In 1660 Rene Descartes entered a cafe in Paris and ordered a coffee. The waiter asked: And does Monsieur wish milk with his coffee? Descartes replied: I think not - and disappeared at once.
The broadcast of these lectures on philosophers and philosophy is one of the best commissioned set of talks ever presented by the Word on Fire and Dr Kreeft is a fantastic lecturer fully conveying complex sets of philosophies in a very understandable way and that only comes by possessing great knowedge on the subject matter. Each talk is an education in itself. Thank you.
I have been listening to philosophy lectures for years. Not once has a presenter provided so much clarity in so little time. Dr. Kreeft’s ability to condense, elucidate, and then present ideas is absolutely magnificent. Thank you for creating this series!
He's talking nonsense when he falsely claims that means matter less than ends; in reality it is the exact reverse... and if what he's saying is derived from metaphysics, then throw out all of metaphysics, as it all is diametrically opposed to reality. In all truth, means matter way more than ends do.
@@chissstardestroyer Peter Kreeft is not the first one to claim that the inversion of the concept of reality to a narrow mechanical and technological scientism started with Descartes. The skepticism of Descartes led himself to a dead end when he could not even fathom his own existence in his Discourse of Method and that even his famous “cogito ergo sum” sentence could be construed as a question whether he actually exists. He didn’t go as far as annihilating existence, but he was the ground for existentialism to reject reality.
@@bcampbell8344 It *is* the opposite of reality for no other reason than certain elements of it diametrically contradict reality; so since if any part at all is false, then the entire thing is false, we must therefore throw out all elements of metaphysics and go with the grass-roots and start off there: with basic matter being the essence of reality, not some "form" nonsense regarding the "form of the body" (which by the way is DNA, not some 'spirit' nonsense!), so wake up, as you, and all those who stand with these spiritists are the ones who're talking nonsense.
@@chissstardestroyer Quick question for you, since basic matter is the essence of reality, as you say: where is it observed that all metaphysics is false?
I absolutely adore Kreeft, and these lectures. He knows the material inside and out, and has a very good intuition and a skillful ability to explain huge ideas in a common sensical way.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:22 🧠 Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy due to his new ways of thinking that define the difference between the modern and pre-modern eras. 01:17 🤔 Descartes' focus on subjective inquiry marks a shift towards self-consciousness and personal certainty, challenging objective truth and common sense. 03:11 🤷♂️ Descartes' foundational principle "I think, therefore I am" places himself at the center of his philosophy, emphasizing self-awareness and the individual as the starting point. 03:39 🔬 Descartes introduces the scientific method to philosophy, emphasizing methodological skepticism, clear and distinct ideas, and rational examination of reason itself. 04:25 🧐 Descartes' approach to epistemology (study of knowledge) sets modern philosophy apart from pre-modern thought by questioning the tools of reasoning before exploring truth. 06:29 ⚖️ Rationalism prioritizes reason's innate ideas, logical principles, and unlimited nature, while empiricism emphasizes sensory experience, data-based judgment, and limits of reason. 10:14 🌌 Kant's "Copernican revolution" redefines truth as conforming the known object to the structures of the knowing mind, shifting the focus of epistemology and challenging extremes. 17:07 🚀 Bacon and Descartes share the goal of gaining power over nature through the application of knowledge and technology, marking a pivotal shift in human pursuits. 21:58 🌍 The division between science and religion lies in their goals: science seeks objective truth through the conformity of the mind, while religion aims to conform the heart and life to God. 25:00 🧪 Descartes envisions technology as the means to alleviate human suffering, eliminate maladies, and possibly conquer death, suggesting the profound implications of technological advancements. 26:37 ⏳ The pursuit of artificial immortality and the conquest of nature's limits raise ethical and theological questions, potentially altering the trajectory of human existence. Made with HARPA AI
Interesting prophecy by Dr Kreeft at the end of the talk. Lots to contemplate in that. I am also enjoying his "Socrates' Children" box set that I got from WoF. I'm still on the first book and savoring it immensely. I'm going through lots and lots of those sticky page markers.
@@ironymatt Uncertainty and a deep-seated feeling of personal insecurity is the way of the skeptic. It is this which he projects onto the rest of the world.
I quote and translate an Italian Thomist: Heidegger's ethics is based on the concept of acting as being and for this reason in Heidegger ethics is both anthropological and metaphysical. And since acting says relationship, we find a sort of relational personalism. For him, action is a self-transcending like being-for-death (sein zum Tode), so as to be free for death (Freiheit zum Tode), in which the "possibility of being a whole" is realized; "Being for authentic death is man's most proper possibility" because in death man is before being, at the definitive summit of his own free decision, a being that appears to him as nothing, but that is that and that is what he himself is. In Heidegger, there is no room for relationship as an accident of the person: the very being of the individual is a being for life or death. For Heidegger, I am essentially "guilty" and anguished, but precisely in this acknowledging myself guilty and making it my own, precisely deciding to be what I am, makes me appear my "original being-for the being of my most proper Being". This decision consists in my "self-planning anguished and tacit in my most proper being-guilty". Now, Heidegger continues, "being guilty is proper to the being of Being and means being the null foundation of a nothingness." But precisely in this decision to be-for-death, to let death "become master of the existence of Being there", that I "understand the effective possibilities of my Being there". The understanding of this possibility of this gives me, according to Heidegger, "an imperturbable joy." Here the resonances of the simul justus et peccator Lutheran stuck in the Hegelian dialectic of the negative (death, nothing) as a producer of the positive (life, being) are evident. But it should also be noted that the negation of being by nothingness in the dynamics of acting introduces a factor of conflict into human existence, which assumes a social aspect in the footsteps of Hegelian dialectics, with the difference that while in Hegel the dialectical polarity has a logical character, in Heidegger we have an existential dialectic, for which we do not have a conflict of concepts as in Hegel, but the opposition of life and death, a circularity where it does not seem that life has victory, because for Heidegger nothingness enters into the very destiny of man, even if this nothing seems to belong not to the sphere of the entity of reason, but to the horizon of the sacred. Heidegger, as is well known, claims to find the authentic original philosophizing in the Parmenides doctrine of being, in that of Heraclitus' becoming and in that of Anaximander's Infinity, without forgetting Cartesian's ego-logic voluntarism. In Heidegger's social ethics we therefore find a mixture of elements coming from Luther with others, completely opposite, coming from Nietzsche, all within the horizon of a conception of being, which joins as in Hegel, Parmenides with Heraclitus, being and time. The result of these juxtapositions is his characteristic conception of man as the "here" of being, that is, as the place and time of the appearance and presence of being to this man here, who is me in an emotional situation and I wonder about being; being understood as transcendent of being. I find myself thrown into the world in a state of dejection, guilt, anguish and precariousness: my being is being-for-death. Heidegger's gnoseological background is not realistic, but idealistic. The truth of knowledge for him does not lie in the adaptation of judgment to the external thing, but in the experience of the truth of being that reveals itself to me as the presence of the present. So I am not in contact through the senses with a reality outside myself, but only with my self-consciousness, for which being is being thought. I do not have a real relationship with things outside of me, but I have, indeed I am a subsisting and existential relationship of me as the "here and now" of being ("house of being") and being as being ("shepherd of being"). The relation in Heidegger corresponds to the categories of the "here" of Being there. This "here and now" is me, as an entity that in time poses the question of being. In this way I am not only the questioner, but also the asked, so that being man comes for him to coincide with being, but not with simple being, but with being there because I am here and now, in time and space, within the horizon of that being and therefore of that being about which I question myself. As in Husserl, also for Heidegger, in the line of Descartes, I am relative to myself because I am conscious of myself. This "I am", therefore, is the being of which I am aware and which I myself am. The relation, therefore, also in Heidegger, as for all idealists, is the relationship of consciousness of the ego with itself and itself, of the empirical ego with the "I" or ego absolute and vice versa. There is thus according to Heidegger the ascending relationship of the empirical ego, the existential ego, to the ego absolute, the being; and there is the descending relationship of being with the "here and now", that is, with my empirical self, being-for-death, dejected and thrown, guilty and anguished. But the descent corresponds to ascent, that is, pre-understanding (Vorverständnis), remembering thinking (an-denken), authentic existence, care, being-in-the-world, things-to-hand (Dingen zu Handen), being-with (mitsein), going-forward, transcendence, planning, ecstasy, language, freedom. The descending relationship includes the sacred, the nothingness, the event (Ereignis), the revelation, the clearing (Lichtung), the opening (Offenheit), the presence of the present, destiny. Heidegger's social ethics are inspired by Hegel's social ethics, centered on obedience to the state and belonging to the state. Thus, the individual is completely dependent on the State and relative to the State, which, in its head, the prince - for Heidegger the Führer of the National Socialist regime - is the absolute Substance of the multiplicity of individuals. Heidegger clarifies the will to power of the State by making use of the Nietzschean concept of the will to power, which for Nietzsche, as Heidegger explains, is nothing more than being as a will that wants itself, according to the definition of the will already given by Hegel. Therefore, absolute relationship is an absolute voluntarism that is identified, as already in Schelling and Fichte, in being as action (Fichte) and freedom (Schelling), for which the Absolute exists because it wanted to exist. The being of which Heidegger speaks is Nietzsche's will to power. This can be seen from the praise he gives to this conception, which therefore for him has nothing to do with the "esse" (being) as the "actus essendi" (act of being) of St. Thomas. The comparison, therefore, that some have made, between the difference between entity and being in Thomas from that of Heidegger, does not hold absolutely, because while for Thomas the transcendent being is supreme perfection and supreme goodness, for Heidegger it is nothingness with respect to the entity and represents only the finiteness and temporality of the entity, which for Heidegger, is the man who asks about being. For this reason, in Heidegger's ethics the theme of love and goodness are completely absent, and the whole moral question lies in the freedom and authenticity of the existential ego in the dimension of temporality and finiteness, in relation to the pre-categorical and emotional experience of being as being there. It is true that in Heidegger's philosophy and even in the Letter on Humanism of 1947, the "divine God" appears, but the polemic against the Christian conception of God, which he contemptuously called "onto theology", as if it were a gross fantasy, makes us understand that his "sacred" and his "divine" are none other than that of Hölderlin, as he himself explains in the book dedicated to him, the sacred in the Germanic mythology that was at the center of the National Socialist conception, which he supported, of the German state and people.
Man ("Being there") is understood as essentially oriented to death that discloses to him in anguish his authentic being as unconditional and unsurpassable. "Freedom for death's sake" is dying as the supreme and definitive moment of maturation and progress of freedom, as we have seen. But Heidegger's source is Hegel. Hegel has some pages of the Phenomenology of the Spirit of extraordinary concentration and density, where the philosopher expresses to us in a few bars of powerful expressiveness and suggestive depth his way of understanding the essence and action of the "Spirit", a fundamental notion of Hegelian philosophy, the central notion, the cardinal notion, capital, to which we are in possession, of the secret of Hegel's system. What does Hegel mean by Spirit? Undoubtedly, for him the infinite, eternal and absolute Spirit is God. He says this several times in his works. The Spirit is the Absolute, it is the Subject, it is the Idea, it is the Concept, it is the Thought, it is the Reason, it is the Becoming, it is the History, it is God. But here immediately come the problems, because the Spirit is "dialectical". Or, as Hegel says, it is "syllogism." It is not a pure yes, but it is yes and no. It is not the"ipsum Esse per se subsistens" of St. Thomas, a perfect interpretation of Ex 3:14 and of the "I Am" pronounced several times by Christ. But it is being-not-being that for Hegel would be Becoming. Moreover, Hegel has that famous phrase extremely indicative of his theology and spiritualism: "God would not be God without the world." God is also connected with matter. So also corporeality and matter, with all their traverses and vicissitudes, misfortunes, conflicts, failures, suffering, evil, death belong to God. God is a God-in-the-world, immanent in the world. God is not in heaven, but on earth. This is why for him the Spirit is "Becoming", because the world is evidently in becoming, change, history, alternation of life and death. So Hegel's Spirit is not pure Life, but life-death-life. This is why for him the Spirit is the "spirit of the world", while we know well what the spirit of the world is for Saint Paul: it is the devil, the one whom Christ calls "prince of the world". And we are at the decisive point: all that remains is to conclude that Hegel, in the concept of the Spirit, confuses God with Satan. Moreover, God for Hegel is instead as for St. Thomas the identity of being and knowing, and, as for Aristotle, self-consciousness ("nòesis noèseos"); Hegel thus conceives not only the divine being, but the being as such, falling into pantheism. Hegel does not believe in a pure, unchanging Spirit separated from matter. In this, if he referred only to the human spirit, we could agree; But the fact is that he does not conceive spirit if not connected to matter and in the end his own gnoseological idealism ("being is thought") turns into materialism, since being is also material being: and if thought coincides with being, it will end up coinciding with matter. Let us remember that Marx is nothing more than an inverted Hegel, as Marx himself affirmed. Therefore, to understand what the Spirit is and how it acts according to Hegel, it is necessary to know how to handle the dialectic of yes and no and to keep in mind that the identity of Being with Thought does not concern only God but being as such. Hence, his pantheism. The Spirit, for Hegel, is founded on the Intellect and based on the Denial. In the midst of profound intuitions, sinister flashes are not lacking, which make us understand or glimpse that Hegel tragically mixes the divine with the diabolical, the gods or "Odin" with the Christian God. The big trouble with Hegelian spiritualism, despite his taste for opposition, is that he never distinguishes the good spirit from the bad spirit, but the spirit seems to be both good and bad. He never speaks of a Holy Spirit, even when he speaks of the Trinity. The principle that life lives in death and death lives in life is evident here. Life must not flee death, but must be with it. Only in this way can he overcome it by obtaining that death produces life. So for Hegel it is not life that produces life by denying death, but it is death that produces life from the negation of life, denying itself. In Hegel, we do not find the words of the paschal hymn, "Vita et mors mirando conflixere ", because all in all, life and death, without ceasing to quarrel, coexist in the dialectical synthesis, which does not remove the conflict, but overcomes it and covers it, like Lutheran grace, which does not take away sin, but subjugates it. Hence, a legalization, indeed a divinization, of death. Death also wants its part in the concept of Spirit and divinity. From here comes Heideggerian being-for-death, from which flow authentic being and life (the "unconditional" and the "unsurpassable"). "And be-for-death", sein zum Tode, is not the Franciscan "brother, remember that you must die", because you must give an account to God of your works, it is not a reminder of the expiatory value of death, but an expectation of death as "moment of the definitive fullness of freedom", as if death were productive not because it is the expiatory death of Christ, but simply as death. Hence, the saying of Freemasonry "no life without death and no death without life".
Thank you so much for these treasures! BTW i think that faith is just the ultimate stage of knowledge. Many people have certain knowledge but 0 faith in it, that is not the highest level of knowledge....since knowledge has levels of belief.....faith is the knowledge you use to risk your life on....this is why people say one thing and do the other....because you do what you really believe in :) and there is 0 belief without knowledge.....knowledge can be true or false! but Faith is just the ultimate stage of knowledge. This is why every person is a believer :) there is no such thing as agnostic
'I think, therefore I am' begs the question, for it presupposes what is purportedly proves -- namely the 'I' in question. The real contribution of Descartes is not in establishing the provable certainty of the 'I', but rather the unprovable and yet irrefutable certainty of the 'I am'.
My goodness! Can he pack anymore into this talk? Seems like for every 5 minutes he speaks will require at least an hour for me to unpack and process. Love his work and am gratetful he has taken the time to do these lectures!😊
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle obviously thought a lot about thinking itself in ancient Greece -- long before Descartes. Socrates' entire philosophy is predicted on his belief that unexamined thoughts are not worth having, and that only by thinking about those concepts of thinking by which we guide our lives -- justice, piety, courage, virtue, knowledge, etc. -- can we begin to clarify their meaning and understand their true nature. Socrates' ultimate question about thinking is, 'How can we be certain that any of our thoughts and ideas are true ?' Plato's metaphysics of the true reality of the intelligible word of transcendent and immutable Forms -- based on the existence of innate ideas in the soul -- is his answer to Socrates. How can thought be made certain ? It must reach up to the heights of the intelligible world of the Forms, transcending the visible and changeable world of the senses. That is Plato's answer. Obviously, Platonism as a philosophy was derived from Plato's having thought a great amount about thinking itself ! Aristotle had a different answer to the same question. Thought must begin with our sense-experiences of the visible and changeable world, from which we derive the premises (or starting-points) of our knowledge and reasoning. Also, we must follow the valid rules of logical reasoning in deriving our conclusions from these premises. Indeed, as the founder himself of that logic, Aristotle obviously thought about our thinking and its certainty, no less than did Socrates, Plato, or Descartes. Therefore, Descartes was not so much the originator of thinking about thinking, as he was the modern re-incarnation of it. What was new in Descartes was that he began by examining his own thoughts (as opposed to examining the thoughts of others and/or thinking in general) and applies his invention of the Methodical Doubt to this very task.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 poor Anglozzz , they claim to know about Empirism without knowing of skepticism , Sextus , Erasmus etc.. if you are interested, well google it, its documented, rather than claiming Hume and Locke were "genius" , Kant just killed them to posterities, as Copernicus, Descartes and Gallileo influenced Newton before Poincarré and Einstein killed Newtonian science to posterity, today Copernician revolution and Cartesian thinking are still relevant Alive and kicking
@@RaySqw785 Yes, we know skepticism. Yet we are skeptical of its message. My previous comment was actually just an invitation for you to defend what appears to be nothing more than a negative stance with regard to any and all knowing. After all, how can anyone 'know skepticism' if all 'knowing' is itself in doubt ? Skepticism is a self-refuting line of thinking that leads to no positive result. It's the intellectual equivalent of reaching a point already more honestly attained by that hapless creature called 'Buridan's ass'.
Did not the ancient Greeks say, 'Know Thyself'? Did not Socrates shift the focus of philosophy away from the nature of reality and to the virtue and values of men? Self-reflection did not begin with Descartes, he simply took it to a new and more profound level. Sure, just like the investigation into the natural world by the ancient Greeks, and just like Socrates' investigation into the virtues and values of men, the results were mixed and ultimately unsatisfactory, nonetheless it was a necessary step in the progress of philosophy that Descartes took upon himself to investigate. His search for certainty in an uncertain world might have been misguided (see Nietzsche, who seems to almost embrace uncertainty as a condition for life), but Descartes was hardly the first to seek certainty (see Plato, Theory of Forms, see Saint Anselm, Ontological Argument). Indeed, Descartes search for certainty was really only a more thorough investigation into the grounds of certainty inside man himself. Adolescent ? Perhaps, as living as an adult might just mean living in the face of uncertainty (see Nietzsche, see existentialism), but one cannot really become mature without first seriously engaging in a critical self-examination (as the unexamined life is not worth living!), and of what one believes, and on what grounds one believes what he does. Descartes is often criticized as being a 'wrong turn' in philosophy, but he actually took a turn that was absolutely necessary for the intellectual maturity of mankind. If, from our point-of-view, the search for rational certainty now seems delusional and immature, then it is only because we have explored, along with Descartes, the actual grounds of rational certainty within ourselves. Ultimately, to get beyond the self, Descartes (like Berkeley)had to depend upon God and his faith in God. This is a lesson that Nietzsche (in his own immature way) failed to comprehend.
To 3:32, so, if now mankind ( or more precisely-world ) is anthropocentric- theology -in some aspects-should be anthropology. As a John 1:14 said -and the Word became flesh.By Son of man.
Professor kraaft, you shouldn’t leave out American slavery and lynching of black people, U.S. indigenous genocide, and U.S. imperial wars and assassinations.
@@bbmtge when he speaks of war he doesn’t cite any of the atrocities I listed. He is from an an old traditional way of thinking of the US. Listen again.
@@Turtletanks I am not sure of the science on animal ability to reason but in this case I am just pointing out they share a lower level of reasoning with us. I don't see where we disagree.
@@kerwinbrown4180 it’s more of a philosophical topic but we don’t tend to observe animal behavior that demonstrates abstract capabilities. An animal can behave preferentially to any instinct, but we don’t usually observe any sort of “future planning” that relies on the capacity of reason
@@kerwinbrown4180 I’ll point out, however, that not a few empiricist types (though I’ve yet to meet a truly honest empiricist) will often reject that notion. They subscribe to the view that humans are no different from lesser creatures
He is diametrically incorrect, as is all of metaphysics: for ends matter *less* than means; as you can never do wrong that good may come of it: to do good, the entire process must be totally moral; if ends mattered more than means: that'd not be so. Yet therefore means matter way more than ends- as means can be known, but ends realistically cannot by those outside of the doer.
Maybe that places too much emphasis on the finite nature of life as we know it. For example. If it were not for every mistake ever made in human history, all the apparently unforgivable circumstances in which there could possibly be no justice…then neither you or I would be here today. In the present, with the ability to look in the mirror and see the present 💝, as the Gift 🎁 of Life with Freedom to Love. Thanks be to Love itself. An oversight to the significance of truth and our calling towards it, like a moth to the flame, is that once United with it, we may be as eternal as it. So maybe from a metric of “what is”, the metaphysics of the present moment, in our state of what is not “good”, there may be a grace of Life to see the Love that is alive & present at all times. In which you may begin to realize there is no greater Truth than our capacity to know we are Loved 1st by Love, as it has no beginning and no end, in order so we may have the capacity to Love others in the way we know we ought to Love ourselves. For there to be a moral law, to suggest what is good, then good must be True, and real, as Love. Besides, there would be no such thing as justice, without Love. And most certainly neither you or I would exist. “And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” St Matthew 19:16-17 DRC1752 bible.com/bible/55/mat.19.16-17.DRC1752
@@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic. It is way worse than that; "metaphysics" is utterly and completely *worthless* as it amounts to pseudo-science and thus occultic superstition, same with any kind of belief at all that we could ever contact any spirit- the church's actual teachings against that practice, which also spill over onto prayer *itself* is way more condemning: such practices really are treasonous in and of themselves!
@@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic. Plus the reality is that since you cannot do evil so that good may come of it; the sole ingredient that determines if any action is good is the means; not ever the ends; those don't matter at all- anything else is an open-doorway to Hell.
@@chissstardestroyer I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say? Are you suggesting evil is not real or humanly possible? What is hell for, if it’s not the end for the evil people meant to do? What do you mean by “the sole ingredient that determines an act good, is the means?
@@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic. No, not at all, but evil methods *very easily completely corrupt* anything set out to goodness- yet evil intents using only *good* means will automatically lead to good fruits; so it is only the *means* that shapes whether something's good or evil or neutral. Hell is something that men *make* in themselves; it is something that is a false-heaven, simple as that. As for the third point: that's not going to be clarified, as it is clear *in and of itself* as well as truthful; yet the claims of the church fathers and doctors of the church really are ipso-facto false in almost all ways.
Christian colonialism should be explicitly mentioned alongside Islamic terrorism: 1) Colonialism was a uniquely Christian pursuit at the hands of both the Catholics and the Protestants from the 15th century onwards (Gladwin, 2017). 2) Christian colonialism killed over 175 million souls in the Western Hemisphere between 1492-1900ce (Smith, 2019), killed over 100 million souls in India by just one coloniser in a 40 year period between 1880-1920ce (Sullivan & Hickel, 2022), killed over 10 million souls in just one region of Africa in a twenty-three year period between 1885-1908ce (Tunamsifu, 2023). Within the western academy there has yet not been a full survey of all the blood on the hands of Christian Colonisers.
You're choosing outliers. If oy makes you feel better about yourself, fine. However, citing does not make it factual. Further, the notion of no full accounting is false. And the label Christian is false. You are in dire need of a history lesson and in particular a look at today's world.
What is Islamophobic about him? He does fear islam or disrespect islam. Truth≠disrespect. I have read many books by him and he is far more complimentary of muhammad than he should be if he is an islamophobe. Btw, islamophobe is a word created in the late 20th century. The meaning is really an irrational understanding of those critical to islam.
In 1660 Rene Descartes entered a cafe in Paris and ordered a coffee. The waiter asked: And does Monsieur wish milk with his coffee? Descartes replied: I think not - and disappeared at once.
hahaha
Bingo-bango!
😂
Stating something so isn't making it so, and stating a thought isn't thinking said thought, then thinking something so dies not make it so?
Mmmh 😳😳😳@@James-ll3jb
The broadcast of these lectures on philosophers and philosophy is one of the best commissioned set of talks ever presented by the Word on Fire and Dr Kreeft is a fantastic lecturer fully conveying complex sets of philosophies in a very understandable way and that only comes by possessing great knowedge on the subject matter. Each talk is an education in itself. Thank you.
I have been listening to philosophy lectures for years. Not once has a presenter provided so much clarity in so little time. Dr. Kreeft’s ability to condense, elucidate, and then present ideas is absolutely magnificent. Thank you for creating this series!
Peter Kreeft is the best philosopher and teacher of our time! God bless him!
He's talking nonsense when he falsely claims that means matter less than ends; in reality it is the exact reverse... and if what he's saying is derived from metaphysics, then throw out all of metaphysics, as it all is diametrically opposed to reality. In all truth, means matter way more than ends do.
@@chissstardestroyer Peter Kreeft is not the first one to claim that the inversion of the concept of reality to a narrow mechanical and technological scientism started with Descartes. The skepticism of Descartes led himself to a dead end when he could not even fathom his own existence in his Discourse of Method and that even his famous “cogito ergo sum” sentence could be construed as a question whether he actually exists. He didn’t go as far as annihilating existence, but he was the ground for existentialism to reject reality.
@@chissstardestroyer I would say you are talking nonsense when you equate an entire field of study to the opposite of reality.
@@bcampbell8344 It *is* the opposite of reality for no other reason than certain elements of it diametrically contradict reality; so since if any part at all is false, then the entire thing is false, we must therefore throw out all elements of metaphysics and go with the grass-roots and start off there: with basic matter being the essence of reality, not some "form" nonsense regarding the "form of the body" (which by the way is DNA, not some 'spirit' nonsense!), so wake up, as you, and all those who stand with these spiritists are the ones who're talking nonsense.
@@chissstardestroyer Quick question for you, since basic matter is the essence of reality, as you say: where is it observed that all metaphysics is false?
I absolutely adore Kreeft, and these lectures. He knows the material inside and out, and has a very good intuition and a skillful ability to explain huge ideas in a common sensical way.
I’m always increasing in my respect for Lewis. Can’t think of a non-Catholic who had a better grasp of the truth than him.
I have always maintained that Descartes problem was that he put de cart before the horse.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:22 🧠 Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy due to his new ways of thinking that define the difference between the modern and pre-modern eras.
01:17 🤔 Descartes' focus on subjective inquiry marks a shift towards self-consciousness and personal certainty, challenging objective truth and common sense.
03:11 🤷♂️ Descartes' foundational principle "I think, therefore I am" places himself at the center of his philosophy, emphasizing self-awareness and the individual as the starting point.
03:39 🔬 Descartes introduces the scientific method to philosophy, emphasizing methodological skepticism, clear and distinct ideas, and rational examination of reason itself.
04:25 🧐 Descartes' approach to epistemology (study of knowledge) sets modern philosophy apart from pre-modern thought by questioning the tools of reasoning before exploring truth.
06:29 ⚖️ Rationalism prioritizes reason's innate ideas, logical principles, and unlimited nature, while empiricism emphasizes sensory experience, data-based judgment, and limits of reason.
10:14 🌌 Kant's "Copernican revolution" redefines truth as conforming the known object to the structures of the knowing mind, shifting the focus of epistemology and challenging extremes.
17:07 🚀 Bacon and Descartes share the goal of gaining power over nature through the application of knowledge and technology, marking a pivotal shift in human pursuits.
21:58 🌍 The division between science and religion lies in their goals: science seeks objective truth through the conformity of the mind, while religion aims to conform the heart and life to God.
25:00 🧪 Descartes envisions technology as the means to alleviate human suffering, eliminate maladies, and possibly conquer death, suggesting the profound implications of technological advancements.
26:37 ⏳ The pursuit of artificial immortality and the conquest of nature's limits raise ethical and theological questions, potentially altering the trajectory of human existence.
Made with HARPA AI
Wow! This man makes sense of so much. Can't really do it justice at the moment, but subscribed. Very many thanks.
Interesting prophecy by Dr Kreeft at the end of the talk. Lots to contemplate in that.
I am also enjoying his "Socrates' Children" box set that I got from WoF. I'm still on the first book and savoring it immensely. I'm going through lots and lots of those sticky page markers.
There is never any need to refute skepticism, for it refutes itself !
Are you sure about that?
@@ironymatt Uncertainty and a deep-seated feeling of personal insecurity is the way of the skeptic. It is this which he projects onto the rest of the world.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 yes, agreed. I was being tongue-in-cheek
@@ironymatt Good One !
50% of these comments: Praise for this series, Peter Kreeft, etc
The other 50%: *Descartes jokes*
And yours find a place between these two 50s.
Would enjoy Aquinas vs Heidegger on the idea of Being.
I quote and translate an Italian Thomist: Heidegger's ethics is based on the concept of acting as being and for this reason in Heidegger ethics is both anthropological and metaphysical. And since acting says relationship, we find a sort of relational personalism. For him, action is a self-transcending like being-for-death (sein zum Tode), so as to be free for death (Freiheit zum Tode), in which the "possibility of being a whole" is realized; "Being for authentic death is man's most proper possibility" because in death man is before being, at the definitive summit of his own free decision, a being that appears to him as nothing, but that is that and that is what he himself is. In Heidegger, there is no room for relationship as an accident of the person: the very being of the individual is a being for life or death.
For Heidegger, I am essentially "guilty" and anguished, but precisely in this acknowledging myself guilty and making it my own, precisely deciding to be what I am, makes me appear my "original being-for the being of my most proper Being". This decision consists in my "self-planning anguished and tacit in my most proper being-guilty". Now, Heidegger continues, "being guilty is proper to the being of Being and means being the null foundation of a nothingness."
But precisely in this decision to be-for-death, to let death "become master of the existence of Being there", that I "understand the effective possibilities of my Being there". The understanding of this possibility of this gives me, according to Heidegger, "an imperturbable joy." Here the resonances of the simul justus et peccator Lutheran stuck in the Hegelian dialectic of the negative (death, nothing) as a producer of the positive (life, being) are evident.
But it should also be noted that the negation of being by nothingness in the dynamics of acting introduces a factor of conflict into human existence, which assumes a social aspect in the footsteps of Hegelian dialectics, with the difference that while in Hegel the dialectical polarity has a logical character, in Heidegger we have an existential dialectic, for which we do not have a conflict of concepts as in Hegel, but the opposition of life and death, a circularity where it does not seem that life has victory, because for Heidegger nothingness enters into the very destiny of man, even if this nothing seems to belong not to the sphere of the entity of reason, but to the horizon of the sacred.
Heidegger, as is well known, claims to find the authentic original philosophizing in the Parmenides doctrine of being, in that of Heraclitus' becoming and in that of Anaximander's Infinity, without forgetting Cartesian's ego-logic voluntarism.
In Heidegger's social ethics we therefore find a mixture of elements coming from Luther with others, completely opposite, coming from Nietzsche, all within the horizon of a conception of being, which joins as in Hegel, Parmenides with Heraclitus, being and time. The result of these juxtapositions is his characteristic conception of man as the "here" of being, that is, as the place and time of the appearance and presence of being to this man here, who is me in an emotional situation and I wonder about being; being understood as transcendent of being. I find myself thrown into the world in a state of dejection, guilt, anguish and precariousness: my being is being-for-death.
Heidegger's gnoseological background is not realistic, but idealistic. The truth of knowledge for him does not lie in the adaptation of judgment to the external thing, but in the experience of the truth of being that reveals itself to me as the presence of the present. So I am not in contact through the senses with a reality outside myself, but only with my self-consciousness, for which being is being thought. I do not have a real relationship with things outside of me, but I have, indeed I am a subsisting and existential relationship of me as the "here and now" of being ("house of being") and being as being ("shepherd of being").
The relation in Heidegger corresponds to the categories of the "here" of Being there. This "here and now" is me, as an entity that in time poses the question of being. In this way I am not only the questioner, but also the asked, so that being man comes for him to coincide with being, but not with simple being, but with being there because I am here and now, in time and space, within the horizon of that being and therefore of that being about which I question myself.
As in Husserl, also for Heidegger, in the line of Descartes, I am relative to myself because I am conscious of myself. This "I am", therefore, is the being of which I am aware and which I myself am. The relation, therefore, also in Heidegger, as for all idealists, is the relationship of consciousness of the ego with itself and itself, of the empirical ego with the "I" or ego absolute and vice versa.
There is thus according to Heidegger the ascending relationship of the empirical ego, the existential ego, to the ego absolute, the being; and there is the descending relationship of being with the "here and now", that is, with my empirical self, being-for-death, dejected and thrown, guilty and anguished. But the descent corresponds to ascent, that is, pre-understanding (Vorverständnis), remembering thinking (an-denken), authentic existence, care, being-in-the-world, things-to-hand (Dingen zu Handen), being-with (mitsein), going-forward, transcendence, planning, ecstasy, language, freedom. The descending relationship includes the sacred, the nothingness, the event (Ereignis), the revelation, the clearing (Lichtung), the opening (Offenheit), the presence of the present, destiny.
Heidegger's social ethics are inspired by Hegel's social ethics, centered on obedience to the state and belonging to the state. Thus, the individual is completely dependent on the State and relative to the State, which, in its head, the prince - for Heidegger the Führer of the National Socialist regime - is the absolute Substance of the multiplicity of individuals.
Heidegger clarifies the will to power of the State by making use of the Nietzschean concept of the will to power, which for Nietzsche, as Heidegger explains, is nothing more than being as a will that wants itself, according to the definition of the will already given by Hegel. Therefore, absolute relationship is an absolute voluntarism that is identified, as already in Schelling and Fichte, in being as action (Fichte) and freedom (Schelling), for which the Absolute exists because it wanted to exist.
The being of which Heidegger speaks is Nietzsche's will to power. This can be seen from the praise he gives to this conception, which therefore for him has nothing to do with the "esse" (being) as the "actus essendi" (act of being) of St. Thomas. The comparison, therefore, that some have made, between the difference between entity and being in Thomas from that of Heidegger, does not hold absolutely, because while for Thomas the transcendent being is supreme perfection and supreme goodness, for Heidegger it is nothingness with respect to the entity and represents only the finiteness and temporality of the entity, which for Heidegger, is the man who asks about being.
For this reason, in Heidegger's ethics the theme of love and goodness are completely absent, and the whole moral question lies in the freedom and authenticity of the existential ego in the dimension of temporality and finiteness, in relation to the pre-categorical and emotional experience of being as being there.
It is true that in Heidegger's philosophy and even in the Letter on Humanism of 1947, the "divine God" appears, but the polemic against the Christian conception of God, which he contemptuously called "onto theology", as if it were a gross fantasy, makes us understand that his "sacred" and his "divine" are none other than that of Hölderlin, as he himself explains in the book dedicated to him, the sacred in the Germanic mythology that was at the center of the National Socialist conception, which he supported, of the German state and people.
Man ("Being there") is understood as essentially oriented to death that discloses to him in anguish his authentic being as unconditional and unsurpassable. "Freedom for death's sake" is dying as the supreme and definitive moment of maturation and progress of freedom, as we have seen. But Heidegger's source is Hegel.
Hegel has some pages of the Phenomenology of the Spirit of extraordinary concentration and density, where the philosopher expresses to us in a few bars of powerful expressiveness and suggestive depth his way of understanding the essence and action of the "Spirit", a fundamental notion of Hegelian philosophy, the central notion, the cardinal notion, capital, to which we are in possession, of the secret of Hegel's system.
What does Hegel mean by Spirit? Undoubtedly, for him the infinite, eternal and absolute Spirit is God. He says this several times in his works. The Spirit is the Absolute, it is the Subject, it is the Idea, it is the Concept, it is the Thought, it is the Reason, it is the Becoming, it is the History, it is God.
But here immediately come the problems, because the Spirit is "dialectical". Or, as Hegel says, it is "syllogism." It is not a pure yes, but it is yes and no. It is not the"ipsum Esse per se subsistens" of St. Thomas, a perfect interpretation of Ex 3:14 and of the "I Am" pronounced several times by Christ.
But it is being-not-being that for Hegel would be Becoming. Moreover, Hegel has that famous phrase extremely indicative of his theology and spiritualism: "God would not be God without the world." God is also connected with matter. So also corporeality and matter, with all their traverses and vicissitudes, misfortunes, conflicts, failures, suffering, evil, death belong to God.
God is a God-in-the-world, immanent in the world. God is not in heaven, but on earth. This is why for him the Spirit is "Becoming", because the world is evidently in becoming, change, history, alternation of life and death. So Hegel's Spirit is not pure Life, but life-death-life. This is why for him the Spirit is the "spirit of the world", while we know well what the spirit of the world is for Saint Paul: it is the devil, the one whom Christ calls "prince of the world". And we are at the decisive point: all that remains is to conclude that Hegel, in the concept of the Spirit, confuses God with Satan.
Moreover, God for Hegel is instead as for St. Thomas the identity of being and knowing, and, as for Aristotle, self-consciousness ("nòesis noèseos"); Hegel thus conceives not only the divine being, but the being as such, falling into pantheism.
Hegel does not believe in a pure, unchanging Spirit separated from matter. In this, if he referred only to the human spirit, we could agree; But the fact is that he does not conceive spirit if not connected to matter and in the end his own gnoseological idealism ("being is thought") turns into materialism, since being is also material being: and if thought coincides with being, it will end up coinciding with matter. Let us remember that Marx is nothing more than an inverted Hegel, as Marx himself affirmed.
Therefore, to understand what the Spirit is and how it acts according to Hegel, it is necessary to know how to handle the dialectic of yes and no and to keep in mind that the identity of Being with Thought does not concern only God but being as such. Hence, his pantheism. The Spirit, for Hegel, is founded on the Intellect and based on the Denial. In the midst of profound intuitions, sinister flashes are not lacking, which make us understand or glimpse that Hegel tragically mixes the divine with the diabolical, the gods or "Odin" with the Christian God.
The big trouble with Hegelian spiritualism, despite his taste for opposition, is that he never distinguishes the good spirit from the bad spirit, but the spirit seems to be both good and bad. He never speaks of a Holy Spirit, even when he speaks of the Trinity.
The principle that life lives in death and death lives in life is evident here. Life must not flee death, but must be with it. Only in this way can he overcome it by obtaining that death produces life. So for Hegel it is not life that produces life by denying death, but it is death that produces life from the negation of life, denying itself.
In Hegel, we do not find the words of the paschal hymn, "Vita et mors mirando conflixere ", because all in all, life and death, without ceasing to quarrel, coexist in the dialectical synthesis, which does not remove the conflict, but overcomes it and covers it, like Lutheran grace, which does not take away sin, but subjugates it. Hence, a legalization, indeed a divinization, of death.
Death also wants its part in the concept of Spirit and divinity. From here comes Heideggerian being-for-death, from which flow authentic being and life (the "unconditional" and the "unsurpassable").
"And be-for-death", sein zum Tode, is not the Franciscan "brother, remember that you must die", because you must give an account to God of your works, it is not a reminder of the expiatory value of death, but an expectation of death as "moment of the definitive fullness of freedom", as if death were productive not because it is the expiatory death of Christ, but simply as death.
Hence, the saying of Freemasonry "no life without death and no death without life".
Thank you so much for these treasures! BTW i think that faith is just the ultimate stage of knowledge. Many people have certain knowledge but 0 faith in it, that is not the highest level of knowledge....since knowledge has levels of belief.....faith is the knowledge you use to risk your life on....this is why people say one thing and do the other....because you do what you really believe in :) and there is 0 belief without knowledge.....knowledge can be true or false! but Faith is just the ultimate stage of knowledge. This is why every person is a believer :) there is no such thing as agnostic
Another wonderful lecture. Thank you 🙏
'I think, therefore I am' begs the question, for it presupposes what is purportedly proves -- namely the 'I' in question.
The real contribution of Descartes is not in establishing the provable certainty of the 'I', but rather the unprovable and yet irrefutable certainty of the 'I am'.
Really appreciate this video.
My goodness! Can he pack anymore into this talk? Seems like for every 5 minutes he speaks will require at least an hour for me to unpack and process.
Love his work and am gratetful he has taken the time to do these lectures!😊
Can see have Peter Kreeft have a series of talks with James Lindsey?
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle obviously thought a lot about thinking itself in ancient Greece -- long before Descartes. Socrates' entire philosophy is predicted on his belief that unexamined thoughts are not worth having, and that only by thinking about those concepts of thinking by which we guide our lives -- justice, piety, courage, virtue, knowledge, etc. -- can we begin to clarify their meaning and understand their true nature. Socrates' ultimate question about thinking is, 'How can we be certain that any of our thoughts and ideas are true ?' Plato's metaphysics of the true reality of the intelligible word of transcendent and immutable Forms -- based on the existence of innate ideas in the soul -- is his answer to Socrates. How can thought be made certain ? It must reach up to the heights of the intelligible world of the Forms, transcending the visible and changeable world of the senses. That is Plato's answer. Obviously, Platonism as a philosophy was derived from Plato's having thought a great amount about thinking itself ! Aristotle had a different answer to the same question. Thought must begin with our sense-experiences of the visible and changeable world, from which we derive the premises (or starting-points) of our knowledge and reasoning. Also, we must follow the valid rules of logical reasoning in deriving our conclusions from these premises. Indeed, as the founder himself of that logic, Aristotle obviously thought about our thinking and its certainty, no less than did Socrates, Plato, or Descartes.
Therefore, Descartes was not so much the originator of thinking about thinking, as he was the modern re-incarnation of it. What was new in Descartes was that he began by examining his own thoughts (as opposed to examining the thoughts of others and/or thinking in general) and applies his invention of the Methodical Doubt to this very task.
the Bacon, Hume, Locke too, they brought nothing, Sextus Empiricus did,
@@RaySqw785 Do tell. Let us know exactly what Sextus Empiricus brought.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 poor Anglozzz , they claim to know about Empirism without knowing of skepticism , Sextus , Erasmus etc.. if you are interested, well google it, its documented, rather than claiming Hume and Locke were "genius" , Kant just killed them to posterities, as Copernicus, Descartes and Gallileo influenced Newton before Poincarré and Einstein killed Newtonian science to posterity, today Copernician revolution and Cartesian thinking are still relevant Alive and kicking
@@RaySqw785 Yes, we know skepticism. Yet we are skeptical of its message. My previous comment was actually just an invitation for you to defend what appears to be nothing more than a negative stance with regard to any and all knowing. After all, how can anyone 'know skepticism' if all 'knowing' is itself in doubt ? Skepticism is a self-refuting line of thinking that leads to no positive result. It's the intellectual equivalent of reaching a point already more honestly attained by that hapless creature called 'Buridan's ass'.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 get friends rather than hanging your days on youtube, ;=
Word.
Did not the ancient Greeks say, 'Know Thyself'? Did not Socrates shift the focus of philosophy away from the nature of reality and to the virtue and values of men? Self-reflection did not begin with Descartes, he simply took it to a new and more profound level. Sure, just like the investigation into the natural world by the ancient Greeks, and just like Socrates' investigation into the virtues and values of men, the results were mixed and ultimately unsatisfactory, nonetheless it was a necessary step in the progress of philosophy that Descartes took upon himself to investigate. His search for certainty in an uncertain world might have been misguided (see Nietzsche, who seems to almost embrace uncertainty as a condition for life), but Descartes was hardly the first to seek certainty (see Plato, Theory of Forms, see Saint Anselm, Ontological Argument). Indeed, Descartes search for certainty was really only a more thorough investigation into the grounds of certainty inside man himself. Adolescent ? Perhaps, as living as an adult might just mean living in the face of uncertainty (see Nietzsche, see existentialism), but one cannot really become mature without first seriously engaging in a critical self-examination (as the unexamined life is not worth living!), and of what one believes, and on what grounds one believes what he does. Descartes is often criticized as being a 'wrong turn' in philosophy, but he actually took a turn that was absolutely necessary for the intellectual maturity of mankind. If, from our point-of-view, the search for rational certainty now seems delusional and immature, then it is only because we have explored, along with Descartes, the actual grounds of rational certainty within ourselves. Ultimately, to get beyond the self, Descartes (like Berkeley)had to depend upon God and his faith in God. This is a lesson that Nietzsche (in his own immature way) failed to comprehend.
To 3:32, so, if now mankind ( or more precisely-world ) is anthropocentric- theology -in some aspects-should be anthropology.
As a John 1:14 said -and the Word became flesh.By Son of man.
Professor kraaft, you shouldn’t leave out American slavery and lynching of black people, U.S. indigenous genocide, and U.S. imperial wars and assassinations.
You're on the wrong channel.
@@bbmtge when he speaks of war he doesn’t cite any of the atrocities I listed. He is from an an old traditional way of thinking of the US. Listen again.
He should not leave out Asthma , Diabetes , obesity , Fungal infection , gossiping affecting the War 😅@@StevenNurAhmedMXS
Descartes has a a different definition of rational than I do. Even animals intrinsically are aware of certain rational thoughts.
Animals don’t reason in the way we do
@@Turtletanks I am not sure of the science on animal ability to reason but in this case I am just pointing out they share a lower level of reasoning with us. I don't see where we disagree.
@@kerwinbrown4180 it’s more of a philosophical topic but we don’t tend to observe animal behavior that demonstrates abstract capabilities. An animal can behave preferentially to any instinct, but we don’t usually observe any sort of “future planning” that relies on the capacity of reason
@@Turtletanks Thank you as I had not thought about that.
@@kerwinbrown4180 I’ll point out, however, that not a few empiricist types (though I’ve yet to meet a truly honest empiricist) will often reject that notion. They subscribe to the view that humans are no different from lesser creatures
He is diametrically incorrect, as is all of metaphysics: for ends matter *less* than means; as you can never do wrong that good may come of it: to do good, the entire process must be totally moral; if ends mattered more than means: that'd not be so. Yet therefore means matter way more than ends- as means can be known, but ends realistically cannot by those outside of the doer.
Maybe that places too much emphasis on the finite nature of life as we know it. For example. If it were not for every mistake ever made in human history, all the apparently unforgivable circumstances in which there could possibly be no justice…then neither you or I would be here today. In the present, with the ability to look in the mirror and see the present 💝, as the Gift 🎁 of Life with Freedom to Love. Thanks be to Love itself.
An oversight to the significance of truth and our calling towards it, like a moth to the flame, is that once United with it, we may be as eternal as it.
So maybe from a metric of “what is”, the metaphysics of the present moment, in our state of what is not “good”, there may be a grace of Life to see the Love that is alive & present at all times. In which you may begin to realize there is no greater Truth than our capacity to know we are Loved 1st by Love, as it has no beginning and no end, in order so we may have the capacity to Love others in the way we know we ought to Love ourselves. For there to be a moral law, to suggest what is good, then good must be True, and real, as Love. Besides, there would be no such thing as justice, without Love. And most certainly neither you or I would exist.
“And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
St Matthew 19:16-17 DRC1752
bible.com/bible/55/mat.19.16-17.DRC1752
@@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic. It is way worse than that; "metaphysics" is utterly and completely *worthless* as it amounts to pseudo-science and thus occultic superstition, same with any kind of belief at all that we could ever contact any spirit- the church's actual teachings against that practice, which also spill over onto prayer *itself* is way more condemning: such practices really are treasonous in and of themselves!
@@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic. Plus the reality is that since you cannot do evil so that good may come of it; the sole ingredient that determines if any action is good is the means; not ever the ends; those don't matter at all- anything else is an open-doorway to Hell.
@@chissstardestroyer I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say?
Are you suggesting evil is not real or humanly possible?
What is hell for, if it’s not the end for the evil people meant to do?
What do you mean by “the sole ingredient that determines an act good, is the means?
@@Truth.n.Love.is.God.BCatholic. No, not at all, but evil methods *very easily completely corrupt* anything set out to goodness- yet evil intents using only *good* means will automatically lead to good fruits; so it is only the *means* that shapes whether something's good or evil or neutral.
Hell is something that men *make* in themselves; it is something that is a false-heaven, simple as that.
As for the third point: that's not going to be clarified, as it is clear *in and of itself* as well as truthful; yet the claims of the church fathers and doctors of the church really are ipso-facto false in almost all ways.
Christian colonialism should be explicitly mentioned alongside Islamic terrorism:
1) Colonialism was a uniquely Christian pursuit at the hands of both the Catholics and the Protestants from the 15th century onwards (Gladwin, 2017).
2) Christian colonialism killed over 175 million souls in the Western Hemisphere between 1492-1900ce (Smith, 2019), killed over 100 million souls in India by just one coloniser in a 40 year period between 1880-1920ce (Sullivan & Hickel, 2022), killed over 10 million souls in just one region of Africa in a twenty-three year period between 1885-1908ce (Tunamsifu, 2023). Within the western academy there has yet not been a full survey of all the blood on the hands of Christian Colonisers.
You're choosing outliers. If oy makes you feel better about yourself, fine. However, citing does not make it factual. Further, the notion of no full accounting is false. And the label Christian is false. You are in dire need of a history lesson and in particular a look at today's world.
It's sad that this wonderful professor is a bit Islamophobic...
What is Islamophobic about him? He does fear islam or disrespect islam. Truth≠disrespect. I have read many books by him and he is far more complimentary of muhammad than he should be if he is an islamophobe. Btw, islamophobe is a word created in the late 20th century. The meaning is really an irrational understanding of those critical to islam.