This is an absolutely enlightening lecture. I am pleased to have come across this because with no knowledge of Plato but the concept of Logos as Christ I uncovered after having to discard traditional dogma I arrived at the conclusions in this lecture. A logos interpreted Christ is the only way the faith can make sense to me. Thanks again. This has been very rewarding.
To everyone asking for the remaining lectures: I have listened to the full 8 lectures and learned the most about Platonic ideas from the first 4. Lectures 5-7 are Peter Kreeft’s arguments against Nominalism, Positivism and Nihilism. I think the uploader’s omission of the remaining lectures was no accident.
This is very helpful. I've always heard that Aquinas was a Christianized Aristotle. Rather he stands as a more fulsome (than Augustine) Christianization of Plato, in synthesis with Aristotle.
Aquinas turns from Augustinian Platonism to Aristotle, the foundation of modernism. Kreeft is a Thomist and former Calvinist with Protestant sympathies. I don't believe he is fully sympathetic with Platonism.
Oh come on, Cooley! I was just about to send these to you! Will there ever be a time when I beat you to an amazing lecture? Great stuff! Please post the remaining. :)
Bcos Gnosticism is controlled opposition. In reality, though, Abrahamic faiths and Gnosticism/mysticism are both collective ideologies that seek to erase your individuality. By pushing non-duality, mysticism is actually way way worse, bcos even spiritually speaking you have no individuality, you're just a schizophrenic delusional piece of god. Nothing more. What does this lead to? As any other collective ideology, it leads to fascism and genocide. I've literally heard people justifying Hitler with non-duality, bcos we're all god after all, right? So there is nothing wrong with god killing god. This also, fits perfectly with the fact that Plato himself was a fascist as per his Republic, which was used by Mussolini as a role model for society.
The Gospel of John probably doesn't represent what Christ himself said as a historical person. I think that the author of this Gospel was probably influenced by Greek philosophy ("logos", light and darkness, etc) so we perhaps shouldn't be surprised to discover Platonic or Neo-Platonic notions in it.
bayreuth79 BUT He did at some points in several gospels Jesus claimed to Be The Way/The Truth ..He emphasized a lot of times that he didn't just teach the truth, or the way.That he was the Truth, The Way,The Way.Those who Go to the father must pass through him,not his teachings(though his teachings are also included because they are Truth ideas)
So this can make you think that all those prophets and men who loved God and were able to glimpse at God ,must have passed through the way..Nowander there are Christ references everywhere in ancient texts long before Jesus
John is believed to be the disciple who was especially beloved by and close to Jesus. He would have listened very attentively to what Jesus said, and wrote what he heard.
Imagine a bunch of writers who were recognized leaders of a movement. They all agreed they were followers of the same man, and spread the message of him in the same and second generations. These people were the Apostles. Without them there is no Christianity. Since 1st century Christianity is a historical fact, and there is no explanation for it apart from its first leaders, denying their main message, that they were followers of an actual person, Jesus Christ, is an extreme skeptical position. Applying the same skepticism generally would undermine much historical inquiry and knowledge. If you take the facts of history, there are very simple steps to arrive at the existence of Jesus Christ and his message.
@@collin501 I didn’t say I don’t believe he existed but that we cannot be sure. He probably did, or at least I mean that there probably was an individual that all the myths are based on.
@@gilserrano8301 you use the term myth, but the gospels and epistles don't resemble myths. I think it would be more tenable to say that the new Testament documents contained inaccuracies or errors, just like textbooks have errors but a lot of factual information, or possibly some myths were added into a largely factual narrative. Being "sure" and "certain" in the common usage are not based on mathematical certainty, but common certainty. That is, we have enough facts and along with that we gain a feeling of confidence. We will never have mathematical certainty or sure-ness, but we can be sure enough that he existed and that the new Testament accounts are at least generally reliable, or else you have to come up with alternate explanations that are hard to support.
@@collin501 there’s not the slightest reason to accord them any more historical accuracy than the Hermetic writings, the Jewish apocalypse literature like Enoch, or the thurigy of late Platonism. Late antiquity was rife with magic and miracles. Saying all the rest are nonsense but not the particular one I believe in isn’t being very critical.
@@gilserrano8301 there are significant differences with those writings. In the gospels there are public miracles and eye witness testimony. Also, there is a wealth of specific details in terms of people and places and contemporary history that is not characteristic of myth. You can make the case for embellishment or myth added to genuine history, but I think you need to do some research into the historical reliability of at least the gospels, because your claim doesn't account for any of it. Here's a Playlist with some good information of you're interested in learning more. ruclips.net/p/PLbVf0T8-zFVhvQKOcYzK_57dYUr20lHWB
@jfsfrnd they consider it circular reasoning. There seems to be similarities between the bible and Platonic philosophy (according to kreeft). Then is added the idea that the focus of christian worship created Plato. Therefore, there seems to be some truth in Platonic philosophy.
Lecture 5? I can't stop here!!!! Thank you so much for this series.
He packs a lot into 40 minutes, very cool, much appreciated
One of the most important lectures on philosophy. Thank you, Dr. Kreeft.
This is an absolutely enlightening lecture. I am pleased to have come across this because with no knowledge of Plato but the concept of Logos as Christ I uncovered after having to discard traditional dogma I arrived at the conclusions in this lecture. A logos interpreted Christ is the only way the faith can make sense to me. Thanks again. This has been very rewarding.
To everyone asking for the remaining lectures: I have listened to the full 8 lectures and learned the most about Platonic ideas from the first 4. Lectures 5-7 are Peter Kreeft’s arguments against Nominalism, Positivism and Nihilism. I think the uploader’s omission of the remaining lectures was no accident.
God bless you for uploading these clips. Here eagerly waiting for lecture 5 and many more. Thank you so much.
Thank you for making these lectures available. Kreeft is helpful.
Loving these lectures, hope the remaining ones are posted when possible.
I hope the next few lectures will be posted soon! These are wonderful!
Really appreciate this video deeply..Dr. Peter Kreef is really inspirational..
Sickly FANTASTIC SERIES OF LECTURES.
Thank you for uploading this! Is there going to be lecture 5?
This is very helpful. I've always heard that Aquinas was a Christianized Aristotle. Rather he stands as a more fulsome (than Augustine) Christianization of Plato, in synthesis with Aristotle.
Aquinas turns from Augustinian Platonism to Aristotle, the foundation of modernism. Kreeft is a Thomist and former Calvinist with Protestant sympathies. I don't believe he is fully sympathetic with Platonism.
Very informative. Thanks for posting.
Hello, would it be possible to post lectures 5 to 8 at all?!
Amazing lecture!
Awesome. Going to by books on this topic today.
Oh come on, Cooley! I was just about to send these to you! Will there ever be a time when I beat you to an amazing lecture? Great stuff! Please post the remaining. :)
Thank you for uploading this! Now... the Lecture 5 please?!
Great.
Makes me wonder, tho...
Why do the same Christians who praise Plato complain about the Gnostics?
🤔
Gnostics don’t believe the Hebrew god is identical with the Good/One, or that he is the Father of Jesus Christ.
Bcos Gnosticism is controlled opposition. In reality, though, Abrahamic faiths and Gnosticism/mysticism are both collective ideologies that seek to erase your individuality. By pushing non-duality, mysticism is actually way way worse, bcos even spiritually speaking you have no individuality, you're just a schizophrenic delusional piece of god. Nothing more.
What does this lead to? As any other collective ideology, it leads to fascism and genocide. I've literally heard people justifying Hitler with non-duality, bcos we're all god after all, right? So there is nothing wrong with god killing god. This also, fits perfectly with the fact that Plato himself was a fascist as per his Republic, which was used by Mussolini as a role model for society.
Where can I find the rest of these?
Please share lecture no 5
7:55
The Gospel of John probably doesn't represent what Christ himself said as a historical person. I think that the author of this Gospel was probably influenced by Greek philosophy ("logos", light and darkness, etc) so we perhaps shouldn't be surprised to discover Platonic or Neo-Platonic notions in it.
bayreuth79 BUT He did at some points in several gospels Jesus claimed to Be The Way/The Truth ..He emphasized a lot of times that he didn't just teach the truth, or the way.That he was the Truth, The Way,The Way.Those who Go to the father must pass through him,not his teachings(though his teachings are also included because they are Truth ideas)
So this can make you think that all those prophets and men who loved God and were able to glimpse at God ,must have passed through the way..Nowander there are Christ references everywhere in ancient texts long before Jesus
John is believed to be the disciple who was especially beloved by and close to Jesus. He would have listened very attentively to what Jesus said, and wrote what he heard.
Jesus never wrote anything and it’s not even a sure thing that he existed
Imagine a bunch of writers who were recognized leaders of a movement. They all agreed they were followers of the same man, and spread the message of him in the same and second generations. These people were the Apostles. Without them there is no Christianity. Since 1st century Christianity is a historical fact, and there is no explanation for it apart from its first leaders, denying their main message, that they were followers of an actual person, Jesus Christ, is an extreme skeptical position. Applying the same skepticism generally would undermine much historical inquiry and knowledge. If you take the facts of history, there are very simple steps to arrive at the existence of Jesus Christ and his message.
@@collin501 I didn’t say I don’t believe he existed but that we cannot be sure. He probably did, or at least I mean that there probably was an individual that all the myths are based on.
@@gilserrano8301 you use the term myth, but the gospels and epistles don't resemble myths. I think it would be more tenable to say that the new Testament documents contained inaccuracies or errors, just like textbooks have errors but a lot of factual information, or possibly some myths were added into a largely factual narrative.
Being "sure" and "certain" in the common usage are not based on mathematical certainty, but common certainty. That is, we have enough facts and along with that we gain a feeling of confidence. We will never have mathematical certainty or sure-ness, but we can be sure enough that he existed and that the new Testament accounts are at least generally reliable, or else you have to come up with alternate explanations that are hard to support.
@@collin501 there’s not the slightest reason to accord them any more historical accuracy than the Hermetic writings, the Jewish apocalypse literature like Enoch, or the thurigy of late Platonism.
Late antiquity was rife with magic and miracles. Saying all the rest are nonsense but not the particular one I believe in isn’t being very critical.
@@gilserrano8301 there are significant differences with those writings. In the gospels there are public miracles and eye witness testimony. Also, there is a wealth of specific details in terms of people and places and contemporary history that is not characteristic of myth. You can make the case for embellishment or myth added to genuine history, but I think you need to do some research into the historical reliability of at least the gospels, because your claim doesn't account for any of it. Here's a Playlist with some good information of you're interested in learning more. ruclips.net/p/PLbVf0T8-zFVhvQKOcYzK_57dYUr20lHWB
very frivolous, futile speculation. Unconvincing and poor way to find defunct common ground between Platonism and Christianity
@jfsfrnd they consider it circular reasoning. There seems to be similarities between the bible and
Platonic philosophy (according to kreeft). Then is added the idea that the focus of christian worship created Plato. Therefore, there seems to be some truth in Platonic philosophy.
Many (if not a majority ) of the early church fathers were avowed Platonists.