recognized by Sikhs as Adi Shakti , her feast day. Rising all over ✨️.

@@UsenameTakenWasTaken the Truth is Beauty. But you KNOW this ..

Very cosmopolitan, and very volatile. There are accounts of the Alexandrian mob storming the royal palace as early as the third century before Christ, under the Ptolemies.

They didn't. Europe underwent multiple renaissances from 500-1400. The idea of the 'Dark Age' was only first formulated in the 1300's by Petrarch to contrast with what he saw as the 'Bright Age' of the Roman Empire. The idea of these ages being 'dark/backwards' was then encouraged by Protestants during the Reformation and the intellectuals of the Enlightenment to paint themselves as 'progressives' and thus created a misinformed and inaccurate image of the period. There's a reason most modern historians avoid using the term nowadays. We always view the past through the prism of the present, and that prism has shifted multiple times over the centuries.

@@onemoreminute0543 Yeah? Or do people just need to keep producing PHDs for their wonderful careers and being contrarian is part of that?

@@austinmackell9286 By this logic, the idea that the Dark Ages were actually 'dark' is contrarian in and of itself.

​@@onemoreminute0543Yeah but you cannot deny that the time periods before and after it advanced far more in scientific and cultured progress.

@@user98344 I can actually deny that. The idea that technology was stagnant/regressive in the Dark Ages/Middle Ages is something that is again now rejected by many historians. This belief is predicated on the belief that the people of the time 'lost touch' with the knowledge of antiquity until the Renaissance of the 15th century, but this is misleading. Europe underwent multiple renaissances before the 1400's, the main ones being the Carolingian Renaissance under Charlemagne (with the Ottonian Renaissance of the 10th century being an extension of this) and then the 12th century Renaissance that was brought about by western Europe's increased contact with the Muslim world and the Eastern Roman Empire, where more ancient classics (which has been copied down by Christian monks) were accessed.

She supported a different christian?

@@LetsTalkReligion against the extremist christian faction, she was for the moderate faction. But in the end was an extremist christian faction that killed her, for not supporting their version of christianity and her leader. As all extremists do. Sure there was nuance, but not as portrayed in the beginning. I do love and watch your other videos but this one I felt was a bit contrarian

@@FrizzyHoranit’s just fact, she was loved by many Christians and supported and taught many of them. It was the politics of the time and the growing factions that came with it, she was just unfortunately caught up in the middle of it. All the facts he laid out on the table with no bias and with sources to back him up along with scholarly consensus. You don’t have to like it, but you’re gonna need to disprove all his claims if you feel he’s being wrong.

​​@@TerriblyexplainingcomicsCan you explain to me what those politics and factions were about?

@@Terriblyexplainingcomics , no, she was never loved by the Christians. Don't twist the facts with the christianity bs. She was loved by Romans, Egyptians and Greeks and other tribes. The Jews and the Christians never loved her, not even any Greek.

shameless plug

@@Reignor99 What do you mean?

@@georgegrubbs2966 its just a playful jeer, meaning like "wow advertising yourself on another persons platform with no shame!"

But the full story is not so simple, as the monasteries started translating classical philosophy, or receiving it via the Arab world. Neo-Platonism informed the School of Chartres. So dogmatism comes and goes in all parts of the world.

​@@StephenSeabirdthey started reviving the same thing the sought (and where largely successful) to destroy. It's no wonder why nowadays only 1% of ancient western texts are still around, because for sure, a good chunk of them were burned down for being considered "pagan". The ones that were preserved by the same people that tried to burned them all, must have a good chunk of their survival attributed by luck, since they weren't found when the pires were lit.

​@@StephenSeabirdmost books that survived the burnings were never preserved because of the religious biases of the monks, so what we have is a skewed remnant

@@pedroalexandredillemburg3751 No, this is nonsense. Only 1% survived not because a bunch were burned. They were lost simply because they weren't copied...because people weren't interested in them. You can still call it a tragedy, but you are so obsessed with crafting some hysterical moral fable over the whole subject that the details get sacrificed on your alter of anti christianity.

@@pedroalexandredillemburg3751more because a lot of texts were just not preserved well. This whole idea that Christians destroyed all literary works from pagans is mostly ahistorical

Guenon became a Muslim. Evola is right, imo.

@@CLP99th Yeah, I'm not sure. I like Ibn Arabi and have a strong pull towards Islam but I also like Evola and his rejection of creationist theistic religions in favour of more metaphysical traditions like Platonism, Buddhism, Vedenta etc. These Traditions being clean from foreign influences. Indo European.

@@CLP99th I just wonder about the validity of orientating yourself towards those more metaphysical traditions, Platonism, Buddhism, Vedenta etc. Have the Abrahmic Traditions abrograted them by divine decree? This is from Maude Murray (Frithjof Schuons 3rd wife) Here is an anonymous comment I received some time ago, after one or more other anonymous commentators seemed to use Lipton's book, Rethinking Ibn Arabi, to prove that Ibn Arabi was not a perennialist: "This is not such a difficult problem. Some of these commentators do not understand that all religions/traditions are nothing but the Perennial Religion of Muhammad saws and Allah. Some people are bound to the historical form of the Muhammadan Community (al-Umma al-Muhammadiyya), whereas the legislative function of the Prophet is primordial (kuntu nabiyyan wa Adam bayna al-ma wa-l-tīn {I was a Nabi when Adam was still between water and clay) or according to another version, bayna al-rūh wa-l-jasad (between Spirit and body) and precedes Adam too, not to mention the other Prophets after him, who are nothing but substitutes (nuwwab) of Muhammad sAws, as clearly explained by Ibn Arabi in Chaper 10 of the Futuhat. So what? Should not the different forms of the Muhammadan Law during human history have any validity if all issued from Allah through the Spirit of Sayyidina Muhammad sAws? If they are abrogated (mansūkha) they are abrogated because the relative authority of the Prophet who brought them at the time of his risāla lost its authority after the coming of Muhammad sAws. Nonetheless, their salvific reality is made alive due to the authority of the one who contains them from the very beginning and to whom all return, like rivers in the sea, at the end of the prophetic cycle. Think of the process of the sea and clouds, rain and rivers: the water is always the same, starting from the sea and returning to the sea, which is none other than the Haqîqa al-Muhammadiyya. That is what Ibn Arabi meant in the passage [already quoted on this page] from Futuhat (III 153.12) when he says: "All the revealed religions [shara] are lights. Among these religions, the revealed religion of Muhammad is like the light of the sun among the lights of the stars. When the sun appears, the lights of the stars are hidden, and their lights are included in the light of the sun. Their being hidden is like the abrogation of the other revealed religions that takes place through Muhammad's revealed religion. Nevertheless, they do in fact exist, just as the existence of the light of the stars is actualized. This explains why we have been required in our all-inclusive religion to have faith in the truth of all the messengers and all the revealed religions. They are not rendered null [batil] by abrogation. THAT IS THE OPINION OF THE IGNORANT. "[ A translation of Ibn Arabi, from: William C. Chittick, Imaginal Worlds, p. 125]. Qur'an verse 3:85 is often used to refute the unity of revealed religions, and/or to refute Ibn Arabi; HOWEVER Ibn Arabi rAa wrote a supernatural amount, and the Quran has a "supernatural number of interpretations!" (Note, from my memory): Once the Shaykh al-Alawi rAa was speaking when someone present stood up, objecting: "What you have said is not in the Qur'an!" The Shaykh replied, "It is not what is in what you have understood of the Qur'an!" (Forgive my memory: it's not divine)!

@@CLP99th Ibn Arabi wrote that salvation is hoped for the people of the trinity. -------- This is REALLY a difficult passage; but is there any doubt that Ibn Arabi rAa SAW the Christians of the Trinity as being saved? He wrote not a single word without Divine Inspiration; because he was of the Afrad, the greatest saints who have a revelation in their hearts and who are taught by Khidr, the revelation given to saints as opposed to the revelation for all which is called Wahy in Arabic. Futuhat al-Makkiyyah: "As for ahl al-tathlith [people of the Trinity], then salvation is hoped for them. This is due to what the trinity contains of fardiyya [singularity/oddity of number]. Since oddity is one of the traits of the One, they are muwahhidūn tawhid tarkib [those who affirm oneness compositely]. Therefore, it is hoped that they will be enveloped by al-rahma al-murakkaba [composite mercy]. Indeed, this is why they are called kuffär because they hid the second within the third whence the second became between the one and third like al-barzakh [isthmus]. So, perhaps the people of the Trinity will be with those who affirm tawhid in hadrat al-fardāniyya [the presence of singularity/oddity of number], but not hadrat al- wahdāniyya [the presence of oneness]. This is how we witnessed them in al-kashf al-ma'nawī [intelligible unveiling]. We could not distinguish between those who affirm oneness and the people of the Trinity save in the presence of singularity, for I did not see even their shadow in oneness. Instead, I perceived their entities in singularity and those who affirm oneness in the presences of wahdāniyya [oneness] and fardāniyya [singularity]." Futuhat, V:256.

I just wonder about the validity of orientating yourself towards those more metaphysical traditions in this phase of the cycle. Do the abarhamic traditions abrograte them? Reading Ibn Arabi is insightful for that. Ibn Arabi wrote that salvation is hoped for the people of the trinity, he also speaks about how Islam has not abrogated previous revelations. -------- This is REALLY a difficult passage; but is there any doubt that Ibn Arabi rAa SAW the Christians of the Trinity as being saved? He wrote not a single word without Divine Inspiration; because he was of the Afrad, the greatest saints who have a revelation in their hearts and who are taught by Khidr, the revelation given to saints as opposed to the revelation for all which is called Wahy in Arabic. Futuhat al-Makkiyyah: "As for ahl al-tathlith [people of the Trinity], then salvation is hoped for them. This is due to what the trinity contains of fardiyya [singularity/oddity of number]. Since oddity is one of the traits of the One, they are muwahhidūn tawhid tarkib [those who affirm oneness compositely]. Therefore, it is hoped that they will be enveloped by al-rahma al-murakkaba [composite mercy]. Indeed, this is why they are called kuffär because they hid the second within the third whence the second became between the one and third like al-barzakh [isthmus]. So, perhaps the people of the Trinity will be with those who affirm tawhid in hadrat al-fardāniyya [the presence of singularity/oddity of number], but not hadrat al- wahdāniyya [the presence of oneness]. This is how we witnessed them in al-kashf al-ma'nawī [intelligible unveiling]. We could not distinguish between those who affirm oneness and the people of the Trinity save in the presence of singularity, for I did not see even their shadow in oneness. Instead, I perceived their entities in singularity and those who affirm oneness in the presences of wahdāniyya [oneness] and fardāniyya [singularity]." Futuhat, V:256.

Nope! Some of them have bern AI-enhanced for higher resolution though.

Can you provide some sources? I want to read into this.

​@@CanaanitebabyeaterHypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher By Edward J. Watts Published by Oxford University

​@@CanaanitebabyeaterDamascius's account of the Christian murder of Hypatia is the sole historical source attributing direct responsibility to Bishop Cyril. At the same time, Damascius was not entirely kind to Hypatia either; he characterizes her as nothing more than a wandering Cynic, and compares her unfavorably with his own teacher Isidore of Alexandria, remarking that "Isidorus greatly outshone Hypatia, not just as a man does over a woman, but in the way a genuine philosopher will over a mere geometer."

@@PanSzawu thanks

Thanks for your comment. I’ve read the same sources and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I have come around the seeing how the various KZfaq religious channels are all created by folks who never got a great academic position (for whatever potential various reasons ) and needed to have work. That’s life. But it’s unfortunate how the “fans”have become fanatic .

madprops

My thoughts exactly

I like how Filip makes an incredibly nuanced video about how complicated this situation was for all sides and the only thing you can come up with is “religion bad”

@@Terriblyexplainingcomics "All sides" were religions right?

@@user98344 not just religions but ethnic groups and politics. To act like religon was the sole thing discounts everything else that happened. The whole “religon bad” critique is such a Reddit tier take.

@@Terriblyexplainingcomics Filip is a great teacher. And like Esoterica, Seekers of Unity, and Puca’s channel, he helps to educate people but not necessarily on history but rather philosophical and religious history. EDUCATE NOT INDOCTRINATE. The channel is called LTR. So. Please. Give me a break. It’s all about religion. And if you’re paying attention to life and history, religion, especially of the Abrahamic monotheistic branches is a poison that’s mixed into politics. Read some history.

Because there was no religious war only politics and men over reaching for power

​@@h3egyptWith excuse religions

Its all authoritarian, theocratic BS.

Because religion does slip into politics, especially in those days.

Not their cheeks that is

A political strangle based on two guys coudn't decide who is better bishop.

@@aerodynamism5438 So a religious one

@@user98344 I guess. They were fighting over the Bishopric but the factions were not based on religious sects/groupings.

@@ikengaspirit3063 But the selection of a Bishop requires the Holy spirit, so it has religious significance. Not to mention that in this fighting other religions quickly involved themselves.

@@user98344 I never denied the position of Bishop was religious, what I denied was that religious differences was ever involved in the conflict.