He explains this so easily and clearer than any one ive heard. He gives you concrete placeholders and mental bookmarks that help you hold it all together. He summarizes and contrasts so you understand where you are all the time. Hes like a tour guide talking you on a path back in time, pointing out the landmarks and explaining their relevance. All the sudden this is simple. Other teachers enjoy impressing you and demonstrating their own knowledge more than throwing you a real lifeline about all this. Thanks!!
These lectures of Peter Kreeft are truly among the best and the rarest. The surroundings of his lectures, made of a tranquil and august ancient Greek scenery, his serene voice accompanied by the sound of the flowing water add to the music, the significance and the depth of his words. With these lectures we enter THE TEMPLE OF WISDOM.
You can feel the passion and the fun that Dr. Kreeft has through these philosophy lectures. His delivery, humor and knowledge has made all the difference. Love this series immensely. ❤
People live their lives stumbling around in philosophical quagmires. Peter Kreeft is a very reliable guide to actually understanding life as it is and where the nonsense we hear all around us comes from. And he knows that Christ is sanity. And more. There is little else one might do for another than help them to actually understand this life we are in. The church affirms our God given capacity to know and understand. Professor Kreeft is literally a Godsend. Thank you professor.
Thank you so much, Dr. Peter Kreeft, for all these wonderful lectures and for all that you have been doing for us! You are a light and sword in this world!
Again and again Dr. Peter Kreeft brings us the foundations of our (post) modern thought. When we think that we have new thoughts, we realize that we are just repeting a dead philosopher!
This is indeed a wonderful lecture. The best teachers, like Dr. Kreeft, manage to pull together the important points of the great thinkers and make them understandable and interesting. I love the thought of Kierkegaard, but I find him very challenging to read. Not that the thoughts are so difficult, but he states them (on purpose?) in extreme, provocative language. I find myself wrestling with his choice of words and approach more than the content of his thinking.
Fits well with the New Discourses Podcast by James Lindsay As a christian....I've dived into Hitler's Monsters book. Turns out occult/paganism/pantheism was a pretty prominent thing for those enlightenment Germans and after
Since the pandemic I decided to read his whole system in his order, from phenomenology of spirit through the logic and encyclopedias etc. I’m just now at the end in the History of Philosophy. I’ve found that all his critics are misrepresenting his philosophy. If you take his maxim to heart, that the truth is in the whole, you’ll find that he has speculated on a grand view of creation, elevating the arts, religion, spirituality and freedom, and on the whole, he succeeds brilliantly.
It is not possible to understand modernity if one does not understand Hegel; it is not possible to understand modern reason if one does not understand Hegel; Hegel understands. Hegel is really the point that allows us to understand the deep soul of the modernity, in its highest aspects and in the most ambiguous and even more negative ones, in a strange mixture of deep intuitions and at the same time developments that will then lead to very dramatic consequences. Hegel represents the moment of inheritance. Who understood very well this dimension of heritage is certainly the German Jewish historian Karl Löwith. Löwith understands very well that Hegel and Goethe are in Germany those who from different sides look at Christianity as the past, as what is no longer current from the point of view of life, from the point of view of a current faith as a position. Hegel does not express the cold reason for positivism, but it is the warm, passionate reason. It is a reason that awaits the establishment of the "regnum hominis" and the "regnum libertatis", finally realized in history. An unprecedented experiment that has not comparisons with all past history. Reason has found its model; Reason must be actualized and reason is freedom, freedom must be actualized. The whole spirit of nineteenth-century literature and aesthetics is moved by the idea of a Prometheus who is a bit like Nietzsche's Antichrist. The struggle against the father is the underlying reason for this revolt, for this man in revolt of which Camus speaks, for this deaf rebellion in which 'neither God nor master!' - as the anarchists will later say - is the underlying motive. Therefore, there is no longer a Father God; if God exists he is a master and man can only rebel: God is only the limit of my freedom. This position runs from Goethe to Sartre in a almost direct line and explain those demonic aspects present in French and English literature - remember that Shelley also writes his Prometheus and Byron's novels are clearly Promethean. So Prometheism is the underlying reason for this rebellion. against Christianity. Hegel participates fully in this titanism: it is necessary to struggle with the divinity, strip the divinity of its prerogatives and restore them to man. The basic category is re-appropriation. They are our property, we must take them back, because man is divine and man has been humiliated by God. The idea of original sin is the typical idea of the humiliation of man, whereas, instead, divinity must be restored to man. Hegel's dialectical idea presupposes, as we have seen, the idea of inheritance. Nothing true is abandoned in the world. Hegel has in fact this great, Catholic idea of reason. This is why he is great and has been able to have such a profound impact: because nothing true is foreign to reason. Reason recognizes itself everywhere. So there is this idea of the synthesis that gathers everything and that has in itself the power of Catholic tradition, as a perspective. But Hegel's position wants to be a new Catholicism: in Hegel there is a dialectic between Protestantism and Catholicism and Hegel wants to overcome both Protestantism and Catholicism in a new superior synthesis. We can only speak of modern secularization except starting from the resumption of the model of Gioachino da Fiore, of the theory of the three ages. Karl Löwith demonstrated it very well in his volume Meaning and End of History and others with him: there is no secularization if there is no theory of the three ages; and this also makes us understand something very widespread on which we never reflect, namely that the whole nineteenth century is within the idea of the three ages of the world. Also in Giambattista Vico, in Marx, as I spoke in a previous commentary, and in Auguste Comte, there are three ages of the world! And one wonders: why should these ages always be three and not four or five? There are three, because the paradigm is theological, and also for Comte the last age is the secular one. There is the religious era, the metaphysical one and then finally the scientific-positive one. So the third age is secular, it is the legacy of the religious transformed into a secular moment. The theory of the three ages of the world is the eschatology or philosophy of history of the '800, and is borrowed exactly from Gioacchino, whose name is relevant again - there is Henri De Lubac who has dedicated two large volumes to Gioacchino da Fiore and the second of these traces all the great influence of Gioacchino da Fiore in the thought French, German and Italian of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Especially in the nineteenth century this paradigm of the three ages has an enormous influence; but it is precisely Lessing that launches this paradigm! For Lessing, who we know to have belonged openly to Freemasonry - he also published dialogues, "Ernst and Falk," dedicated to Freemasonry-, the Third Age of the World means fraternity, as Freemasonry imagined it. So the third age of the world means the new church, the invisible Church of which Kant spoke in Religion within the limits of reason alone. Kant also thought that he wanted a new church that had to be realized not by revolutionary way, but by reformist way, transforming dogmas into moral precepts: in short, it was necessary to occupy the faculties of theology and transform Christianity from within: in this way we will have a new faith, without Wounded or dead and everything will be painless. This great project that the European intelligentsia cultivates coincides with that of the new religion. The new religion means the new church, it means the realized kingdom of God, it means the age of the spirit as it is to express itself, which is the age of reason. In conclusion, I advise seeing a previous comment of the WOF philosophical Dr Kreeft's settings, and add that this is the heart of Hegel's thought: dialectics as the life of the spirit, that is, as a determined process of actuation, concrete and necessary of the spirit, according to stages that must necessarily be retraced in a certain order. This allows him to write the Encyclopedia of Sciences Philosophical. In that work the path of freedom coincides with that of necessity, because development is necessary. So reason is actualized and becomes autonomous, that is, free, according to Hegel through a process that is immanent and necessary; In this way he thinks of saving the Spinozian lesson: the moment of necessity coincides with the moment of freedom, that is, of the autonomy of reason itself. I'm completely available for both speculative and historical insights (I borrowed many of them from some friends, of course more prominent academically and experienced than myself!)
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp thank you! I’m happy that I undertook this challenge to read through everything. Like you said, so much of modernism has its roots in him. The benefit and also the frustration in trying to take him in is that, while I can’t begrudge anyone who has taken the effort to sum him up, they more often than not add something foreign. The idea of a synthesis for instance is completely absent and yet it’s referred to by most commentators like it’s the key to his philosophy. The third moment of every thought endeavor is arrived at by sublation, which is not a mixing or reconciling of concepts. He only mentions synthesis in the history of philosophy where he is explaining Kant, who went wrong more often than not. When you mentioned the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism producing a synthesis of a third way, that is not found in any respect. He is a Lutheran at heart and he’ll sneer at Catholic beliefs once in awhile, but there are moments where he’ll mention mister Ekhart or even give a more or less Catholic critique of the reformed church. I can’t find anything like a negating of God the Father or the pantheism that is he is criticized for so often. He explains pantheism and refuses to be labeled a Spinozian. I happened in the course of this exploration of his philosophy to read a chapter of St Augustine’s city of God where he notices that Plato had happened upon the thought that there is a threefold dimension to reality in that logic, nature, and morality consist in all that we understand. There’s also man’s soul having the faculties of memory, intellect, and will. He wonders in that chapter if Plato could have had the beginnings of a triune image of God. Hegel elaborates this idea( for him the triad is logic, nature and Spirit) finding triads everywhere and each moment of the triad relates to the other and relates to itself like the persons of the Holy Trinity. It was a daunting task to explain all of thought in this way, but you can use the image of tryptic if you have to rely on “picture thinking” as he famously disdained.
@@migueliteux5061 Thank you very much for your attention! I will just add a few considerations, because there is a lot of meat in the fire. Modern atheism arises from a falsification of the dogma of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Incarnation can be misunderstood in two opposite senses: either in an ultra-spiritualistic or pantheistic sense or in a materialistic sense. In the first case, matter is ignored, absorbed and replaced by spirit. In the second, spirit materializes in matter. In the first case, we have a false theism: God is man. In the second, we have atheism: God does not exist, because man is sufficient for himself. Man himself is God. So pantheistic idealism produces atheistic materialism. Feuerbach shows how Marx comes out of Hegel. The seed of atheism is already contained in an immanentistic conception of the Incarnation. It starts from a misunderstanding of the indwelling of God in the soul in grace, which presupposes divine transcendence, to derive from it an immanentistic concept of God as "God-with-us", first the God of Luther and then the God of Hegel, the Gott mit uns of the Nazis. No longer man aimed at God, but God aimed at man. The Incarnation would not serve to lead man to a transcendent God, but it is the operation of man who, having discovered that he is God, removes or "kills" the transcendent God. And here is Nietzsche. The superman replaces God. Man does not need a Transcendent, because he transcends himself. Even today for a Rahner God is the boundless horizon and the summit of human self-transcendence. For Rahner, as for Hegel, man is not created by God from nothing, but is the "self-expression" or "self-alienation" or "self-communication" of Self to man, which in turn is the entity of self-transcendence in God as the horizon and final fullness of human nature. So ultimately God comes to communicate himself to himself. It is Hegelian circularity. Thus atheism has two possible linguistic outlets: either to abolish the word "God", as it recalls something that does not exist, or to use the word to refer it to man. Feuerbach and Marx still use it. Today's atheists have completely abolished it. In the Incarnation it is not true that God becomes man and man becomes God. Being is not like a balloon inflating and deflating. God remains God and man remains man. Only that humanity and divinity are united while remaining distinct in the one person of Christ. The atreptos, the "without mutation" of Chalcedonian dogma is inviolable and it is heresy to deny it. The authentic conception of the Incarnation presupposes a vision that is unitary, but at the same time participatory of being, not monistic, totalitarian and univocal. It is wrong to believe that being is either there is everything or there is nothing. No, there is also being partial, being by participation. This is the human being. There is not only the absolute, but also the relative, which is relative to the absolute. Nor should the relative be absolutized, as if it were relative to itself. The spirit-matter duality is not a "dualism" that must be removed. If they are at odds with each other in the fallen state of nature, Christ's Redemption teaches how to reconcile them according to the original plan of creation. To obtain union, it is not necessary to fall into confusion, but to reconstruct the Edenic model broken by sin with the addition of the eschatological model proposed by Christ. For this reason it can certainly be said that the antechamber of contemporary atheism is Hegel's Christology, for which in Christ human nature is identified with the divine nature. So man is God. Feuerbach and Marx draw the consequences: if, therefore, man is already God himself, no creator God is needed above him, but whoever thinks this, offends human dignity by superimposing on man a heavenly master who does not exist and who serves only the bosses to intimidate the workers with vain scruples, to deceive them with vain hopes, maintain the status quo and oppress and exploit the working class. Behind the current "mercifulness" of a God who saves everyone and approves and blesses everyone hides the atheism given by a false God who does not exercise justice and lets the strong crush the weak without punishing the first and without freeing the second. The false God of the rich reappears against whom not so much Marx rises, but rather Our Lady of the Magnificat. It should also be noted that both Hegelian and Marxist anthropology have their foundation in the Cartesian cogito and the Lutheran ego. Descartes provides the principle of self-consciousness; Luther the principle of God-with-me. Hegel joins the two principles and concludes: I am aware of being God, or vice versa: God in me is aware of being man. Luther's God is a God for the self: the God-with-me, who is not, in Luther's vision, the pure transcendent and abstract and distant spirit God of the Old Testament, but is the close, concrete and incarnate, immanent God of the New, understood as God who cannot be God except in man, made man and for man. Now it is easy to pass from a God who essentially benefits man to a God functional to man. No longer man as the servant of God, but God as the servant of man. So who counts? Is it God? No! It's the man! From here will come Hegel's God, who is not God without the world. Spirit cannot do without matter. He is the God of Spinoza and Schelling, synthesis of thought and extension, the Deus sive Natura. For Hegel, the Idea becomes nature and nature transcends itself into the Idea. Man becomes God and God becomes man. Spirit becomes matter and matter becomes spirit. For Hegel the absolute, the being existing by essence, is God, it is the Spirit. For Marx, it is matter, it is collective man who is the Gattungswesen, the being of gender, we mean mankind. For both Hegel and Marx the spirit is dialectical, it becomes in history and proceeds by opposition. For both Hegel and Marx the spirit, which is the Cartesian-Lutheran ego, is a dialectical spirit, which exists by itself, places itself outside itself and against itself as matter, alienates itself, loses its essence and, by virtue of the negation of self-denial, returns to itself, recovers the coincidence of essence and being, of thought and being, after contradicting and estranged from oneself in the other from oneself. Thus occurs in Hegel the reconciliation of the spirit with itself, of the spirit outside of itself and estranged from itself, without however removing the opposition of the spirit with itself within itself, as for Fichte, because this restlessness is the essence and life of the spirit. Stillness is the companion of restlessness. The simple is the synthesis of the contradictory. The absolute is not without the relative. The infinite is not without the finite. Good is not without evil. Life is not without death. The eternal is the eternal becoming. So the beginning produces the end, but the end returns to the beginning, so as at the beginning one is everything, at the end everything is one. Spirit becomes matter and matter becomes spirit. A false concept of God easily produces atheism and hides atheism. Feuerbach's atheism, later taken up by Marx, is the unveiling of the atheism implicit in Hegelian theism.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp I appreciate the reply and your thoughts, thank you. One thing is sure about his philosophy, it provides a great deal to think about. As I mentioned in the last reply, the problem I’m seeing is that ideas that are not his are added to his philosophy. These ideas are then refuted, as in a straw man fallacy, or these ideas are used to build antithetical systems like the monstrosities of communism that the charlatan Marx made up. I can say it again, there is no synthesis as a combination of contraries in Hegel. There is no synthesis at all in fact. The whole materialist dialectic is a sham. The atheists after Hegel only lend credence to the Hegel’s unstated implication in the being of phenomenology of Spirit, that is that philosophy has found its fulfillment in him. That’s a bit much really, and Kierkegaard puts that theory to the test. But for the most part these post-Hegelian philosophies using his name are continuations along the skeptical “Highway of Despair”. Rather than trace out all the ways that you can take his philosophy in the wrong direction, it’s more valuable to see with Croce what is alive in the philosophy today. There may be more alive in it today than during Croce’s time. I’m a botanist with an interest in intelligent design for instance, and I found that God’s idea of the “Concept” provides an interesting speculation on an Intelligence whose thinking or ideas are in no way separated from objects thought about, but automatically imbedded in reality, for us to try to investigate and appreciate. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, includes an article in his Summa (I.14.8) in which he argues that the design in God’s intellect (scientia artificis) is the cause of all created things. Hegel addresses many many ideas that take a new shape today that were considered in his system. Think of the simplicity of logic and its uses in creating something as complex as AI. I also see in him an appreciation of Christian thought as the basis for the birth of science like you see in the work of Stanley Jaki.
Hegel was a heavy duty occultist attempting to bring about a luciferian world-view where his metaphysics of triune, is manifested in reality as a caste system. The commenter with a long response is getting lost in the weeds and misinterpreting Hegel - Hegel is not creating something new, he is literally rehashing ancient black magik as a religion, similar to what Egyptians or Sumerians believed. The same commenter is wrong for saying "reason is freedom"....reason is merely a single feature of our thinking, equal in value to every other feature of our biological organism. Whereas freedom is really chaotic, it is not always reasonable. Hegel is a very evil man, with very evil friends. You cannot trust those early modern Germans.
Very dense, very understandable, very deep and thus inviting to more views, or pauses of meditation. The word Kreeft in dutch means lobster, indeed the Doctor has a (humoristic) pincing way to describe!
Modern thought after Kant is largely, if unwittingly, confirmation of his basic insight that we are always contributing to the shaping of our own experiences. Kant was concerned only with our basic perceptual experience, but modern thought has expanded his insight into all levels of experience. We now see, like the prisoner in Plato's cave, that we are subject to all kinds of influences that become habits of experience, the very ways the world is meaningful to us. Like Kant, most modern philosophy and theory in general aims to uncover these habits of experience that are largely invisible to us..
Kant would be horrified with the amount of subliminal contingencies impending every person's free will now days, and the ridiculous amount of unsavoury repercussions regarding an attempt to apply principles of universal categorical imperative at a public level. That is where I think Kirkgaard surpassed Kant, by finding the impossibility of a categorical imperative in favour of a much more realistic process of self-individualisation.
I’m curious if it’s because I’m getting into Kierkegaard that I’m seeing a lot of people discussing his works or if there is some kind of renaissance on his works. Of the philosophers that I have read, only two of them were ones I read to actually learn something: Kierkegaard and Justin Martyr.
Hi. I gave 3 recommendations to this series in a previous post. Thank you for removing the background noise. My other 2 requests are unaddressed. One is to make this into a playlist. The other I think we should make into a group project. What should be the name of this lecture series? A lecture series such as this from someone of Dr Kreeft's stature has to have an appropriate name. Since each lecture pits one philosopher against another in the manner of a boxing match I submit "ROCK 'EM SOCK 'EM PHILOSOPERS". I think that it's catchy and should attract non-academic people. Although Mr.Vittorio called this 'The Temple of Wisdom' and I like that one too.
Still have a long way to go but if anything this is me thinking out loud. 9:17 is the much more dignified version of "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck"
But wait, then why does Hegel claim that we ourselves are identified with the "Unchangable" in numerous passages in his Phenomenology of Spirit, especially chs. 200 to 220? I'm confused...
Kierkegaard isn't hegels greatest critic, but since this seems to be focused on theistic philosophies, i can understand why they picked him, rather then some of the most extreme atheistic individualist existencialists
He is generally considered his biggest critic along with Marx. Though scholars have recently tried to re-evaluate Kierkegard's relationship with Hegel.
@@DeadEndFrogcouldn't that be what he meant by biggest? When we talk about "making it big" People are normally talking about becoming well known, successful, and wealthy generally. Could he not mean his most popular critics by saying his "biggest" critics? I'm not disagreeing, that he could've had much better critics in the secular existentialists like was said, idk anything about them. I'm just curious.
@@okami425 sure he could, but its wierd to talk about popularity as an important factor in philosophy, a field all about the importance of the quality of arguments, not their superficial attributes like their origins such as coming from a popular source. But i guess that would be a philosophy in and of itself, careing about these things, and i think most humans do, including philosophers. But its still a bias. Im not sure what he meant, so unless he responds
Much misinformation in this video. 7:20 Kant's 'Copernican Revolution' was not a redefinition of "truth". Kant simply assumes that the "old definition" is true in the Critique of Pure Reason.("Übereinstimmung einer Erkenntnis mit dem Gegenstand") The other problem is, that the classical definition of truth as adequatio intelectus et rei was understood as flowing in both directions. Therefore, the Scholastics also spoke of 'adaeqatio rei (creandae) at intellectum divinum." To deny this is the proton pseudos, which just leads to further errors in this speech, like the point that Kant allegedly redefined "truth" and that he allegedly described this move as the Copernican Revolution in Philosophy.
Kierkegaard's quote regarding making things harder really destroys Hegel and modernism. Nietzsche is a great friend of someone like Kierkegaard, and traditional christians, he is just very misunderstood....intentionally.
Nietzsche was really the first Deconstructionist. He called himself "the philosopher with a hammer". The destroyer. Especially in language. He said, "We-that is, we atheists- have not gotten rid of God until we have gotten rid of grammar." You see, grammar is the traces of God and creation and form and objective truth and order in language. So the Deconstructionists rage against even that trace of divine order, because they see it's connected with moral order. Nietzsche himself let the cat out of the bag when he said, "To understand a philosopher's metaphysics, look at the morality it leads to." What morality does Deconstructionism lead to? Let's look. DeMan was a Nazi liar. Foucault was a sadomasochistic sodomite. Look at the philosophers they love: the Marquis de Sade, a demon-possessed Satanist, perhaps the most purely evil man who ever lived." (Peter Kreeft) A. Mc Intyre stated, that there are only two alternatives in thought. Aristotle, or Nietzsche, the builder or the destroyer.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp I agree, Nietzsche was many things and wore many masks - he is surely not limited by any of those masks though, especially the mask "Nietzsche the deconstructionist". Deconstruction is merely a necessary step in the changing of one epoch to another: monumental -> antiquarian -> critical, rinse and repeat. Nietzsche deconstructs so that monumental man can be born again. I do disagree with your final quote claiming that base reality is a war of good vs. evil., and so would Nietzsche, hence his book Beyond Good and Evil, and his satire of the creator of the dualistic worldview, Zarathustra. Nietzsche is a friend of the original christians because like them, he posits a 3rd way that slips between the Gods and Titans, a human way, and the way of Christ. The dualism you advocate in your final sentence is limited in scope and your view that Nietzsche is a typical gnostic luciferian is also limited. Nietzsche transcends the dualism and is neither a perennialist like the Jesuits, nor a luciferian like the masons.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp Great summation. Thank you sir. Our church ,our youth desperately need the philosophical light of the church. Our Final Cause.. Love.
His culture had not changed Christianity into something easier than it is, rather, his culture had changed Christianity into something that it is not. He said: the church deadens, when it must awaken to Christ, who is the way the truth and the life.
I appreciate Dr. Kreeft’s lectures but this is a terrible misreading of Hegel. Hegel himself fought against accusations that he was a pantheist in his own lifetime, but of course this is ignored. Hegel *did not deny* the unchanging, but this is ignored. Hegel deserves better than this.
Hegel, from his *Lectures on the Existence of God*: “it is *only our knowledge* of the absolutely necessary being that is conditioned by the starting point. The absolutely necessary does not exist by raising itself out of the world of contingency and requiring the world as its starting point in order that, by starting from it, it first attain to its being.” The good Dr. Kreeft: “This is pantheism.”
Hindus believe in a single god of the universe who's different characteristics and traits are known my the many varying forms and characters he appears as, if I understand hinduism correctly(this is dumbing it down a lot and im not an expert so my understanding could be wrong) does that make them christian as well. They have a belief in a universal God man, that I know of. What about jews? How is he not pantheistic just because he mentioned God as an absolutely necessary being? Maybe he didn't realize that the views he had were more panthestic than christian, even if he was intending for them to be from a christian perspective and all. He could call himself christian if he wants. Lots of people do. Doesn't make them christian, if they're views and beliefs aren't christian. Pantheism to my knowledge doesn't reject God just says that all is God. Which I'm pretty sure kreft mentioned. So how could he not be pantheistic just because he talks about an absolutely necessary being?
@@TheBgoodheyhey I have been giving Hegels religious ideas a lot of thought and especially the accusations of pantheism thrown at him. In one way the accusation follows from Hegels adoption of Spinozas ideas who was THE pantheist. But I also think it is difficult to totally absolve Hegel from the pantheism charge. He might not be a pantheist in the spinozist sense however he does seem to identify certain essential processes or the movement of the whole (or something like that) with God often. Additionally he seems to "pull down" the transcendent into the immanent. So as that Gods unfolding for Hegel is not a transcendent god who manifests himself in the world rather God just IS that very unfolding without a transcendent "remnant". Because all of this I do think that the accusations of pantheism against Hegel hold some truth.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:24 🧠 Modern philosophy started with Descartes in 1637 and ended with Hegel's death in 1831. 01:08 💥 Hegel's philosophy is a closed and complete system, marking a turning point from modern to postmodern philosophy. 03:53 🤔 Both Pascal and Kierkegaard critiqued the separation of philosophy and Christianity in Descartes and Hegel's systems. 06:12 🕊️ Pascal criticized Descartes for separating philosophy from Christianity, while Kierkegaard criticized Hegel for subverting Christianity. 07:48 🔁 Hegel's dialectical approach unifies thought and reality, claiming that "the real is the rational and the rational is the real." 11:28 🔀 Kierkegaard rejected Hegel's pantheistic view and emphasized individual existence over universal concepts. 13:45 🌍 Hegel and Marx shared a dialectical structure despite differing content - progress for Hegel, materialism for Marx. 16:19 💭 Kierkegaard's three stages - aesthetic, ethical, and religious - reflect individual choices and modes of existence. 19:10 💔 The aesthetic values pleasure, the ethical values moral law, and the religious values faith and passion. 22:48 🤔 Kierkegaard's emphasis on choice and individuality contrasts with Hegel and Marx's focus on collective history. 23:41 ✝️ For Kierkegaard, truth is a relational concept found in the individual's personal relationship with Christ. 25:45 🌟 Kierkegaard saw himself as a Christian Socrates, opposing the trend of making life easier through mass progress. 26:56 😔 Kierkegaard's inspiration to challenge modern culture and make things harder. 27:09 🧠 Kierkegaard's realization to create difficulties and stand against the trend of making everything easier. 27:38 🐅 Kierkegaard's belief that Christianity had been simplified by culture, contrasting with Christ's original message. 28:07 🛤️ Kierkegaard's resistance against the dilution of Christianity by Hegel's historical relativism, pantheism, and dialectic. 28:48 ⚖️ Kierkegaard's comparison of thriving Christianity through persecution versus its decline in comfort and establishment. 29:29 🌍 Christianity's growth in Africa, China, and persecuted regions, contrasting its decline in established "Christian" societies. 30:13 📜 Kierkegaard's relevance today as his challenge to modern Christianity remains a response to cultural decline. 30:40 🌟 Kierkegaard's alignment with Pope John Paul II's concept of the new evangelization. 31:11 📖 Kierkegaard's commitment to reintroducing New Testament Christianity into Christendom, focusing on truth over leniency. 31:38 ⛪️ Kierkegaard's admirer reading Revelation 3:14-22 at his funeral, emphasizing the challenge against complacency. Made with HARPA AI
@@shakespearefanall the groups you mentioned are different versions of the same exact thing - you're just a perennialist, occultist, which is what Hegel also is....and Hitler, and the Egyptian pharaohs, and our elitist politicians. There's a reason communist looooove Hegel. A complete corruption of natural philosophy.
@@mcosu1 I mayself am a Catholic and I adore Hegel's and Barth's theology and philosophy, so in the eyes od the church I am as much heretic as Hans Kung
very dense..i went to read Revelation line where God threatens to vomit :)) thank you for this...i love Pascal....i can not always understand what feels to me complicating the reality.....philosophy 😂...after all its all about the freedom and our will to choose between love or death
My apologies, however, I do not believe that Kirkegaard placed Jesus Christ in the centre or as the key. In fact, Kirkegaard rejected his own Christianity in order to consider himself free to critic the contradictions of Christianity from the point of view of an outsider. Moreover, the basis for Kirkgaard's philosophy is in itself irony and inwardly individualisation. Kirkgaard was a traditional monarchist, thus the satire of Hagel's political point of view. Furthermore, Kirkegaard did not consider the persue of pleasure or relief from boredom but self-knowledge, intellectual actualization, and intellectual self-reliance. Kirkgaard ridicules the absurdity of religion and the dangers in following orders from an invisible god. I should know, I specialised myself in Kirkgaard and added his principles as a philosophical backbone in areas of my academic major in counterterrorism. Regarding the passage from Kirkgaard's writings presented at the end of your lecture, I believe that it is referring to the widespread hypocrisy amongst the Christian community, that is why he is ironically suggesting that if the people's everyday Christianity matches the New testament completely, he would be willing to accept Christianity once again. Concequently, he died as a non-Christian, therefore, leading to the unsavoury character of his funeral performed by a less then honest clergy.
All “fixed ideas “ that have never been worth reading. Aristotle a failure. And all since. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner. The “creative nothing “ is as good as it gets. These ‘systems ‘ just unending brain fart.
Kierkegaard is without doubt one of the most authentic & one of my favorite philosophers ever ✊🏾
He explains this so easily and clearer than any one ive heard. He gives you concrete placeholders and mental bookmarks that help you hold it all together. He summarizes and contrasts so you understand where you are all the time. Hes like a tour guide talking you on a path back in time, pointing out the landmarks and explaining their relevance. All the sudden this is simple. Other teachers enjoy impressing you and demonstrating their own knowledge more than throwing you a real lifeline about all this. Thanks!!
Agree, he’s a great lecturer
@@yadidlechem2357 phenomenal lecturer
A perfect description!!!
These lectures of Peter Kreeft are truly among the best and the rarest. The surroundings of his lectures, made of a tranquil and august ancient Greek scenery, his serene voice accompanied by the sound of the flowing water add to the music, the significance and the depth of his words. With these lectures we enter THE TEMPLE OF WISDOM.
You can feel the passion and the fun that Dr. Kreeft has through these philosophy lectures. His delivery, humor and knowledge has made all the difference. Love this series immensely. ❤
😊 fosho
People live their lives stumbling around in philosophical quagmires. Peter Kreeft is a very reliable guide to actually understanding life as it is and where the nonsense we hear all around us comes from. And he knows that Christ is sanity. And more. There is little else one might do for another than help them to actually understand this life we are in. The church affirms our God given capacity to know and understand. Professor Kreeft is literally a Godsend. Thank you professor.
So we’ll said, thank you.
"Kant can't turn Kant into can" - I see that subtle smirk, and underrated humour. Brilliant!
Loved it!
Thank you so much, Dr. Peter Kreeft, for all these wonderful lectures and for all that you have been doing for us! You are a light and sword in this world!
Again and again Dr. Peter Kreeft brings us the foundations of our (post) modern thought. When we think that we have new thoughts, we realize that we are just repeting a dead philosopher!
These are so amazing. Should be played in high school.
This is indeed a wonderful lecture. The best teachers, like Dr. Kreeft, manage to pull together the important points of the great thinkers and make them understandable and interesting. I love the thought of Kierkegaard, but I find him very challenging to read. Not that the thoughts are so difficult, but he states them (on purpose?) in extreme, provocative language. I find myself wrestling with his choice of words and approach more than the content of his thinking.
Fits well with the New Discourses Podcast by James Lindsay
As a christian....I've dived into Hitler's Monsters book.
Turns out occult/paganism/pantheism was a pretty prominent thing for those enlightenment Germans and after
Since the pandemic I decided to read his whole system in his order, from phenomenology of spirit through the logic and encyclopedias etc. I’m just now at the end in the History of Philosophy. I’ve found that all his critics are misrepresenting his philosophy. If you take his maxim to heart, that the truth is in the whole, you’ll find that he has speculated on a grand view of creation, elevating the arts, religion, spirituality and freedom, and on the whole, he succeeds brilliantly.
It is not possible to understand modernity if one does not understand Hegel; it is not possible to understand modern reason if one does not understand Hegel;
Hegel understands. Hegel is really the point that allows us to understand the deep soul of the
modernity, in its highest aspects and in the most ambiguous and even more negative ones, in a strange
mixture of deep intuitions and at the same time developments that will then lead to very dramatic consequences.
Hegel represents the moment of inheritance. Who understood very well this dimension of heritage is certainly the German Jewish historian Karl Löwith. Löwith understands very well that Hegel and Goethe are in Germany those who from different sides look at Christianity as the past, as what is no longer current from the point of view of life, from the point of view of a current faith as a position.
Hegel does not express the cold reason for positivism, but it is the warm, passionate reason. It is a reason that awaits the establishment of the "regnum hominis" and the "regnum libertatis", finally realized in history. An unprecedented experiment that has not
comparisons with all past history. Reason has found its model; Reason must be actualized and reason is freedom, freedom must be actualized.
The whole spirit of nineteenth-century literature and aesthetics is moved by the idea of a Prometheus who is a bit like Nietzsche's Antichrist. The struggle against the father is the underlying reason for this revolt, for this man in revolt of which Camus speaks, for this deaf rebellion in which 'neither God nor master!' - as the anarchists will later say - is the underlying motive. Therefore, there is no longer a Father God; if God exists he is a master and man can only rebel: God is only the limit of my freedom. This position runs from Goethe to Sartre in a almost direct line and explain those demonic aspects present in French and English literature - remember that Shelley also writes his Prometheus and Byron's novels are clearly Promethean. So Prometheism is the underlying reason for this rebellion.
against Christianity.
Hegel participates fully in this titanism: it is necessary to struggle with the divinity, strip the divinity of its prerogatives and restore them to man. The basic category is re-appropriation. They are our property, we must take them back, because man is divine and man has been humiliated by God. The idea of original sin is the typical idea of the humiliation of man, whereas, instead, divinity must be restored to man.
Hegel's dialectical idea presupposes, as we have seen, the idea of inheritance. Nothing true is abandoned in the world.
Hegel has in fact this great, Catholic idea of reason. This is why he is great and has been able to have such a profound impact: because nothing true is foreign to reason. Reason recognizes itself everywhere. So there is this idea of the synthesis that gathers everything and that has in itself the power of Catholic tradition, as a perspective. But Hegel's position wants to be a new Catholicism: in Hegel there is a dialectic between Protestantism and Catholicism and Hegel wants to overcome both Protestantism and Catholicism in a new superior synthesis.
We can only speak of modern secularization except starting from the resumption of the model of Gioachino da Fiore, of the theory of the three ages. Karl Löwith demonstrated it very well in his volume Meaning and End of History and others with him: there is no secularization if there is no theory of the three ages; and this also makes us understand something very widespread on which we never reflect, namely that the whole nineteenth century is within the idea of the three ages of the world. Also in Giambattista Vico, in Marx, as I spoke in a previous commentary, and in Auguste Comte, there are three ages of the world! And one wonders: why should these ages always be three and not four or five? There are three, because the paradigm is theological, and also for Comte the last age is the secular one. There is the religious era, the metaphysical one and then finally the scientific-positive one. So the third age is secular, it is the legacy of the religious transformed into a secular moment. The theory of the three ages of the world is the eschatology or philosophy of history of the '800, and is borrowed exactly from Gioacchino, whose name is relevant again - there is Henri De Lubac who has dedicated two large volumes to Gioacchino da Fiore and the second of these traces all the great influence of Gioacchino da Fiore in the thought French, German and Italian of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Especially in the nineteenth century this paradigm of the three ages has an enormous influence; but it is precisely Lessing that launches this paradigm! For Lessing, who we know to have belonged openly to Freemasonry - he also published dialogues, "Ernst and Falk," dedicated to Freemasonry-, the Third Age of the World means fraternity, as Freemasonry imagined it. So the third age of the world means the new church, the invisible Church of which Kant spoke in Religion within the limits of reason alone. Kant also thought that he wanted a new church that had to be realized not by revolutionary way, but by reformist way, transforming dogmas into moral precepts: in short, it was necessary to occupy the faculties of theology and transform Christianity from within: in this way we will have a new faith, without
Wounded or dead and everything will be painless. This great project that the European intelligentsia cultivates coincides with that of the new religion. The new religion means the new church, it means the realized kingdom of God, it means the age of the spirit as it is to express itself, which is the age of reason.
In conclusion, I advise seeing a previous comment of the WOF philosophical Dr Kreeft's settings, and add that this is the heart of Hegel's thought: dialectics as the life of the spirit, that is, as a determined process of actuation, concrete and necessary of the spirit, according to stages that must necessarily be retraced in a certain order. This allows him to write the Encyclopedia of Sciences Philosophical. In that work the path of freedom coincides with that of necessity, because development is necessary. So reason is actualized and becomes autonomous, that is, free, according to Hegel through a process that is immanent and necessary; In this way he thinks of saving the Spinozian lesson: the moment of necessity coincides with the moment of freedom, that is, of the autonomy of reason itself.
I'm completely available for both speculative and historical insights (I borrowed many of them from some friends, of course more prominent academically and experienced than myself!)
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp thank you! I’m happy that I undertook this challenge to read through everything. Like you said, so much of modernism has its roots in him. The benefit and also the frustration in trying to take him in is that, while I can’t begrudge anyone who has taken the effort to sum him up, they more often than not add something foreign. The idea of a synthesis for instance is completely absent and yet it’s referred to by most commentators like it’s the key to his philosophy. The third moment of every thought endeavor is arrived at by sublation, which is not a mixing or reconciling of concepts. He only mentions synthesis in the history of philosophy where he is explaining Kant, who went wrong more often than not. When you mentioned the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism producing a synthesis of a third way, that is not found in any respect. He is a Lutheran at heart and he’ll sneer at Catholic beliefs once in awhile, but there are moments where he’ll mention mister Ekhart or even give a more or less Catholic critique of the reformed church. I can’t find anything like a negating of God the Father or the pantheism that is he is criticized for so often. He explains pantheism and refuses to be labeled a Spinozian.
I happened in the course of this exploration of his philosophy to read a chapter of St Augustine’s city of God where he notices that Plato had happened upon the thought that there is a threefold dimension to reality in that logic, nature, and morality consist in all that we understand. There’s also man’s soul having the faculties of memory, intellect, and will. He wonders in that chapter if Plato could have had the beginnings of a triune image of God. Hegel elaborates this idea( for him the triad is logic, nature and Spirit) finding triads everywhere and each moment of the triad relates to the other and relates to itself like the persons of the Holy Trinity. It was a daunting task to explain all of thought in this way, but you can use the image of tryptic if you have to rely on “picture thinking” as he famously disdained.
@@migueliteux5061 Thank you very much for your attention! I will just add a few considerations, because there is a lot of meat in the fire.
Modern atheism arises from a falsification of the dogma of the Incarnation.
The mystery of the Incarnation can be misunderstood in two opposite senses: either in an ultra-spiritualistic or pantheistic sense or in a materialistic sense. In the first case, matter is ignored, absorbed and replaced by spirit. In the second, spirit materializes in matter. In the first case, we have a false theism: God is man. In the second, we have atheism: God does not exist, because man is sufficient for himself. Man himself is God. So pantheistic idealism produces atheistic materialism. Feuerbach shows how Marx comes out of Hegel.
The seed of atheism is already contained in an immanentistic conception of the Incarnation. It starts from a misunderstanding of the indwelling of God in the soul in grace, which presupposes divine transcendence, to derive from it an immanentistic concept of God as "God-with-us", first the God of Luther and then the God of Hegel, the Gott mit uns of the Nazis. No longer man aimed at God, but God aimed at man. The Incarnation would not serve to lead man to a transcendent God, but it is the operation of man who, having discovered that he is God, removes or "kills" the transcendent God.
And here is Nietzsche. The superman replaces God. Man does not need a Transcendent, because he transcends himself. Even today for a Rahner God is the boundless horizon and the summit of human self-transcendence. For Rahner, as for Hegel, man is not created by God from nothing, but is the "self-expression" or "self-alienation" or "self-communication" of Self to man, which in turn is the entity of self-transcendence in God as the horizon and final fullness of human nature. So ultimately God comes to communicate himself to himself. It is Hegelian circularity.
Thus atheism has two possible linguistic outlets: either to abolish the word "God", as it recalls something that does not exist, or to use the word to refer it to man. Feuerbach and Marx still use it. Today's atheists have completely abolished it.
In the Incarnation it is not true that God becomes man and man becomes God. Being is not like a balloon inflating and deflating. God remains God and man remains man. Only that humanity and divinity are united while remaining distinct in the one person of Christ. The atreptos, the "without mutation" of Chalcedonian dogma is inviolable and it is heresy to deny it.
The authentic conception of the Incarnation presupposes a vision that is unitary, but at the same time participatory of being, not monistic, totalitarian and univocal. It is wrong to believe that being is either there is everything or there is nothing. No, there is also being partial, being by participation. This is the human being.
There is not only the absolute, but also the relative, which is relative to the absolute. Nor should the relative be absolutized, as if it were relative to itself. The spirit-matter duality is not a "dualism" that must be removed. If they are at odds with each other in the fallen state of nature, Christ's Redemption teaches how to reconcile them according to the original plan of creation. To obtain union, it is not necessary to fall into confusion, but to reconstruct the Edenic model broken by sin with the addition of the eschatological model proposed by Christ.
For this reason it can certainly be said that the antechamber of contemporary atheism is Hegel's Christology, for which in Christ human nature is identified with the divine nature. So man is God. Feuerbach and Marx draw the consequences: if, therefore, man is already God himself, no creator God is needed above him, but whoever thinks this, offends human dignity by superimposing on man a heavenly master who does not exist and who serves only the bosses to intimidate the workers with vain scruples, to deceive them with vain hopes, maintain the status quo and oppress and exploit the working class.
Behind the current "mercifulness" of a God who saves everyone and approves and blesses everyone hides the atheism given by a false God who does not exercise justice and lets the strong crush the weak without punishing the first and without freeing the second. The false God of the rich reappears against whom not so much Marx rises, but rather Our Lady of the Magnificat.
It should also be noted that both Hegelian and Marxist anthropology have their foundation in the Cartesian cogito and the Lutheran ego. Descartes provides the principle of self-consciousness; Luther the principle of God-with-me. Hegel joins the two principles and concludes: I am aware of being God, or vice versa: God in me is aware of being man.
Luther's God is a God for the self: the God-with-me, who is not, in Luther's vision, the pure transcendent and abstract and distant spirit God of the Old Testament, but is the close, concrete and incarnate, immanent God of the New, understood as God who cannot be God except in man, made man and for man. Now it is easy to pass from a God who essentially benefits man to a God functional to man. No longer man as the servant of God, but God as the servant of man. So who counts? Is it God? No! It's the man!
From here will come Hegel's God, who is not God without the world. Spirit cannot do without matter. He is the God of Spinoza and Schelling, synthesis of thought and extension, the Deus sive Natura. For Hegel, the Idea becomes nature and nature transcends itself into the Idea. Man becomes God and God becomes man. Spirit becomes matter and matter becomes spirit.
For Hegel the absolute, the being existing by essence, is God, it is the Spirit. For Marx, it is matter, it is collective man who is the Gattungswesen, the being of gender, we mean mankind. For both Hegel and Marx the spirit is dialectical, it becomes in history and proceeds by opposition.
For both Hegel and Marx the spirit, which is the Cartesian-Lutheran ego, is a dialectical spirit, which exists by itself, places itself outside itself and against itself as matter, alienates itself, loses its essence and, by virtue of the negation of self-denial, returns to itself, recovers the coincidence of essence and being, of thought and being, after contradicting and estranged from oneself in the other from oneself.
Thus occurs in Hegel the reconciliation of the spirit with itself, of the spirit outside of itself and estranged from itself, without however removing the opposition of the spirit with itself within itself, as for Fichte, because this restlessness is the essence and life of the spirit. Stillness is the companion of restlessness. The simple is the synthesis of the contradictory. The absolute is not without the relative. The infinite is not without the finite. Good is not without evil. Life is not without death. The eternal is the eternal becoming.
So the beginning produces the end, but the end returns to the beginning, so as at the beginning one is everything, at the end everything is one. Spirit becomes matter and matter becomes spirit. A false concept of God easily produces atheism and hides atheism. Feuerbach's atheism, later taken up by Marx, is the unveiling of the atheism implicit in Hegelian theism.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp I appreciate the reply and your thoughts, thank you. One thing is sure about his philosophy, it provides a great deal to think about. As I mentioned in the last reply, the problem I’m seeing is that ideas that are not his are added to his philosophy. These ideas are then refuted, as in a straw man fallacy, or these ideas are used to build antithetical systems like the monstrosities of communism that the charlatan Marx made up. I can say it again, there is no synthesis as a combination of contraries in Hegel. There is no synthesis at all in fact. The whole materialist dialectic is a sham. The atheists after Hegel only lend credence to the Hegel’s unstated implication in the being of phenomenology of Spirit, that is that philosophy has found its fulfillment in him. That’s a bit much really, and Kierkegaard puts that theory to the test. But for the most part these post-Hegelian philosophies using his name are continuations along the skeptical “Highway of Despair”.
Rather than trace out all the ways that you can take his philosophy in the wrong direction, it’s more valuable to see with Croce what is alive in the philosophy today. There may be more alive in it today than during Croce’s time. I’m a botanist with an interest in intelligent design for instance, and I found that God’s idea of the “Concept” provides an interesting speculation on an Intelligence whose thinking or ideas are in no way separated from objects thought about, but automatically imbedded in reality, for us to try to investigate and appreciate. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, includes an article in his Summa (I.14.8) in which he argues that the design in God’s intellect (scientia artificis) is the cause of all created things.
Hegel addresses many many ideas that take a new shape today that were considered in his system. Think of the simplicity of logic and its uses in creating something as complex as AI. I also see in him an appreciation of Christian thought as the basis for the birth of science like you see in the work of Stanley Jaki.
Hegel was a heavy duty occultist attempting to bring about a luciferian world-view where his metaphysics of triune, is manifested in reality as a caste system. The commenter with a long response is getting lost in the weeds and misinterpreting Hegel - Hegel is not creating something new, he is literally rehashing ancient black magik as a religion, similar to what Egyptians or Sumerians believed. The same commenter is wrong for saying "reason is freedom"....reason is merely a single feature of our thinking, equal in value to every other feature of our biological organism. Whereas freedom is really chaotic, it is not always reasonable.
Hegel is a very evil man, with very evil friends. You cannot trust those early modern Germans.
Amazing…SO Grateful
Emeth!! Yes, yes! Discovered the term in A Bread We Are Broken...so glad to hear it spoken. Amen and amen!!
Will we get one on Heidegger?
Vibes are good with the water in the background
Thank you Dr. Kreeft you are the G.O.A.T
Absolutely brilliant! Thank you Sir!
Very dense, very understandable, very deep and thus inviting to more views, or pauses of meditation. The word Kreeft in dutch means lobster, indeed the Doctor has a (humoristic) pincing way to describe!
Modern thought after Kant is largely, if unwittingly, confirmation of his basic insight that we are always contributing to the shaping of our own experiences. Kant was concerned only with our basic perceptual experience, but modern thought has expanded his insight into all levels of experience. We now see, like the prisoner in Plato's cave, that we are subject to all kinds of influences that become habits of experience, the very ways the world is meaningful to us. Like Kant, most modern philosophy and theory in general aims to uncover these habits of experience that are largely invisible to us..
Kant would be horrified with the amount of subliminal contingencies impending every person's free will now days, and the ridiculous amount of unsavoury repercussions regarding an attempt to apply principles of universal categorical imperative at a public level. That is where I think Kirkgaard surpassed Kant, by finding the impossibility of a categorical imperative in favour of a much more realistic process of self-individualisation.
Kierkegaard was a saint. Love him
Thanks much for this video.
Thank you for such an in-depth analysis of Christianity
A wonderful lecture.
Wow just speechless 😶 thank you .
This was excellent. Thank-you!
This was great
Revelation 3:16 “So, because you are lukewarm - neither hot or cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth”
Purity of heart is to will one thing. !
That one thing being the good in love.
Thank you!
I’m curious if it’s because I’m getting into Kierkegaard that I’m seeing a lot of people discussing his works or if there is some kind of renaissance on his works. Of the philosophers that I have read, only two of them were ones I read to actually learn something: Kierkegaard and Justin Martyr.
Hegel does not deny free will.
This was so helpful! Thank you :)
Dr. Kreeft is such a baller.
The accessibility is free, longing to be purchased.
Kierkegaard absolutely clowned Hegel
Hi. I gave 3 recommendations to this series in a previous post. Thank you for removing the background noise. My other 2 requests are unaddressed. One is to make this into a playlist. The other I think we should make into a group project. What should be the name of this lecture series? A lecture series such as this from someone of Dr Kreeft's stature has to have an appropriate name. Since each lecture pits one philosopher against another in the manner of a boxing match I submit "ROCK 'EM SOCK 'EM PHILOSOPERS". I think that it's catchy and should attract non-academic people. Although Mr.Vittorio called this 'The Temple of Wisdom' and I like that one too.
Idea man. Saving the world one comment at a time
I think its now called ‘Socrates’ Children’
Still have a long way to go but if anything this is me thinking out loud. 9:17 is the much more dignified version of "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck"
But wait, then why does Hegel claim that we ourselves are identified with the "Unchangable" in numerous passages in his Phenomenology of Spirit, especially chs. 200 to 220? I'm confused...
Kierkegaard isn't hegels greatest critic, but since this seems to be focused on theistic philosophies, i can understand why they picked him, rather then some of the most extreme atheistic individualist existencialists
He is generally considered his biggest critic along with Marx. Though scholars have recently tried to re-evaluate Kierkegard's relationship with Hegel.
@@rodrigorivers2469 popularity bias, max stirner really turned Hegel on his head
@@DeadEndFrogcouldn't that be what he meant by biggest? When we talk about "making it big" People are normally talking about becoming well known, successful, and wealthy generally. Could he not mean his most popular critics by saying his "biggest" critics? I'm not disagreeing, that he could've had much better critics in the secular existentialists like was said, idk anything about them. I'm just curious.
@@okami425 sure he could, but its wierd to talk about popularity as an important factor in philosophy, a field all about the importance of the quality of arguments, not their superficial attributes like their origins such as coming from a popular source.
But i guess that would be a philosophy in and of itself, careing about these things, and i think most humans do, including philosophers. But its still a bias.
Im not sure what he meant, so unless he responds
Much misinformation in this video.
7:20 Kant's 'Copernican Revolution' was not a redefinition of "truth". Kant simply assumes that the "old definition" is true in the Critique of Pure Reason.("Übereinstimmung einer Erkenntnis mit dem Gegenstand")
The other problem is, that the classical definition of truth as adequatio intelectus et rei was understood as flowing in both directions. Therefore, the Scholastics also spoke of 'adaeqatio rei (creandae) at intellectum divinum." To deny this is the proton pseudos, which just leads to further errors in this speech, like the point that Kant allegedly redefined "truth" and that he allegedly described this move as the Copernican Revolution in Philosophy.
What's with the mood music?
5:48 Is Dr. Kreeft referring to “Works of Love”?
I'm reading that right now!
Kierkegaard's quote regarding making things harder really destroys Hegel and modernism. Nietzsche is a great friend of someone like Kierkegaard, and traditional christians, he is just very misunderstood....intentionally.
Nietzsche was really the first Deconstructionist. He called himself "the philosopher with a hammer". The destroyer. Especially in language. He said, "We-that is, we atheists- have not gotten rid of God until
we have gotten rid of grammar." You see, grammar is the traces of God and
creation and form and objective truth and order in language. So the Deconstructionists rage against even that trace of divine order, because they see it's connected with moral order. Nietzsche himself let the cat out of the bag
when he said, "To understand a philosopher's metaphysics, look at the morality it leads to."
What morality does Deconstructionism lead to? Let's look. DeMan was a Nazi liar. Foucault was a sadomasochistic sodomite. Look at the philosophers they love: the Marquis de Sade, a demon-possessed Satanist, perhaps the most purely evil man who ever lived." (Peter Kreeft)
A. Mc Intyre stated, that there are only two alternatives in thought. Aristotle, or Nietzsche, the builder or the destroyer.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp I agree, Nietzsche was many things and wore many masks - he is surely not limited by any of those masks though, especially the mask "Nietzsche the deconstructionist". Deconstruction is merely a necessary step in the changing of one epoch to another: monumental -> antiquarian -> critical, rinse and repeat. Nietzsche deconstructs so that monumental man can be born again.
I do disagree with your final quote claiming that base reality is a war of good vs. evil., and so would Nietzsche, hence his book Beyond Good and Evil, and his satire of the creator of the dualistic worldview, Zarathustra. Nietzsche is a friend of the original christians because like them, he posits a 3rd way that slips between the Gods and Titans, a human way, and the way of Christ. The dualism you advocate in your final sentence is limited in scope and your view that Nietzsche is a typical gnostic luciferian is also limited. Nietzsche transcends the dualism and is neither a perennialist like the Jesuits, nor a luciferian like the masons.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp Great summation. Thank you sir. Our church ,our youth desperately need the philosophical light of the church. Our Final Cause.. Love.
5:57 "it takes a very clever scholar to ignore an elephant in the middle of the living room"
Music is annoying
Word.
His culture had not changed Christianity into something easier than it is, rather, his culture had changed Christianity into something that it is not. He said: the church deadens, when it must awaken to Christ, who is the way the truth and the life.
I appreciate Dr. Kreeft’s lectures but this is a terrible misreading of Hegel. Hegel himself fought against accusations that he was a pantheist in his own lifetime, but of course this is ignored. Hegel *did not deny* the unchanging, but this is ignored. Hegel deserves better than this.
Hegel, from his *Lectures on the Existence of God*:
“it is *only our knowledge* of the absolutely necessary being that is conditioned by the starting point. The absolutely necessary does not exist by raising itself out of the world of contingency and requiring the world as its starting point in order that, by starting from it, it first attain to its being.”
The good Dr. Kreeft: “This is pantheism.”
Hindus believe in a single god of the universe who's different characteristics and traits are known my the many varying forms and characters he appears as, if I understand hinduism correctly(this is dumbing it down a lot and im not an expert so my understanding could be wrong) does that make them christian as well. They have a belief in a universal God man, that I know of. What about jews? How is he not pantheistic just because he mentioned God as an absolutely necessary being? Maybe he didn't realize that the views he had were more panthestic than christian, even if he was intending for them to be from a christian perspective and all. He could call himself christian if he wants. Lots of people do. Doesn't make them christian, if they're views and beliefs aren't christian.
Pantheism to my knowledge doesn't reject God just says that all is God. Which I'm pretty sure kreft mentioned. So how could he not be pantheistic just because he talks about an absolutely necessary being?
Seriously.. a rationalist pantheism? And BTW, Hegel loved Christianity
@@TheBgoodheyhey I have been giving Hegels religious ideas a lot of thought and especially the accusations of pantheism thrown at him. In one way the accusation follows from Hegels adoption of Spinozas ideas who was THE pantheist. But I also think it is difficult to totally absolve Hegel from the pantheism charge. He might not be a pantheist in the spinozist sense however he does seem to identify certain essential processes or the movement of the whole (or something like that) with God often. Additionally he seems to "pull down" the transcendent into the immanent.
So as that Gods unfolding for Hegel is not a transcendent god who manifests himself in the world rather God just IS that very unfolding without a transcendent "remnant". Because all of this I do think that the accusations of pantheism against Hegel hold some truth.
a book recommendation: The heterodox Hegel by Cyril O'Regan
Hegel denying free will?! WHERE?????
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:24 🧠 Modern philosophy started with Descartes in 1637 and ended with Hegel's death in 1831.
01:08 💥 Hegel's philosophy is a closed and complete system, marking a turning point from modern to postmodern philosophy.
03:53 🤔 Both Pascal and Kierkegaard critiqued the separation of philosophy and Christianity in Descartes and Hegel's systems.
06:12 🕊️ Pascal criticized Descartes for separating philosophy from Christianity, while Kierkegaard criticized Hegel for subverting Christianity.
07:48 🔁 Hegel's dialectical approach unifies thought and reality, claiming that "the real is the rational and the rational is the real."
11:28 🔀 Kierkegaard rejected Hegel's pantheistic view and emphasized individual existence over universal concepts.
13:45 🌍 Hegel and Marx shared a dialectical structure despite differing content - progress for Hegel, materialism for Marx.
16:19 💭 Kierkegaard's three stages - aesthetic, ethical, and religious - reflect individual choices and modes of existence.
19:10 💔 The aesthetic values pleasure, the ethical values moral law, and the religious values faith and passion.
22:48 🤔 Kierkegaard's emphasis on choice and individuality contrasts with Hegel and Marx's focus on collective history.
23:41 ✝️ For Kierkegaard, truth is a relational concept found in the individual's personal relationship with Christ.
25:45 🌟 Kierkegaard saw himself as a Christian Socrates, opposing the trend of making life easier through mass progress.
26:56 😔 Kierkegaard's inspiration to challenge modern culture and make things harder.
27:09 🧠 Kierkegaard's realization to create difficulties and stand against the trend of making everything easier.
27:38 🐅 Kierkegaard's belief that Christianity had been simplified by culture, contrasting with Christ's original message.
28:07 🛤️ Kierkegaard's resistance against the dilution of Christianity by Hegel's historical relativism, pantheism, and dialectic.
28:48 ⚖️ Kierkegaard's comparison of thriving Christianity through persecution versus its decline in comfort and establishment.
29:29 🌍 Christianity's growth in Africa, China, and persecuted regions, contrasting its decline in established "Christian" societies.
30:13 📜 Kierkegaard's relevance today as his challenge to modern Christianity remains a response to cultural decline.
30:40 🌟 Kierkegaard's alignment with Pope John Paul II's concept of the new evangelization.
31:11 📖 Kierkegaard's commitment to reintroducing New Testament Christianity into Christendom, focusing on truth over leniency.
31:38 ⛪️ Kierkegaard's admirer reading Revelation 3:14-22 at his funeral, emphasizing the challenge against complacency.
Made with HARPA AI
I wonder if Hegel made any good points
@@shakespearefan I've written something about that in a previous comment, related to Pacal versus Descartes
@@shakespearefanall the groups you mentioned are different versions of the same exact thing - you're just a perennialist, occultist, which is what Hegel also is....and Hitler, and the Egyptian pharaohs, and our elitist politicians. There's a reason communist looooove Hegel. A complete corruption of natural philosophy.
For sure. He just made it crazy hard to get to them, lol.
depends on the definition of 'good' and if the results of his philosophy after his death are deemed relevant...
Surely the early christian canon had it right, not the council of nicaea? Is this what Kierkegaard advocates as difficultly lol?
No.
I love Hegel! One of the great Christian thinkers!
Except it wasn't Christianity he developed.
Rather pagan mysticism.
Hegel is one of the gratest teologans ever and K. Barth
is absolutely right when says that Hegel is for Protestants what Aquinas is for Catholics.
I'm Catholic, but Hegel is my Aquinas, which probably makes me a heretic! I @saljabozanicmrse9644
@MAX-tw3qz I respectfully disagree. He identified the core of Christianity in a way no one else has.
@@mcosu1
I mayself am a Catholic and I adore Hegel's and Barth's theology and philosophy, so in the eyes od the church I am as much heretic as Hans Kung
The background music is so unnecessary. Why would anybody need a tosh soundtrack to listen to a lecture? Bonkers and bad judgment.
Because without ot it would be inmensely boring and dull
28:28 bookmark
very dense..i went to read Revelation line where God threatens to vomit :)) thank you for this...i love Pascal....i can not always understand what feels to me complicating the reality.....philosophy 😂...after all its all about the freedom and our will to choose between love or death
My apologies, however, I do not believe that Kirkegaard placed Jesus Christ in the centre or as the key. In fact, Kirkegaard rejected his own Christianity in order to consider himself free to critic the contradictions of Christianity from the point of view of an outsider.
Moreover, the basis for Kirkgaard's philosophy is in itself irony and inwardly individualisation. Kirkgaard was a traditional monarchist, thus the satire of Hagel's political point of view.
Furthermore, Kirkegaard did not consider the persue of pleasure or relief from boredom but self-knowledge, intellectual actualization, and intellectual self-reliance. Kirkgaard ridicules the absurdity of religion and the dangers in following orders from an invisible god. I should know, I specialised myself in Kirkgaard and added his principles as a philosophical backbone in areas of my academic major in counterterrorism.
Regarding the passage from Kirkgaard's writings presented at the end of your lecture, I believe that it is referring to the widespread hypocrisy amongst the Christian community, that is why he is ironically suggesting that if the people's everyday Christianity matches the New testament completely, he would be willing to accept Christianity once again. Concequently, he died as a non-Christian, therefore, leading to the unsavoury character of his funeral performed by a less then honest clergy.
You think Marxism rejects Hegel altogether? Without Hegelian philosophy there would be no Marxism.
7:05
I would respect theists more if they believed like Kierkegaard.
Spoiled by muzak
Unfortunately, the lecturer radically misundtands Hegel's philosophy in a common way.
Read instead Terry Pinkard and Pirmin Stekeler.
Stop the charade. FFRF
Jesus didn’t really say he is the truth
I am way, truth, life.
Whoever listens to voice of truth listens to me.
All “fixed ideas “ that have never been worth reading. Aristotle a failure. And all since. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner. The “creative nothing “ is as good as it gets. These ‘systems ‘ just unending brain fart.