Only 22 minutes in so far (I’ll have to listen to the rest later), and Dr. Plato gives an excellent explanation of univocity. This is great. Please have Dr. Plato on more!
This is so amazing. It’s inconceivable to me how both of you were able to sustain that degree of intellectual sophistication and precision for 3 hours. So great.
Dr. Plato - aside from being a very intelligent man - just seems like one of the best dudes ever. I imagine he’s just a solid friend overall and that his group of close friends value him greatly. Loved this episode!
The doubts about Christianity portion was HUGE. Matt’s story and connection to the guy who believes extraterrestrial aliens are real was SO SPOT ON with my experience. I would say that I have been faithfully “devout” in my walk in the faith the past 3-4 years and I lead ministry, but I had the same realization that Matt. What if I somehow just talked my way into believing all of this? What if my prior experiences with Christ were just all in my mind? I’ve sat in Mass and thought what if this is all just crap? I pray that it isn’t so, and that I have been truly led by the Holy Spirit to the point where I’m at now. I pray all doubt to be replaced with confidence in Christ and his promises. Either way, I feel I am truly a greater and more virtuous woman due to Christ’s pursuit after me and my allowing of him to do so. Thank you, Matt.
Just remember that the enemy aka Accuser is also the Father of all Lies. He deliberately plants these doubts and has done since Eden. Trust Jesus - he went all the way to the cross so you could trust Him at his word.
Your guests are so intellectually brilliant and their faith makes them so much more than that. It's what seems to be missing in the conversations I've watched with people like Jordan Peterson. I'm not sure how to articulate this but Intellect without faith just seems to fall short. It's like having the map that can lead you to the right destination but no vehicle that can make the journey. I really appreciate this content. Thank you all for taking the time to make this video.
This was just amazing, so precious and inspirational, such deep and rich content. I cannot believe this has been viewed by 12k and only has 400likes,Christian’s it’s time to fix up.
I love what Matt says at 1:34:19 about the limits of debate and argument. So much apologetics focus on propositions and demonstrations from logic... But "real assent" is not a matter of inference, as St Newman shows. No amount of rational/argumentative evidence will _ever_ get you to that assent. It's a matter of the heart, of the whole person. I wish more apologists pointed this out or realized it. Debates and the whole argumentative road not the greatest tool of evangelization. Like Dr Plato shared, evangelization is the friend who says, "Where's your joy, brother?" Christianity is proved by _Christian witness,_ not propositions. The mind is in service to the soul. That's why so many come to Catholicism through an encounter with saints. Notice also that Jesus never chased people down with arguments. It seems to me that a holy person, genuinely living in Christ, is the strongest "argument" or evidence for faith. So if you want to bring others to God, be as near to God with your whole being as you can...
Can you invite Dr Matthew Minerd and Dr Plato to have a discussion on the differences of Thomistic and Franciscan intellectual traditions? Especially the neo scholastic treatments of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus…
Loved this conversation so great loved about an hour in the discussion amazing ! Have such an excellent frame work for the Trinity and also understanding one’s own self very good !
1:37:40 Makes me think of on of my favorite Wittgenstein quotes: "If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. For doubt can exist only where there is a question, a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said. We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and this itself is the answer. The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem." Tractatus 6.5-6.521
Approx 1:04:00 when Matt and Alex start talking about how to explain the Trinity to their kids, if anyone is curious on ways to potentially approach this topic. Runs about 2 minutes
St. Augustine has the best explanation on how you can say "God is one because he is three. God is three because he is one." And Mr. Plato jumped right into it :P.
I wrote my undergrad thesis on the primacy of Christ. It's a fascinating topic. I argued that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are possible only if you have the Scotistic doctrine.
This is such a great talk! One of my favorites. Very great guest. At 1:25:11 I audibly laughed when Matt said that because I felt the exact same way through the whole talk.
Francisco Suárez, SJ (5 January 1548 - 25 September 1617) was a Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian, one of the leading figures of the School of Salamanca movement, and generally regarded among the greatest scholastics after Thomas Aquinas. His work is considered a turning point in the history of second scholasticism, marking the transition from its Renaissance to its Baroque phases. According to Christopher Shields and Daniel Schwartz, "figures as distinct from one another in place, time, and philosophical orientation as Leibniz, Grotius, Pufendorf, Schopenhauer and Heidegger, all found reason to cite him as a source of inspiration and influence."
Why l believe.. Some years ago l received temptations the lasted for three days. I experience the vining for my soul...l knelt in a church begging for relief...lt came..I heard the Lord say "people believe in Me. They do not believe in the evil lier. " And yes l shared this with a priest
In "Introduction to Christianity," Pope Benedict XVI uses a vivid analogy to describe the experience of faith in the modern world, likening the Christian believer to a person adrift in the ocean, clutching a piece of wood to stay afloat. This imagery powerfully conveys the existential condition of modern believers as they navigate the vast, often overwhelming waters of doubt, secularism, and philosophical challenges that characterize contemporary life. The ocean represents the world in which the modern Christian lives-a world that is vast, deep, and often tumultuous. It symbolizes the myriad challenges and uncertainties that believers face, including the intellectual and moral complexities of modern society, which can often seem as insurmountable and unfathomable as the sea itself. The piece of wood stands for faith. Just as a piece of wood provides buoyancy and support in the water, faith offers support and sustenance to the believer amid the existential challenges of life. It is what keeps the believer from sinking into the depths of despair and doubt, offering a lifeline and a point of stability.
I wish there would be as much intellectual vigor for this philosophy video as for the topic of Liturgy on Pints with Aquinas. Even a fraction of the amount of vigor for this highly theoretical video, would go above the popular trashing of the Novus Ordo found on this channel and other catholic channels. Lets have someone on Pints with Aquinas who can show appreciation for the Novus Ordo without getting into polemics. I love this philosophy video though and thought the vigor was so good that I want to see it for the Novus Ordo. There is a lot of good content out there. Look at the founders of the Liturgical Movement, Guardini, Cartens (from La Cross, WI), etc.. Keep up the great work Matt and team. I'm praying for you all!
The idea of quasi-univocal, I personally call 'parallelism" : the incarnation, on earth as it is in heaven, tabernacle being a representation of a heavenly one, holy/profane, etc.
8:08 i would argue that a dogmatic 'notion IS invented to the degree that it is understood individually. Even how we internally define is a function of family/education/culture/self ie uncertainty
42:40 A good illustration of the different approaches typical of Thomists vs. Franciscans: Plato: "They [Thomists] wouldn't say that [i.e., sin] was like the main reason [for the incarnation]..." Fradd: "They actually would, I think Thomas would say it's the main reason." Plato: "Maybe you're right, but... [blah blah blah]..." Then Fradd shifts to Franciscan mode: "So no sin, no mother of God, so there's more you miss out on..." Fradd fails to notice that he has not provided (and that in principle there is no way he could provide) any justification for his (entirely gratuitous) use of the word "more" here. But he does connect here (implicitly) to the idea of "oh happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a redeemer [and his mother!]" Which suggests that sin is indeed the necessary prerequisite for the incarnation, otherwise it would make more sense to say "o unnecessary sin of Adam, without which the Incarnation would have happened regardless, and without which we could have been spared all the futility and despair, the murders, rapes, genocides of human history, all of the imponderable tortures of time and eternity." Or something like that! Plato's subsequent discussion suggests that Scotus believes that God must be the best possible lover of the most lovable set of all possible sets of lovable creatures and the best of all possible redeemers of the maximally sinful of all possible sets of possible creatures, i.e., he believes like Leibniz that God creates the world he does not freely but simply because of the maximal goodness of his will which constrains him to create the best of all possible worlds. But he forgets that the world is not God, it is finite, and talking of "the best of all possible lovers or redeemers of finite creatures (as embodied in a maximally logically possible outpouring of love and redemption)" or "the best of all possible worlds" is like talking of the greatest finite number, i.e., these are intrinsically confused and contradictory concepts.
Regarding a minor remark at the end of the talk about eastern and western liturgical music: I disagree about Gregorian (or other western) chant being totally different than Eastern, Byzantine chant. Sources show something else, they have common roots. They were very close, which shows especially in manuscripts and chant from Benevento, with many Greek verses written phonetically with western notes. For me it's very sad that the most common vision of western chant relies on very modern theories that are completely disconnected from roots and tradition. It's another part of our Church heritage that we let degenerate or even lost (what's maybe worse - we think we academically rediscovered it, but it's just a weak shadow of its former glory). Still alive eastern byzantine traditions are the key to discover what the western chant was about - with varied modi, ison and natural rhytm.
Around 50:50 Plato says: "I have never been able to understand Thomas's view of the Trinity, as the persons of the Trinity are subsistent relations, so what that means is that the relation is prior to the things that are related. ... So normally the way we understand relations as a sort of metaphysical idea..., we think there's no such thing as brotherhood if there aren't two brothers. ... For there to be real brotherhood, a real relation here, there has to be the relata, for there to be the relation, so the relata are prior logically to the relation. But what Aquinas is saying with the Trinity is the opposite." Um, straw man? I'd love a reference. Here's a relevant thing Aquinas says (ST I.40.2 ad 4): "Relation presupposes the distinction of the subjects, when it is an accident; but when the relation is subsistent, it does not presuppose, but of itself bears the distinction (secum fert distinctionem). For when it is said that 'the being of the relative is to be constituted towards another,' the word 'another' signifies the correlative, which is not prior, but simultaneous in the order of nature." So Plato seems to be mistaken. The relation and the relata are, as such, simultaneous in the order of nature. So he's right, there's no brotherhood without (at least) two brothers; but he seems to forget that also, vice versa, there are also no brothers without brotherhood. So he says that "a real relation requires real relata"; but that's obviously not an objection to Aquinas, unless he's bizarrely trying to imply that Aquinas thinks that, e.g., the real relation between the Father and the Son does not require the reality of the Father and Son. And put simply, his objection to Aquinas implies that he thinks it should be the opposite: that the reality of the Father and Son are prior to the real relation between them. But that objection is obviously just as contrary to Bonaventure's account as it is to Aquinas's (as well as flat out not making sense).
What would your guys’ response be to a determinist agnostic who claims that every choice comes from the brain and we cannot effect or change how the brain will decide upon a given choice? This seems to be a biological determinism that rests solely on neurological processes. I’m wondering what the libertarian free will proponent would say in response to this
I'd highly recommend looking up Bernardo Kastrup, and taking the time to understand what he's talking about. I'm pretty sure he would say that we don't have free will, but not because of biological determinism.
The part of the concept Scotus believes is univocal is being. Scotus denies a hierarchy of being. For Scotus, being is just a concept, with no form or essence. Something either is or isn’t. There are no degrees of existence.
Scotus does not deny the hierarchy of being. The very first division in the disjunctive transcendentals for him is infinite and finite, which is hierarchical (infinite is superior to finite). What is univocal is the concept as Dr. Plato explained.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Scotus proposes that being is itself a concept, a non-predicate. Dr. Plato explain that Goodness, wisdom and all these predications are hierarchical. But being for Scotus is itself a concept. Scotus says it himself, that something either is or isn’t. Scotus doesn’t deny a hierarchy within being, but denies that being itself is hierarchical. Scotus believes there is no form or essence of being. Being just is.
@@jeremydaggett4802 it’s basically the idea in Neoplatonism that being is itself a hierarchy. That there is a hierarchy between the ground of being and non-being. This is not to be confused with the idea that there is a hierarchy within beings. Like some are more good or wise than others. But rather being itself has a form or essence which comes from the ground of being. So basically something doesn’t just exist or not exist. There are levels of existence. Things both in being and non-being. A God who is beyond being. And existence is a predicate.
@@mariog1490 Well we have to distinguish if we are speaking of the concept of being or actually existing being. The concept of being does not exist outside of the mind and so cannot be heirarchical. Actually existing being is heirarchical, as I explained above.
1:37:22 Three responses to solipsism: 1) "It just seems" -- but ex hypothesi the "seeming" would be no different, so that just begs the question. 2) "Nonsense" -- but it's not nonsense, unless you don't understand it, in which case you don't have a problem to solve, you just have nonsense; but since you did think you had a problem to solve, not just nonsense, then it seems that your claim now that it's nonsense is just a post hoc rationalization to avoid honestly facing the problem (fyi, Plato, "England's not an island" is certainly not crazy nonsense; it's actually true!). 3) "Transcendentals" -- but ex hypothesi transcendentals would/could transcend solipsistic reality too, so they wouldn't serve to differentiate anything. A more reasonable response: So what? Solipsism? Maybe not disprovable. But nihil sequitur.
Only 22 minutes in so far (I’ll have to listen to the rest later), and Dr. Plato gives an excellent explanation of univocity. This is great. Please have Dr. Plato on more!
Let’s get the Byzantine Scotist back on to discuss YEC.
@@yajunyuan7665 Yeah! Maybe he can discuss that too!
This is so amazing. It’s inconceivable to me how both of you were able to sustain that degree of intellectual sophistication and precision for 3 hours. So great.
I wonder if being born with the last name Plato altered the trajectory of his life
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Amazing
@@emilk4094 ew
I wonder if he thought his surname was Play-Doh when he was a kid. Probably lots of other kids thought so
Exactly same thoughts
It would be interesting to hear Plato and Fr. Ripperger in a long form conversation like this.
Yes!
I love that the Catholic church is sanity itself and appreciate the insights into our Franciscan heritage. Wonderful.
Dr. Plato - aside from being a very intelligent man - just seems like one of the best dudes ever. I imagine he’s just a solid friend overall and that his group of close friends value him greatly. Loved this episode!
This guy is a philosophy machine! Perfect title 🙂
The doubts about Christianity portion was HUGE. Matt’s story and connection to the guy who believes extraterrestrial aliens are real was SO SPOT ON with my experience. I would say that I have been faithfully “devout” in my walk in the faith the past 3-4 years and I lead ministry, but I had the same realization that Matt. What if I somehow just talked my way into believing all of this? What if my prior experiences with Christ were just all in my mind? I’ve sat in Mass and thought what if this is all just crap? I pray that it isn’t so, and that I have been truly led by the Holy Spirit to the point where I’m at now. I pray all doubt to be replaced with confidence in Christ and his promises. Either way, I feel I am truly a greater and more virtuous woman due to Christ’s pursuit after me and my allowing of him to do so. Thank you, Matt.
Just remember that the enemy aka Accuser is also the Father of all Lies. He deliberately plants these doubts and has done since Eden.
Trust Jesus - he went all the way to the cross so you could trust Him at his word.
Dr. Plato is a gem.
Super high quality episode-keep up the good work, and please have Dr. Plato on again soon
Your guests are so intellectually brilliant and their faith makes them so much more than that. It's what seems to be missing in the conversations I've watched with people like Jordan Peterson. I'm not sure how to articulate this but Intellect without faith just seems to fall short. It's like having the map that can lead you to the right destination but no vehicle that can make the journey. I really appreciate this content. Thank you all for taking the time to make this video.
I could listen to Dr Plato for hours. WHY DOESN’T HE HAVE A PODCAST??
Dr. Plato is wonderful to listen to.
Love this channel and love Dr. Plato! Great discussion.
Listening here is quite a workout for my brain. Although a cradle Catholic, there's so much to learn - - eg. never heard of divine simplicity before.
About two hours in. I always enjoy the discussions with Dr. Plato greatly, and on top of that, I learn a lot!
This was just amazing, so precious and inspirational, such deep and rich content. I cannot believe this has been viewed by 12k and only has 400likes,Christian’s it’s time to fix up.
I highly respect this man, my favorite professor learn from his wisdom.
I love what Matt says at 1:34:19 about the limits of debate and argument. So much apologetics focus on propositions and demonstrations from logic... But "real assent" is not a matter of inference, as St Newman shows. No amount of rational/argumentative evidence will _ever_ get you to that assent. It's a matter of the heart, of the whole person. I wish more apologists pointed this out or realized it. Debates and the whole argumentative road not the greatest tool of evangelization. Like Dr Plato shared, evangelization is the friend who says, "Where's your joy, brother?" Christianity is proved by _Christian witness,_ not propositions. The mind is in service to the soul. That's why so many come to Catholicism through an encounter with saints. Notice also that Jesus never chased people down with arguments. It seems to me that a holy person, genuinely living in Christ, is the strongest "argument" or evidence for faith. So if you want to bring others to God, be as near to God with your whole being as you can...
A verse comes to mind:
Hebrews 11 : 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Thank you so much. As a novice, this is extremely important. I really like your channel as it is helping me understand more my rediscovered faith.
This may be the most superb episode of PWA yet. Please do a clip from 6:30 to 9:12 on pursuing knowledge for prideful purposes. Very good work.
Finaaaaallllyyyyy! Dr. Plato!!!!!!!!!!!
He's back! Yes!
Can you invite Dr Matthew Minerd and Dr Plato to have a discussion on the differences of Thomistic and Franciscan intellectual traditions? Especially the neo scholastic treatments of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus…
Yes this would be FANTASTIC. I’m so interested in the difference
Loved this conversation so great loved about an hour in the discussion amazing ! Have such an excellent frame work for the Trinity and also understanding one’s own self very good !
incredible episode
Absolutely fire episode!
1:37:40 Makes me think of on of my favorite Wittgenstein quotes: "If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. For doubt can exist only where there is a question, a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said. We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and this itself is the answer. The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem." Tractatus 6.5-6.521
Approx 1:04:00 when Matt and Alex start talking about how to explain the Trinity to their kids, if anyone is curious on ways to potentially approach this topic. Runs about 2 minutes
St. Augustine has the best explanation on how you can say "God is one because he is three. God is three because he is one." And Mr. Plato jumped right into it :P.
I wrote my undergrad thesis on the primacy of Christ. It's a fascinating topic. I argued that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are possible only if you have the Scotistic doctrine.
This is such a great talk! One of my favorites. Very great guest. At 1:25:11 I audibly laughed when Matt said that because I felt the exact same way through the whole talk.
This is the 2nd best episode of Pints with Aquinas, runner up to Dr Peter Kreeft
Plato is GOAT
I never miss a Dr Plato episode. Are there ways I can take online courses from his lectures? I can't get enough.
My favorite philosopher!
Oh Holy Night, I knew this would be over my head. I'm trying tho!
we should have philosophers of this quality in Spanish language
I really want to know more about the Franciscan school of thought… is there any guide to start studying Franciscan philosophy?
3 is a magic number - De La Soul..................Dr Plato of the Plato brothers ! brilliant
Everybody always talks about Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus I would like to see how Suarez fits into the picture.
Francisco Suárez, SJ (5 January 1548 - 25 September 1617) was a Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian, one of the leading figures of the School of Salamanca movement, and generally regarded among the greatest scholastics after Thomas Aquinas.
His work is considered a turning point in the history of second scholasticism, marking the transition from its Renaissance to its Baroque phases.
According to Christopher Shields and Daniel Schwartz, "figures as distinct from one another in place, time, and philosophical orientation as Leibniz, Grotius, Pufendorf, Schopenhauer and Heidegger, all found reason to cite him as a source of inspiration and influence."
1.38 - England is NOT an island. England is attached to Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is an island.
@42:24 Matt just can't stop his "aussie" way of speaking 🤣.
Wow this is blowing my simple mind/brain
Philosophy podcasts are the 💣💣💣
Why l believe.. Some years ago l received temptations the lasted for three days. I experience the vining for my soul...l knelt in a church begging for relief...lt came..I heard the Lord say "people believe in Me. They do not believe in the evil lier. " And yes l shared this with a priest
"The only way to save the analogy of being is the univocal concept of being." Nice.
Whow I’m a Franciscan and I have bowel issues, help me st. Bonaventure
Monsters & the Critics. So excellent. But yes On Faerie Stories groundbreaking.
In "Introduction to Christianity," Pope Benedict XVI uses a vivid analogy to describe the experience of faith in the modern world, likening the Christian believer to a person adrift in the ocean, clutching a piece of wood to stay afloat. This imagery powerfully conveys the existential condition of modern believers as they navigate the vast, often overwhelming waters of doubt, secularism, and philosophical challenges that characterize contemporary life. The ocean represents the world in which the modern Christian lives-a world that is vast, deep, and often tumultuous. It symbolizes the myriad challenges and uncertainties that believers face, including the intellectual and moral complexities of modern society, which can often seem as insurmountable and unfathomable as the sea itself. The piece of wood stands for faith. Just as a piece of wood provides buoyancy and support in the water, faith offers support and sustenance to the believer amid the existential challenges of life. It is what keeps the believer from sinking into the depths of despair and doubt, offering a lifeline and a point of stability.
I wish there would be as much intellectual vigor for this philosophy video as for the topic of Liturgy on Pints with Aquinas. Even a fraction of the amount of vigor for this highly theoretical video, would go above the popular trashing of the Novus Ordo found on this channel and other catholic channels. Lets have someone on Pints with Aquinas who can show appreciation for the Novus Ordo without getting into polemics.
I love this philosophy video though and thought the vigor was so good that I want to see it for the Novus Ordo. There is a lot of good content out there. Look at the founders of the Liturgical Movement, Guardini, Cartens (from La Cross, WI), etc.. Keep up the great work Matt and team. I'm praying for you all!
The idea of quasi-univocal, I personally call 'parallelism" : the incarnation, on earth as it is in heaven, tabernacle being a representation of a heavenly one, holy/profane, etc.
Ive been able to find a way to be a missologist and be a faithful catholic: Practicing the faith leads to happier life, simple as
8:08 i would argue that a dogmatic 'notion IS invented to the degree that it is understood individually. Even how we internally define is a function of family/education/culture/self ie uncertainty
Fr. Norris Clarke, a Thomist, agrees that anything analogical is necessarily united to be analogical.
42:40 A good illustration of the different approaches typical of Thomists vs. Franciscans:
Plato: "They [Thomists] wouldn't say that [i.e., sin] was like the main reason [for the incarnation]..."
Fradd: "They actually would, I think Thomas would say it's the main reason."
Plato: "Maybe you're right, but... [blah blah blah]..."
Then Fradd shifts to Franciscan mode: "So no sin, no mother of God, so there's more you miss out on..." Fradd fails to notice that he has not provided (and that in principle there is no way he could provide) any justification for his (entirely gratuitous) use of the word "more" here. But he does connect here (implicitly) to the idea of "oh happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a redeemer [and his mother!]" Which suggests that sin is indeed the necessary prerequisite for the incarnation, otherwise it would make more sense to say "o unnecessary sin of Adam, without which the Incarnation would have happened regardless, and without which we could have been spared all the futility and despair, the murders, rapes, genocides of human history, all of the imponderable tortures of time and eternity." Or something like that!
Plato's subsequent discussion suggests that Scotus believes that God must be the best possible lover of the most lovable set of all possible sets of lovable creatures and the best of all possible redeemers of the maximally sinful of all possible sets of possible creatures, i.e., he believes like Leibniz that God creates the world he does not freely but simply because of the maximal goodness of his will which constrains him to create the best of all possible worlds. But he forgets that the world is not God, it is finite, and talking of "the best of all possible lovers or redeemers of finite creatures (as embodied in a maximally logically possible outpouring of love and redemption)" or "the best of all possible worlds" is like talking of the greatest finite number, i.e., these are intrinsically confused and contradictory concepts.
Looks like Matt was over his Head for a bit
I only found out about who CSL and Tolkien were from a dream.
I feel like there’s a good story behind this, what was the dream?
@@littledrummergirl_19 hello. you can find it in the comments section of the "tradition as a living force". ruclips.net/video/TvuAn-lYYtc/видео.html
Oh my tiny brain 🤔
My head hurts
My mind is so small
Does Franciscan School see Human Being as: Body, Soul, and Spirit?
His name is Plato. Oh my gosh.
And there’s a whole other episode with him and Jacob Imam too!!!
wow
Regarding a minor remark at the end of the talk about eastern and western liturgical music: I disagree about Gregorian (or other western) chant being totally different than Eastern, Byzantine chant. Sources show something else, they have common roots. They were very close, which shows especially in manuscripts and chant from Benevento, with many Greek verses written phonetically with western notes.
For me it's very sad that the most common vision of western chant relies on very modern theories that are completely disconnected from roots and tradition. It's another part of our Church heritage that we let degenerate or even lost (what's maybe worse - we think we academically rediscovered it, but it's just a weak shadow of its former glory). Still alive eastern byzantine traditions are the key to discover what the western chant was about - with varied modi, ison and natural rhytm.
39:51 let’s explain to the folks at home what Scotus thought about the supremacy of Christ
Around 50:50 Plato says: "I have never been able to understand Thomas's view of the Trinity, as the persons of the Trinity are subsistent relations, so what that means is that the relation is prior to the things that are related. ... So normally the way we understand relations as a sort of metaphysical idea..., we think there's no such thing as brotherhood if there aren't two brothers. ... For there to be real brotherhood, a real relation here, there has to be the relata, for there to be the relation, so the relata are prior logically to the relation. But what Aquinas is saying with the Trinity is the opposite."
Um, straw man? I'd love a reference. Here's a relevant thing Aquinas says (ST I.40.2 ad 4): "Relation presupposes the distinction of the subjects, when it is an accident; but when the relation is subsistent, it does not presuppose, but of itself bears the distinction (secum fert distinctionem). For when it is said that 'the being of the relative is to be constituted towards another,' the word 'another' signifies the correlative, which is not prior, but simultaneous in the order of nature."
So Plato seems to be mistaken. The relation and the relata are, as such, simultaneous in the order of nature. So he's right, there's no brotherhood without (at least) two brothers; but he seems to forget that also, vice versa, there are also no brothers without brotherhood. So he says that "a real relation requires real relata"; but that's obviously not an objection to Aquinas, unless he's bizarrely trying to imply that Aquinas thinks that, e.g., the real relation between the Father and the Son does not require the reality of the Father and Son. And put simply, his objection to Aquinas implies that he thinks it should be the opposite: that the reality of the Father and Son are prior to the real relation between them. But that objection is obviously just as contrary to Bonaventure's account as it is to Aquinas's (as well as flat out not making sense).
Hugh of St Victor
What would your guys’ response be to a determinist agnostic who claims that every choice comes from the brain and we cannot effect or change how the brain will decide upon a given choice? This seems to be a biological determinism that rests solely on neurological processes. I’m wondering what the libertarian free will proponent would say in response to this
I'd highly recommend looking up Bernardo Kastrup, and taking the time to understand what he's talking about. I'm pretty sure he would say that we don't have free will, but not because of biological determinism.
I'm back.
This was amazingly and beautifully complex and nonsensical 😂
The part of the concept Scotus believes is univocal is being. Scotus denies a hierarchy of being. For Scotus, being is just a concept, with no form or essence. Something either is or isn’t. There are no degrees of existence.
Scotus does not deny the hierarchy of being. The very first division in the disjunctive transcendentals for him is infinite and finite, which is hierarchical (infinite is superior to finite). What is univocal is the concept as Dr. Plato explained.
Can you explain what you mean by Scotus denies a hierarchy of being? What is a hierarchy of being?
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Scotus proposes that being is itself a concept, a non-predicate. Dr. Plato explain that Goodness, wisdom and all these predications are hierarchical. But being for Scotus is itself a concept. Scotus says it himself, that something either is or isn’t. Scotus doesn’t deny a hierarchy within being, but denies that being itself is hierarchical. Scotus believes there is no form or essence of being. Being just is.
@@jeremydaggett4802 it’s basically the idea in Neoplatonism that being is itself a hierarchy. That there is a hierarchy between the ground of being and non-being. This is not to be confused with the idea that there is a hierarchy within beings. Like some are more good or wise than others. But rather being itself has a form or essence which comes from the ground of being. So basically something doesn’t just exist or not exist. There are levels of existence. Things both in being and non-being. A God who is beyond being. And existence is a predicate.
@@mariog1490 Well we have to distinguish if we are speaking of the concept of being or actually existing being. The concept of being does not exist outside of the mind and so cannot be heirarchical. Actually existing being is heirarchical, as I explained above.
Dr. Plato sounds a lot like Rob Henderson
😳🤯😳🤯
Timestamps?
It's funny that Catholics reject Eastern mysticism when there is so much there, just under different names and metaphors.
1:37:22 Three responses to solipsism: 1) "It just seems" -- but ex hypothesi the "seeming" would be no different, so that just begs the question. 2) "Nonsense" -- but it's not nonsense, unless you don't understand it, in which case you don't have a problem to solve, you just have nonsense; but since you did think you had a problem to solve, not just nonsense, then it seems that your claim now that it's nonsense is just a post hoc rationalization to avoid honestly facing the problem (fyi, Plato, "England's not an island" is certainly not crazy nonsense; it's actually true!). 3) "Transcendentals" -- but ex hypothesi transcendentals would/could transcend solipsistic reality too, so they wouldn't serve to differentiate anything. A more reasonable response: So what? Solipsism? Maybe not disprovable. But nihil sequitur.
_'England's not an island" is certainly not crazy nonsense;'_
Actually it is. England is not an island.
In a way isn’t solipsism disprovable because some conjoined twins can hear each other’s thoughts and feel what the other feels?
reckless with that lime green color combo
*mint
When ever Matt says text is tone deaf ruclips.net/video/naleynXS7yo/видео.html
Seriously pointless. Oh and really boring too!