I wish I had found her sooner. I just discovered Camille. She is so bold, so intelligent, and so confident. Her message is so pertinent for today. I love her wisdom.
Every word this woman speaks, every page she has penned, every video recorded, should be backed-up and vaulted somewhere for posterity's sake - and shared repeatedly for millennia. She is absolutely brilliant.
I keep discovering Camille Paglia as an intellectual and I am amazed every time. This video is from 2010 and she is targeting so smartly the main topics we are facing today. She is a visionary.
She has a tremendous point about the need to develop an appreciation of great art as (at least) a parallel to religious experience, rather than the chronic ennui of the sneering hordes.
Jian Ghomeshi is a very competent interviewer. He allows Camille Paglia to expand on her very interesting ideas, and at the same time he moves the interview along. I want him back on the media!
I don't understand these questions. It's GOOD to expose kids to nuance, because that's life. One can teach religion as history, myth, or philosophy without saying "BELIEVE THIS."
Believe that the person you are discussing , saint or sinner believed it and that is far more enlightening to discover the phenomenology of mind. ( mic drop -boom)
@@meadow9441 Hitch saw religion as competing with his own myth of self . he could never have taken on real heat from a Christian like Soren Kierkegaard . In fact he did not even try . He knew better.
That was great! Camille always offers a refreshing perspective. One thing that I particularly admire is how she always talks from experience, very grounded without any blanket theories. Please Jian, if at all possible, I would love to see her back on!
Such a phenomenal interview. I've watched it like 20 times, and am still impressed by her piercing, nuanced insights. She may be persona non grata in the hallowed halls of academia, but the Ivy League's loss is our gain. Great to have her back on the scene.
As soon as she brought up comparative mythology I thought of Joseph Campbell - then of course she mentions his work. If you haven't heard of Joseph Campbell before, do yourself a favor and watch "The Power of Myth;" the Bill Moyers interview with him. Then read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." You'll be glad you did.
this is the slowest I've ever heard Camille speak... maybe she missed her 10th cup of coffee that day... it's nice to hear her speak when she is less manic...
I'm an atheist and a freethinker like her and, despite I reject dogma, it's true what she said, you can see the Bible and the Koran as part of the culture of a country, part of it's art, but not like the word of God. It's amazing. We must support religion comparative in schools for win respect between us. But i don't think that secular humanism is weakness, i support it. I respect Christopher Hitchens' work, God is not Great (with its prons and cons). We need a New Enlightenment.
Exactly. These are mythologies, just like all the others that came before. The only major difference is that we're in the middle of living through its heyday. Most atheists don't seem to advocate throwing it all away, but learning to appreciate it for what it truly is: a myth. Comparative religion studies are a viable way out of the indoctrination of religion, while at the same time changing the perspective from one of worship to appreciation. Camille seems to be advocating for religion as an art form rather than a way of life. I think she's on to something.
@@LubaFan scrutinise Camille's work. She makes references to synchronicity, which she believes in, and is interested in spirituality and astrology. I am amazed this woman cannot believe in a higher power but she can believe in these complimentary things like synchronicity and a purposeful cosmos. How does one square that?
Camille's view of Hitchens reminds me of Karl Kraus's aphorism. "He who lives without inhibition is a pig. He who overcomes it is an artist." Her intellect and knowledge dwarfs Hitchens' paltry pottage.
I admire such conviction; this is an enormously complex notion to grasp and I do believe that what it comes down to is knowing what/how to interpret the information. Most of all, I am so grateful that she doesn't flinch in the face of adversary
It´s not that complicated to teach religion without belief, it´s like studying history, maybe a bit mixed with philosophy. There´s absolutely no implications in being aware of the council of Trent or the Sunnah. It would solve so many problems and misunderstandings just to have it as a subject in school, even a small one.
Polls have shown that Atheists know more about religions than those who claim to believe. Religion is a social/mental phenomena that has been essential and important in the development of societies. Even though 32% of Americans are Atheists, or report that they do not follow any religion, we should all have courses that review the comparative religions of the world so we can understand the motivation for many forms of art, music, early unsophisticated psychology and ethics, and many other facets of study. I'm an Atheist and came to this position because of my studies of Christianity and the sciences.
never have a problem concentrating with her,she`s so lucid and bracing.read a few of her books and they`re so gobbleable.why cant we have more of her ? where is she ?
She's wrong to say that Hitchens believes in 'nothing'; he cites literature and science and critical thinking and reflection on the human condition - that's more than enough to inform a 'good' and 'moral' life that can be passed on to the 'young'.
I agree with Paglia that much of what passes for 'postmodern education' leaves people with very little to hang on to, but i have always been puzzled by her insistence on championing superficial pop culture figures like Madonna and Rhianna. It's difficult to claim that aesthetic culture has gone to the dogs, which she has said in other interviews, and then hold those kind of 'artists' up as representing something great.
You make an interesting point. Madonna does sometimes strike me as laughable, but the criteria I think Paglia tends to use is how influential an artist is on other artists, not necessarily how deep the artist's work is judged to be in the moment. czcams.com/video/KlYR1isM2o8/video.htmlh4m9s
dios bananos I don't think she's championing Rihanna as a role model who's lifestyle we should try to imitate. Rather she points out how she has a certain 'feminine mystique' that infuses both her music and her public persona. Someone who probably won't be remembered in later history as much for her singing as her persona.
you completely missed the point. do your research. watch for example..the live to tell performance from the confessions tour and open your mind, as Camille said. madonna is perhaps the only pop artist who researches art and religion. she's close with the original fado musicians in Portugal and Africa, as well as Patti smith and even Elliott smith has had a friendship with her. I'm only name dropping men so your simplistic outlook on female icons will convince you to stop being so narrow minded. you're only seeing the outside the media presents you, you clearly are not informed
It’s not that she thinks their whole oeuvre is great or something, but it’s also the archetype(s) they introduced to culture thereby refreshing it in some way. Madonna’s not great, but her aesthetic was revolutionary in its context. It’s literally Camille’s job to make distinctions in quality and significance about the canon of modern art for us and future generations to ponder, so it’s fine to say “I like these things but most things these days I don’t like or consider consequential to the canon’
Yes, it was the human followers who called for abolishing slavery, and not God HImself come down to earth. But these human beings were inspired by a faith in their religion and God. If your parents teach you to care for the less fortunate, and years later you volunteer at a homeless shelter, your parents didn't actually tell you to volunteer at a homeless shelter, but their message instilled in you a value that led you there.
Teaching religion without validating theocracy is easy: teach it as fiction and teach MULTIPLE conflicting religions next to each other, without giving one more attention. Going out of high school, you should have a basic understanding of the different branches of christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism and shintoism imo. At least. In addition to ancient/dead religions like the ones from Greece and Rome.
She's an incredible thinking machine...sure do miss her Salon columns. Even DRUDGE dropped her from his list of favored columnists. May God bless and protect my favorite atheist.
Hitchens, in his world travels, experienced first hand the evils of religion to an extreme, which formed his stance on fighting organized religion. He witnessed the slaughter of human life in the name of god. Paglia, certainly felt oppressed, as she mentioned by the religion of the 1950's but her experience is very limited. She still felt some sort of spiritual "good" coming out of her religious experience. She had not witnessed various religious factions killing each other over dogma, did she ever see a child getting cut in half by a religious zealot as Hitch did? No, so she would naturally have a different opinion on the value of religion. Religion and the study of religious beliefs can be beneficial to a society, when its approached as spiritual discipline and NOT a political power, which is very difficult to separate the two at this point because of political infection. Having any religion "organized" opens the door to corrupting influences. I see nothing wrong with studying any religion for an individuals need for personal and spiritual insight, as a tool to aid in becoming a better human being but when any religion's self appointed leaders impose their personal agenda, as often the case, as doctrine, dogma and commands for the followers to commit themselves to under penalty of eternal damnation or death is wrong on many levels. A religions leaders should be brought into question publicly and possibly prosecuted under law. Why do we wait until a religion, under the rule of evil men, grow into a political (or military) machine and allowed to run rampant causing untold damage to society? Hitch wanted religion (and it's leaders) controlled and restricted in public affairs (political, legal and educational) and held accountable for wrong doings. Paglia wants religion to be studied for spiritual enlightenment of the individual. Both are right.
Of course thinkers such as Hannah Arendt and Suzanne Langer thought that the collapse of religion in the 20th century led to the rise of totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism. (Hitler gave lipservice to religion but Nazism was a sort of neopaganist state cult; he'd already had plans to eradicate Christianity after the war drawn up. Actually, he hated Christianity and blamed it on the Jews with its universalism and empathy.) So those who equate religion with bad politics tend to forget about the 20th century.
Her criticisms of Hitchens and other "cynics" are just plain wrong. Just because he thinks it's silly to take anything in the bible seriously doesn't mean he cannot be appreciative of literature and art as a way to teach and inspire a person throughout their lives. She says you can't destroy without replacing it with something. That doesn't mean the bible shouldn't be replaced with something more beneficial as a tool to teach.
Not sure if I am disagreeing with you or piling on to your point. Christopher Hitchens is a very good example of a bad thinker, someone who's intellectual output is bounded by the childhood fallacy that, 'If I think it, it must be true because I was *able* to think it.' Doesn't mean he wasn't bright, doesn't mean he didn't have some good points or lacked any evidence, he just presumed that because it was *his* position and that to him it was so blindingly *obvious* that no real thinking was required to really understand the phenomenon in question. Never good for a serious thinker. Which is why clear up to the yawning grave, even agnostics like David Berlinski regularly handed him his head in debate. He could never debate the question at hand, he could only ever recite his own litany of accusation against.
William Reymond Great points. I remember a debate between Hitchens and William Lane Craig I watched a while ago. Hitchens lost by default because he didn't really address the proposal and nor did he ever, specifically, tackle the points raised by his opponent. This, unlike the Berlinski debate, was before his illness so I couldn't excuse him on the grounds of diminished ability. Like you said he simply performed a script.
Well, you could argue that God is what we call truth or the universe. The think that makes everything exist as oppose to not. We, as human creatures don't know and may never know why things exist. The scientific core that spat everything out.
She makes one or two good points, rest is a good example of what Spengler called "second religiosity". She's really promoting cultural decline as some sort of triumph in an extremely self-centered way.
Hitchens was a better speaker and debater than writer; his writing had a sense of the slapdash and hurried and he seemed to lack the patience for true scholarship, which is why (I think) he gravitated to journalism. I completely disagree with you on the atheist "identity politics" that Hitchens supposedly created. He was a highly effective voice on behalf of the values of secular humanism--values largely drowned out by the constant evangelical badgering in our culture. He was a saint of reason.
this guy doesn't understand that you can scrub the toilet and appreciate the clean bowl without worshiping the brush. one can see the need and utility of religion without believing in god oneself. for a believer in religion belief is something deeply needed, and those who don't believe can learn the discipline of logic and refutation. i love it that she speaks in complete sentences and uses so many complex clauses and subordinate clauses. she is superb!
I didn't say that changes in religion always lag behind society, I said that they often do. And they often do. The point, though, is that even when social progress is made in the name of religion, that progress comes from human beings, not from some "god". Good things in religion come from good people who happen to be religious.
I can't agree. There are plenty of times that religion has taken positions contrary to society, whether it be early Christians against gladiator games, or Quakers against slavery, etc....
I don't think the Bible forbids graven images in the sense of art at all. The 10 commandments mean graven images for the purpose of worshiping those graven images, which people did do and still do.
Listening to her thoughts on Hitchen's views 9:30 ish, makes me wonder if religion was a necessary step in human social evolution. We needed it to civilize ourselves out of caves but now we've outgrown it. or the need for it.
People don't get a code of conduct from religion. Religion gets its code of conduct from people. Religion is the beneficiary of human morality, not the source of it.
Ahhhh the irony. Gohmeshi now in the crosshairs of a victimhood loving young woman. Where did she find this eternal victim hood? What ideology constantly reinforces this "females are victims" narrative at all times? Hmmmm. Feminism has come back to bite him in his personal life and it's affected his professional life.
For one example look at the life of Olaudah Equiano, a former slave who convinced his owner that slavery was wrong by using the philosophies of Jesus right out of the New Testament. Then he wrote a book saying as much (great book check it out if get a chance) and it was a sensation that led almost directly the the abolishment of slavery in British law. There's plenty of other examples as well where the religious amongst us led progressive, humanitarian movements based on philosophy echoed in parts of their scripture. Like all systems it's still essentially human and you will, of course, also see the inverse. It must, by virtue of it being human, reflect the whole range of humanity from malevolent to benevolent.
Well, at this point I write that it comes from God (or whatever the source of their spirituality), so if you don't believe in God then that point is irrelevant for you, Nevertheless, as believers they believe that these core tenets come from God, and inspire them through their lives.
I wish there had been an actual debate between Paglia and Hitchens. That would have been legendary. I do think he would take her to task on her comment about new atheists only teaching kids to sneer. As much as I think some of the attempts to create a secular sacred have been laughable and embarassing (see the video Daniel C Dennet on What Should Replace Religions), these folks are often brilliant expositors of the majesty of the natural world.
People should be free to adhere to any ideology they want, including religion. Most western people are not replacing Christianity with anarchy, as most religious people like to think. The West is replacing dogmas with science and philosophy the West itself produced. If you gotta believe in something, and it's gonna form the base of your civilization, why not something empirically logical?
The trouble is that human beings are not inherently logical people. We all have a desire for the numinous- whether through organized religion or art or nature. The world is seldom a logical place in practice, so we turn to systems that help us make sense of what happens.
@@CanadianMonarchist We need legal systems for us to try to control and organize nature, including human nature. I get that. What I don't understand is people teaching kids that we don't harm babies because there's a God that asked humans not to. We should teach kids that we don't do evil things because most humans have agreed that evil things should not be done. Some things humans just know. It is part of intuitive thinking. Most religious people do not believe in a personal God. They don't believe that Mary got pregnant without a man. What they respect is religious discipline and codes of behavior and the beautiful art (churches, literature, sculptures, etc.) religions have produced for humanity.
There's a disagreement - and a place for one - in America. As interesting as the religious perspective on the whole universe is, it isn't human purpose as more radical, and accepting. Economics - humans, actually - shouldn't even rely on that; that's not just the reach of addressable compassion. Jesus got people, but there's still understanding, and joy.
She states that the western bourgeois who believe in nothing needs to study Eastern religion and realize that belief in nothing is something. And all of the wonderful spiritual implications of that which would effectively challenge this new conservative orthodoxy.
She is my love, but the one I have never met. Imagine waking up and going on with conversation and spending the day talking to Camille. I get drunk. . To talk to Paglia would be like singing with Frank.
She is dead on about the restraints on primitive barbarism by religion. I really like Hitchens but he was blind to this. If he was fair he would carry this forward as well. PS: She is very confused about everything. Secular humanism has failed, but I still want graven images and sexual freedom (does she mean to encourage sexual freedom?). Perhaps it's the consequence of being human, this organized chaos.
I don't think she is confused at all, however, she can be confusing - speaking at the speed of a bullet train doesn't help. I'd highly recommend reading her books to get a complete view of her opinions (which are vast, numerous and hilarious).
I disagree. Religion gets even specific codes of morality from people. After all, all religions and all gods are human creations and the moral codes associated with those gods and religions change as society changes. Changes in religion often lag behind social changes, of course, but they do follow along eventually.
Paglia is always entertaining. I disagree strongly with her contention that the morality of religion has benefited and civilized humanity. Government and the rule of law function perfectly well without any religious underpinnings. She does not acknowledge or explain the resulting wars and ongoing tensions that result from the clash of these differing world religions. The fanaticism and self-righteousness spawned by these competing faiths is a perfect formula for endless armed conflict.
i don't believe that the bible taught us this "code of conduct." The ten commandments didn't invent the idea that theft or murder or imposing on a neighbors place, position and liberty. How about philosophy as a replacement to religion?
they use to call them philosophers now they are provocateurs, funny that been said I absolutely donèt agree with her , there are other books that give you light, the bible is a resume of other books stitched together.
@imblessedso Of course they are linked, as human endeavours trying to understand the world. Science doesn't necessarily lead to moral conclusions, but it can do. Those who think they have something moral to say often use science to back it up. Inextricably linked, I'd say. I've read lots of books on philosophy ;-)
@chrismanxxx alright, maybe you're right about the Apollo/Dionysian thing but in Sexual Personae this theory is certainty substantiated (by more than cheap hollow sarcasm). Sure religion has a blemished history, but I disagree with Hitchens' tactic of nit-picking hypocrisies and presenting them as if they represent religion as a whole. Easy on the sarcasm man, there's only so much YT can take.
I dont understand why you wish to form such strong definition ! MANY charities have NOT been founded by religion [certainly in the U.K.] .. tenovus was founded by 10 businessmen in 1943 and nothing to do with anything religious. A friend of mine, an atheist, works in a charity shop and the Samaritans. MANY atheists are not in isolation, but make the world a better place. Your definition is misleading.
@musicality43 right. Proven fact that fast talkers are manipulative. I am a slow talker that thoroughly thinks the argument through so it's bulletproof when presented. Otherwise I don't present it. Fast talkers stress me out.
I wish I had found her sooner. I just discovered Camille. She is so bold, so intelligent, and so confident. Her message is so pertinent for today. I love her wisdom.
She is amazing....
Every word this woman speaks, every page she has penned, every video recorded, should be backed-up and vaulted somewhere for posterity's sake - and shared repeatedly for millennia. She is absolutely brilliant.
I keep discovering Camille Paglia as an intellectual and I am amazed every time. This video is from 2010 and she is targeting so smartly the main topics we are facing today. She is a visionary.
Holy Jesus, Paglia is a mountain of original intellectual thought.
Impressive woman.
SHe is the best. Quite astounding really.
Totally
She has a tremendous point about the need to develop an appreciation of great art as (at least) a parallel to religious experience, rather than the chronic ennui of the sneering hordes.
I have been an admirer of Camille since 1991!
She shaped and informed my understanding of feminism and freedom since I was a teenager.
Jian Ghomeshi is a very competent interviewer. He allows Camille Paglia to expand on her very interesting ideas, and at the same time he moves the interview along. I want him back on the media!
Jake Preston didn't he get sued for rape
Where is he now?
A man destroyed by toxic feminism
@@Corbiel That is a stupid thing to say in this context on so many levels!
Camilles's absolutely brilliant.
I don't understand these questions. It's GOOD to expose kids to nuance, because that's life. One can teach religion as history, myth, or philosophy without saying "BELIEVE THIS."
You choose your plasebo and I'll choose mine.
Believe that the person you are discussing , saint or sinner believed it and that is far more enlightening to discover the phenomenology of mind. ( mic drop -boom)
How wonderful she is. Common sense, clarity, nuanced, broad and substantial view.
What a brilliant woman. I would love an interview with Ms. Paglia and Ms. Fran Lebowitz.
I had been convinced by Hitchens' arguments about religion, but then hearing this explanation of the worthiness of religion, I'm further enlightened.
Hitchens was effective not because he was smart or knowledgable, but because he was amusingly glib. Camille is not only smarter, but sincere.
Lisa Colorado are you a sheep? how could you have been fooled by that snake oil salesman selling only his own childhood hangups?
A person can investigate different lines of thought. Surely that's okay.
Lisa Colorado rereading my post i realise i spoke harshly. i apologise.
@@meadow9441 Hitch saw religion as competing with his own myth of self . he could never have taken on real heat from a Christian like Soren Kierkegaard . In fact he did not even try . He knew better.
I love the speed of her talk; keeps me focussed. Her ideas, here, are not "shocking" and rather to easy to accept.
That was great! Camille always offers a refreshing perspective. One thing that I particularly admire is how she always talks from experience, very grounded without any blanket theories. Please Jian, if at all possible, I would love to see her back on!
That's it!!!!! "Learning how to sneer" that is exactly what modern post secondary education has produced. Love Her!!
dartek14 she is amazing isn’t she!!! An atheist to admire and learn from
@@dro8031 actually it amazes me she is an atheist.
@@bigtux11why?
Such a phenomenal interview. I've watched it like 20 times, and am still impressed by her piercing, nuanced insights. She may be persona non grata in the hallowed halls of academia, but the Ivy League's loss is our gain. Great to have her back on the scene.
I also do that. Watchin her videos repeatedly over the years. It's a balsam for my brain.
As soon as she brought up comparative mythology I thought of Joseph Campbell - then of course she mentions his work. If you haven't heard of Joseph Campbell before, do yourself a favor and watch "The Power of Myth;" the Bill Moyers interview with him. Then read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." You'll be glad you did.
this is the slowest I've ever heard Camille speak... maybe she missed her 10th cup of coffee that day... it's nice to hear her speak when she is less manic...
shirley A-z I thought I was the only one that picked up on this
Perhaps the hosts voice and the dark setting
Yup. Can actually tell what she's saying this time
I prefer her full manic version
This is the slowest you've her Camille? I'd hate to hear how much one could comprehend what she's saying if she were to speak faster.
I'm an atheist and a freethinker like her and, despite I reject dogma, it's true what she said, you can see the Bible and the Koran as part of the culture of a country, part of it's art, but not like the word of God. It's amazing.
We must support religion comparative in schools for win respect between us. But i don't think that secular humanism is weakness, i support it. I respect Christopher Hitchens' work, God is not Great (with its prons and cons). We need a New Enlightenment.
Exactly. These are mythologies, just like all the others that came before. The only major difference is that we're in the middle of living through its heyday.
Most atheists don't seem to advocate throwing it all away, but learning to appreciate it for what it truly is: a myth.
Comparative religion studies are a viable way out of the indoctrination of religion, while at the same time changing the perspective from one of worship to appreciation.
Camille seems to be advocating for religion as an art form rather than a way of life. I think she's on to something.
@@LubaFan scrutinise Camille's work. She makes references to synchronicity, which she believes in, and is interested in spirituality and astrology. I am amazed this woman cannot believe in a higher power but she can believe in these complimentary things like synchronicity and a purposeful cosmos. How does one square that?
Camille's view of Hitchens reminds me of Karl Kraus's aphorism. "He who lives without inhibition is a pig. He who overcomes it is an artist." Her intellect and knowledge dwarfs Hitchens' paltry pottage.
+Will M
You are a pretty good example of the sort of person who consider Hitchin's (sic) to have been smart.
She's right. My son has an action Bible and loves the stories
I admire such conviction; this is an enormously complex notion to grasp and I do believe that what it comes down to is knowing what/how to interpret the information. Most of all, I am so grateful that she doesn't flinch in the face of adversary
It´s not that complicated to teach religion without belief, it´s like studying history, maybe a bit mixed with philosophy. There´s absolutely no implications in being aware of the council of Trent or the Sunnah. It would solve so many problems and misunderstandings just to have it as a subject in school, even a small one.
Polls have shown that Atheists know more about religions than those who claim to believe. Religion is a social/mental phenomena that has been essential and important in the development of societies. Even though 32% of Americans are Atheists, or report that they do not follow any religion, we should all have courses that review the comparative religions of the world so we can understand the motivation for many forms of art, music, early unsophisticated psychology and ethics, and many other facets of study. I'm an Atheist and came to this position because of my studies of Christianity and the sciences.
"The tiny space that human beings occupy in the universe."
Wonderful
love the setting
never have a problem concentrating with her,she`s so lucid and bracing.read a few of her books and they`re so gobbleable.why cant we have more of her ? where is she ?
She's wrong to say that Hitchens believes in 'nothing'; he cites literature and science and critical thinking and reflection on the human condition - that's more than enough to inform a 'good' and 'moral' life that can be passed on to the 'young'.
she is coming to Brazil! Will see her talk about art in a couple of days! Looking forward!
I agree with Paglia that much of what passes for 'postmodern education' leaves people with very little to hang on to, but i have always been puzzled by her insistence on championing superficial pop culture figures like Madonna and Rhianna.
It's difficult to claim that aesthetic culture has gone to the dogs, which she has said in other interviews, and then hold those kind of 'artists' up as representing something great.
You make an interesting point. Madonna does sometimes strike me as laughable, but the criteria I think Paglia tends to use is how influential an artist is on other artists, not necessarily how deep the artist's work is judged to be in the moment.
czcams.com/video/KlYR1isM2o8/video.htmlh4m9s
dios bananos I don't think she's championing Rihanna as a role model who's lifestyle we should try to imitate. Rather she points out how she has a certain 'feminine mystique' that infuses both her music and her public persona. Someone who probably won't be remembered in later history as much for her singing as her persona.
you completely missed the point. do your research. watch for example..the live to tell performance from the confessions tour and open your mind, as Camille said. madonna is perhaps the only pop artist who researches art and religion. she's close with the original fado musicians in Portugal and Africa, as well as Patti smith and even Elliott smith has had a friendship with her. I'm only name dropping men so your simplistic outlook on female icons will convince you to stop being so narrow minded. you're only seeing the outside the media presents you, you clearly are not informed
@@rohanraghav9943 Where did a make a point about lifestyle? I'm talking about art and aesthetics.
It’s not that she thinks their whole oeuvre is great or something, but it’s also the archetype(s) they introduced to culture thereby refreshing it in some way. Madonna’s not great, but her aesthetic was revolutionary in its context. It’s literally Camille’s job to make distinctions in quality and significance about the canon of modern art for us and future generations to ponder, so it’s fine to say “I like these things but most things these days I don’t like or consider consequential to the canon’
Yes, it was the human followers who called for abolishing slavery, and not God HImself come down to earth.
But these human beings were inspired by a faith in their religion and God.
If your parents teach you to care for the less fortunate, and years later you volunteer at a homeless shelter, your parents didn't actually tell you to volunteer at a homeless shelter, but their message instilled in you a value that led you there.
Wow; she's fucking amazing!
Please translate to spanish, or add subtitles in spanish. Thank you, we need to know this in latin america.
She looks like an older version of Natasha Leggero, but way hotter
Teaching religion without validating theocracy is easy: teach it as fiction and teach MULTIPLE conflicting religions next to each other, without giving one more attention. Going out of high school, you should have a basic understanding of the different branches of christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism and shintoism imo. At least. In addition to ancient/dead religions like the ones from Greece and Rome.
She's an incredible thinking machine...sure do miss her Salon columns. Even DRUDGE dropped her from his list of favored columnists. May God bless and protect my favorite atheist.
This a a good reason to watch Jordan Peterson’s Biblical Series.
She's the best
i spent a lot of time in learning and academia and i agree with a lot of what shes says, v interesting, jung-like in its wide ranging thinking
Hitchens, in his world travels, experienced first hand the evils of religion to an extreme, which formed his stance on fighting organized religion. He witnessed the slaughter of human life in the name of god. Paglia, certainly felt oppressed, as she mentioned by the religion of the 1950's but her experience is very limited. She still felt some sort of spiritual "good" coming out of her religious experience. She had not witnessed various religious factions killing each other over dogma, did she ever see a child getting cut in half by a religious zealot as Hitch did? No, so she would naturally have a different opinion on the value of religion.
Religion and the study of religious beliefs can be beneficial to a society, when its approached as spiritual discipline and NOT a political power, which is very difficult to separate the two at this point because of political infection. Having any religion "organized" opens the door to corrupting influences.
I see nothing wrong with studying any religion for an individuals need for personal and spiritual insight, as a tool to aid in becoming a better human being but when any religion's self appointed leaders impose their personal agenda, as often the case, as doctrine, dogma and commands for the followers to commit themselves to under penalty of eternal damnation or death is wrong on many levels. A religions leaders should be brought into question publicly and possibly prosecuted under law. Why do we wait until a religion, under the rule of evil men, grow into a political (or military) machine and allowed to run rampant causing untold damage to society?
Hitch wanted religion (and it's leaders) controlled and restricted in public affairs (political, legal and educational) and held accountable for wrong doings. Paglia wants religion to be studied for spiritual enlightenment of the individual. Both are right.
Can you please clarify your worldview? Do you believe in God; yes or no?
Of course thinkers such as Hannah Arendt and Suzanne Langer thought that the collapse of religion in the 20th century led to the rise of totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism. (Hitler gave lipservice to religion but Nazism was a sort of neopaganist state cult; he'd already had plans to eradicate Christianity after the war drawn up. Actually, he hated Christianity and blamed it on the Jews with its universalism and empathy.) So those who equate religion with bad politics tend to forget about the 20th century.
CAMILLE IS QUEEN!
Her criticisms of Hitchens and other "cynics" are just plain wrong. Just because he thinks it's silly to take anything in the bible seriously doesn't mean he cannot be appreciative of literature and art as a way to teach and inspire a person throughout their lives. She says you can't destroy without replacing it with something. That doesn't mean the bible shouldn't be replaced with something more beneficial as a tool to teach.
Christopher HItchens - for me - always seemed to be a serious thinker who didn't do much serious thinking.
+LyovMyshkin That's a fantastic way to put it.
Not sure if I am disagreeing with you or piling on to your point.
Christopher Hitchens is a very good example of a bad thinker, someone who's intellectual output is bounded by the childhood fallacy that, 'If I think it, it must be true because I was *able* to think it.' Doesn't mean he wasn't bright, doesn't mean he didn't have some good points or lacked any evidence, he just presumed that because it was *his* position and that to him it was so blindingly *obvious* that no real thinking was required to really understand the phenomenon in question. Never good for a serious thinker. Which is why clear up to the yawning grave, even agnostics like David Berlinski regularly handed him his head in debate. He could never debate the question at hand, he could only ever recite his own litany of accusation against.
William Reymond Great points. I remember a debate between Hitchens and William Lane Craig I watched a while ago. Hitchens lost by default because he didn't really address the proposal and nor did he ever, specifically, tackle the points raised by his opponent. This, unlike the Berlinski debate, was before his illness so I couldn't excuse him on the grounds of diminished ability.
Like you said he simply performed a script.
Wth are you talking about? lol. Smfh
I have always been attracted to Paglia's intellect and humanity.
Well, you could argue that God is what we call truth or the universe. The think that makes everything exist as oppose to not. We, as human creatures don't know and may never know why things exist. The scientific core that spat everything out.
I'm glad she talks fast. That way I don't day dream between words and lose her train of thought.
She looks at Jesus as a wonderful performance artist. That's miraculously funny!
A debate between her and Hitch would have been EPIC, and not her or him would win, human culture would have win a lot.
thank you!
She makes one or two good points, rest is a good example of what Spengler called "second religiosity". She's really promoting cultural decline as some sort of triumph in an extremely self-centered way.
Hitchens was a better speaker and debater than writer; his writing had a sense of the slapdash and hurried and he seemed to lack the patience for true scholarship, which is why (I think) he gravitated to journalism.
I completely disagree with you on the atheist "identity politics" that Hitchens supposedly created. He was a highly effective voice on behalf of the values of secular humanism--values largely drowned out by the constant evangelical badgering in our culture. He was a saint of reason.
this guy doesn't understand that you can scrub the toilet and appreciate the clean bowl without worshiping the brush. one can see the need and utility of religion without believing in god oneself. for a believer in religion belief is something deeply needed, and those who don't believe can learn the discipline of logic and refutation.
i love it that she speaks in complete sentences and uses so many complex clauses and subordinate clauses. she is superb!
I didn't say that changes in religion always lag behind society, I said that they often do. And they often do.
The point, though, is that even when social progress is made in the name of religion, that progress comes from human beings, not from some "god".
Good things in religion come from good people who happen to be religious.
Anyone knows if there is a debate somewhere between Hitchens and Paglia
Is there a link to her talk?
I found one here:
www.rom.on.ca/en/collections-research/rom-channel/director%E2%80%99s-signature-lecture-series-camille-paglia
"Q with Tom Power" ... with Jian Gomeshi ... !
9:55 such a strong point here.
I can't agree. There are plenty of times that religion has taken positions contrary to society, whether it be early Christians against gladiator games, or Quakers against slavery, etc....
I don't think the Bible forbids graven images in the sense of art at all. The 10 commandments mean graven images for the purpose of worshiping those graven images, which people did do and still do.
Damn. Never thought I'd agree with Paglia on anything.
14:23 this is the exact point here, "you must substitute it with something else."
No one has yet to match Ghomeshi’s interview skills on Q, whatever his personal shortcomings. Good art form bad men.
Listening to her thoughts on Hitchen's views 9:30 ish, makes me wonder if religion was a necessary step in human social evolution. We needed it to civilize ourselves out of caves but now we've outgrown it. or the need for it.
Hinduism, Buddhism = subjectivism
Christianity, Judaism, Islam = objectivism
People don't get a code of conduct from religion. Religion gets its code of conduct from people. Religion is the beneficiary of human morality, not the source of it.
I'm sure he didn't try slapping Camille around.
and she'd never go around lying about it to get him back for dumping her.
Ahhhh the irony. Gohmeshi now in the crosshairs of a victimhood loving young woman. Where did she find this eternal victim hood? What ideology constantly reinforces this "females are victims" narrative at all times? Hmmmm. Feminism has come back to bite him in his personal life and it's affected his professional life.
I wish Camille & Hitch would have had a debate.
Why is it that no religion has ever been able to tell us that homophobia is wrong? Or slavery. Or genocide. Or misogyny...
+Amateur Brain Surgery Society People still using terms ending in "phobia" are basically retarded
For one example look at the life of Olaudah Equiano, a former slave who convinced his owner that slavery was wrong by using the philosophies of Jesus right out of the New Testament. Then he wrote a book saying as much (great book check it out if get a chance) and it was a sensation that led almost directly the the abolishment of slavery in British law. There's plenty of other examples as well where the religious amongst us led progressive, humanitarian movements based on philosophy echoed in parts of their scripture. Like all systems it's still essentially human and you will, of course, also see the inverse. It must, by virtue of it being human, reflect the whole range of humanity from malevolent to benevolent.
Jian would like Camille Paglia wouldn't he...
Finally, an atheist I can respect intellectually!!
Well, at this point I write that it comes from God (or whatever the source of their spirituality), so if you don't believe in God then that point is irrelevant for you,
Nevertheless, as believers they believe that these core tenets come from God, and inspire them through their lives.
all i get is the commercial WTF
Nonsense. Hitchens had an evident love of literature. Take a look at some of his essays in 'Arguably' (2011).
I wish there had been an actual debate between Paglia and Hitchens. That would have been legendary. I do think he would take her to task on her comment about new atheists only teaching kids to sneer. As much as I think some of the attempts to create a secular sacred have been laughable and embarassing (see the video Daniel C Dennet on What Should Replace Religions), these folks are often brilliant expositors of the majesty of the natural world.
People should be free to adhere to any ideology they want, including religion. Most western people are not replacing Christianity with anarchy, as most religious people like to think. The West is replacing dogmas with science and philosophy the West itself produced. If you gotta believe in something, and it's gonna form the base of your civilization, why not something empirically logical?
The trouble is that human beings are not inherently logical people. We all have a desire for the numinous- whether through organized religion or art or nature. The world is seldom a logical place in practice, so we turn to systems that help us make sense of what happens.
@@CanadianMonarchist We need legal systems for us to try to control and organize nature, including human nature. I get that. What I don't understand is people teaching kids that we don't harm babies because there's a God that asked humans not to. We should teach kids that we don't do evil things because most humans have agreed that evil things should not be done. Some things humans just know. It is part of intuitive thinking.
Most religious people do not believe in a personal God. They don't believe that Mary got pregnant without a man. What they respect is religious discipline and codes of behavior and the beautiful art (churches, literature, sculptures, etc.) religions have produced for humanity.
But I wish Ghomeshi would let her follow her train of thought, rather than redirect her.
why does she always have to mention susan sontag?
rscmrcmd
yes :)
There's a disagreement - and a place for one - in America. As interesting as the religious perspective on the whole universe is, it isn't human purpose as more radical, and accepting. Economics - humans, actually - shouldn't even rely on that; that's not just the reach of addressable compassion. Jesus got people, but there's still understanding, and joy.
"But these human beings were inspired by a faith in their religion and God."
And the values they learned from that religion come from where?
@tom dinny
Good point.
wonder how she feels about jian
@Marten Dekker truth
She states that the western bourgeois who believe in nothing needs to study Eastern religion and realize that belief in nothing is something. And all of the wonderful spiritual implications of that which would effectively challenge this new conservative orthodoxy.
She is my love, but the one I have never met. Imagine waking up and going on with conversation and spending the day talking to Camille.
I get drunk. . To talk to Paglia would be like singing with Frank.
@imblessedso I don't understand your comment.
that is not decaf in Camille's mug
"the bible - Hebrew poetry" Paglia
She is dead on about the restraints on primitive barbarism by religion. I really like Hitchens but he was blind to this. If he was fair he would carry this forward as well.
PS: She is very confused about everything. Secular humanism has failed, but I still want graven images and sexual freedom (does she mean to encourage sexual freedom?).
Perhaps it's the consequence of being human, this organized chaos.
I don't think she is confused at all, however, she can be confusing - speaking at the speed of a bullet train doesn't help. I'd highly recommend reading her books to get a complete view of her opinions (which are vast, numerous and hilarious).
I disagree. Religion gets even specific codes of morality from people. After all, all religions and all gods are human creations and the moral codes associated with those gods and religions change as society changes. Changes in religion often lag behind social changes, of course, but they do follow along eventually.
Paglia is always entertaining. I disagree strongly with her contention that the morality of religion has benefited and civilized humanity. Government and the rule of law function perfectly well without any religious underpinnings. She does not acknowledge or explain the resulting wars and ongoing tensions that result from the clash of these differing world religions. The fanaticism and self-righteousness spawned by these competing faiths is a perfect formula for endless armed conflict.
Early legal codes, whether Hammurabi or Moses, were seen as being divine in origin.
True if by "morality" you mean "sense of morality", but not true if you mean specific codes of morality.
I bet Paglia would have stood up for this rascal
i don't believe that the bible taught us this "code of conduct." The ten commandments didn't invent the idea that theft or murder or imposing on a neighbors place, position and liberty. How about philosophy as a replacement to religion?
they use to call them philosophers now they are provocateurs, funny
that been said I absolutely donèt agree with her , there are other books that give you light, the bible is a resume of other books stitched together.
@imblessedso Of course they are linked, as human endeavours trying to understand the world. Science doesn't necessarily lead to moral conclusions, but it can do. Those who think they have something moral to say often use science to back it up. Inextricably linked, I'd say. I've read lots of books on philosophy ;-)
@chrismanxxx alright, maybe you're right about the Apollo/Dionysian thing but in Sexual Personae this theory is certainty substantiated (by more than cheap hollow sarcasm). Sure religion has a blemished history, but I disagree with Hitchens' tactic of nit-picking hypocrisies and presenting them as if they represent religion as a whole. Easy on the sarcasm man, there's only so much YT can take.
She stopped saying OK after each sentience? I'm confused and scared
I dont understand why you wish to form such strong definition ! MANY charities have NOT been founded by religion [certainly in the U.K.] .. tenovus was founded by 10 businessmen in 1943 and nothing to do with anything religious. A friend of mine, an atheist, works in a charity shop and the Samaritans. MANY atheists are not in isolation, but make the world a better place. Your definition is misleading.
@musicality43 right. Proven fact that fast talkers are manipulative. I am a slow talker that thoroughly thinks the argument through so it's bulletproof when presented. Otherwise I don't present it. Fast talkers stress me out.
I wish she would marry me. .