Aristotle vs. Kant on Epistemology and Ethics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 ноя 2024
- In this lecture series, Dr. Peter Kreeft examines key ideas in philosophy by comparing and contrasting two representative philosophers in each episode.
In lecture 3, Dr. Kreeft examines the epistemology and ethics of Aristotle and Kant. Modern students have great difficulty believing common sense because our modern philosophies have percolated down to them through our modern culture.
To learn more about these philosophers and the other major philosophers who helped shape the world, check out Dr. Kreeft's book series, "Socrates' Children: An Introduction to Philosophy from the 100 Greatest Philosophers": books.wordonfi...
---WATCH---
Subscribe to this Channel: wordonfire.ins...
Bishop Barron’s Channel: / @bishopbarron
Word on Fire en Español Channel: / @wof-es
---WORD ON FIRE INSTITUTE---
Join Bishop Barron and over 20,000 evangelists inside the Word on Fire Institute at wordonfire.ins...
---WORD ON FIRE---
Word on Fire: www.wordonfire...
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): dailycatholicg...
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Bishop Barron Instagram: bit.ly/2Sn2XgD
Bishop Barron Facebook: bit.ly/2Sltef5
Bishop Barron Twitter: bit.ly/2Hkz6yQ
Word on Fire Instagram: bit.ly/39sGNyZ
Word on Fire Facebook: bit.ly/2HmpPpW
Word on Fire Twitter: bit.ly/2UKO49h
Word on Fire en Español Instagram: bit.ly/38mqofD
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: bit.ly/2SlthaL
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: bit.ly/38n3VPt
---SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE---
Donate: www.wordonfire...
Word on Fire Store: store.wordonfi...
Pray: bit.ly/2vqU7Ft
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
I am only now learning of Dr. Kreeft. Had I only found him 30 years ago I feel I'd be a better person today.
There are tons of his material scattered across RUclips. He is awesome!
Never too late 🙌🙏☝️
Me too! I found his Practical Theology book a few years ago. I struggle with almost every book about these subjects except his and Bishop Barron.
@@markwiechman8513 You took the words right out of my mouth Mark. I tried reading Chesterton and couldn't get through chapter two. For me the beauty of Dr. Kreeft's lectures is I can pause and rewind! I'm old. Really old. Blessings from Kansas~
My grandson liked him at 15.
Just beautiful comparison and contrast of Aristotelian and Kantian epistemology and ethics. You left us with an honest conclusion. Brilliant and insightful, Professor. Thanks for sharing.
Dear Peter Kreeft, thank you very much. You’re bringing together such a breadth of historical thought, with the utmost respect and with clarity. Plato, Aristotle and Kant are giants to whom we owe a great deal… and after Kant, there has always been a great silence. Paying him tribute and at the same time seeing his limits seems the right thing to me… Thank you so much for your dedication to philosophy. We really need this today.
This series is awesome, please do more. God bless Word on Fire!!
I’m pumped for this. I’ve been following this series. It feeds me.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. A generous man in true sense is how I think of you
May God bless Peter kreeft and his work for all the conversions he inspires and enlightens
Professor Kreeft is maybe the most intelligent philosopher of our age. This is the core stuff of life.
I agree. Wolfgang Smith is also brilliant.
@@Bob-hr1rj Agreed for sure. Vertical causation....!
@@88SunsetStrip Is he a philosopher?
@Youdamana yes he teaches at Boston College
@@Bob-hr1rj Agreed. Vertical causation.. works so well with Aquinas' Final Cause.. the Cause of causes.Cheers🙂
Thank you so much for this series WOF and Dr. Kreft. We need more of both of you!
Aristotle, Aquinas and Kreeft. Inconmensurable. Thank you.
M. J. Adler
Incommensurable means having no equally applicable standard, or simply incompatible. I'm sure you mean something else?
This man is a national treasure.
Kreeft gets better, clearer and more effective as he gets older and older. superb.
This series is amazing. The parallel between Sola Scriptura and Scientism was fantastic (6:40). I've never heard of any more convincing argument against Sola Scriptura than that.
Dr. Kreeft did not properly define Sola Scriptura.
As a Calvinist, I know that Peter Kreeft created a strawman and attacked the strawman rather than what it means in reality. Sola Scriptura actually means that when a pope decides to sell indulgences to build a beautiful Church in the Vatican while the Bible tells us to be sober, he shouldn't be allowed to. He will be hostile to the Bible, which is God's Word.
@@davidconroy6350Yes he did
@@davidconroy6350 Maybe but he is using it the same way most people do today.
I will make an observation and I'm immediately challenged to provide a Bible verse for it.
This is naked Scriptura. Which is how the vast majority understand Sola Scriptura.
A combination of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton is Dr. Kreeft but as himself; a wonderfully simple and direct man in all the best sense. A true teacher.
These philosophy focused lectures are brilliant, so much context and concise information.
Listening to these lectures frames the retreat I have been looking for. Retreat to faith and teason
There is a difference between Aquinas and Aristotle. Much work has gone into articulating this difference since the early 19th Century by Historians of Ancient Greece. And, there are 20th Century Philosophers who were inspired by the Greek Aristotle but accepted the advent of Darwin. John Dewey led the way on this and John Herman Randall, Jr are worth a go. All that said, There is much to be learned from this lecture on Realism vs Idealism, Realism vs Nominalism and the rocky shoals of Skepticism both Ancient and Modern. Most importantly, let this talk prime you pump but don’t stop here. Find what stimulate your curiosity and don’t take any answer as final. There is always more to discover and amazing turns to be taken in the Adventure of Ideas 😊
"Quantificational logic" does not mean that it only deals with mathematical quantity. It can handle all Aristotelian cases. Quantificational logic simply refers to the quantifiers "there exists" and "for each", which serve the same role as the quantifiers "some" and "all" in Aristotelian logic. It is more comprehensive than simple propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers. Hence the name. One advantage possessed by modern logic over Aristotelian logic is that it is possible to put quantifiers simultaneously in the subject and the predicate of a proposition.
humans motorical quantifying assessment suffices, and suplementing it artificially only emphasizes paranoia and learned helplessness.
❤ Peter Kreeft. ❤ His talks. ❤ His books. Go Red Sox #BostonStrong
I have to listen to it several times to take notes. The link of final cause with ethicts is an aspect I did not link so clearly. It is paramount to have a comprehensive understanding of ethics and how it links with the rest of existence.
Unless i misunderstood, you are asking about the relationship or the link between final cause and ethics right??
So here my take: In Aristotlian, final cause is not merely about time but about telos i.e. purpose or goal. So the final purpose of ethics is to know what ought to be done i.e. to know the purpose of ones action--both in thought and deed. I hope this explain your question :)
@@lomaszaza7142 yes thank you
That disconnect is natural, here's why: a telos is something's end, whereas what's ethical is what has as itself an end. So, there's no apparent external telos to ethical action beyond the action itself, regardless of the result, in both Kant and Aristotle. However, the key difference is that Aristotle takes this final cause to take form as an entire life, such that a life filled with these inherently valuable actions, when done for their own sake, is an ethical life, a eudaimon/happy life. Kant, on the other hand, merely ascribes morality to the actions themselves, not an entire life.
@@golddmane I kind of follow you. I'm not so much interested in what Aristotleor kant say, as to what makes sense and brings us closer to truth. As i see it, every being has a final cause, both the living organism as well as the actions of that being. The final cause is external to the being, just as the efficient cause. But there is no being without a final cause. Would you agree?
So good! I love Dr Kreeft!
This is profound stuff. I am learning new perspectives with each lecture - thank you.
Thank you so much for posting this!
Men of culture I'm glad we are here.
Thank you. This is very helpful. One minor correction regarding sola Scriptura. For the 16th century reformers, Sola Scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only authority, but that it is the supreme authority for matters of doctrine and practice, those things pertaining to salvation. The tradition of the church fathers and the councils, scholarship and reason also have authority (for doctrine and practice) but only insofar as they are compatible with scripture. The reformers were concerned that the Catholic Church was adding requirements for salvation that were not in scripture, or elevating doctrines that were not taught by scripture, which were then made mandatory. There are some protestants who reject all tradition, but that was not the original intent of the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Anglicans).
Is Peter Kreeft the finest philosopher of our time? God bless you sir as you so richly bless us and restore the possibility of rational sanity in our world.
the term "logophobic" explains the ills of our time so well
What I have listened to this 2 times now, I will listen again. I' am completely astonished &/ or haven't got a view or opinion as to the content of this man' s insights & lecture. But to say that I was completely enthralled by him & his inquiry into the subject matter of which he discusses in complete detail of how he was able to lay out his own thesis of what might have been to the thoughts of the 3 most important Greek philosiphers that shaped the origins of MANKIND'S particular conscience of as to how to measure nature in form's to discover how knowledge is obtained by humankind's nature &/ or of the nature of matter which is unfamiliar to MANKIND'S knowledge. That's what I understood from this speech. How say YOU. Ps; please feel free to enlighten me as to the differential assumptions of which I have obtained through opinion rather than proof of my thoughts &/ or opinion on this most important lecture
I have listened again to this man' s intuition on the subject matter of which he elaborates. Once again, i' am profoundly in attendance of. I would like to interject a little bit if I can . While I admit that I have a limited knowledge of philosophy in terms of formal education in philosophy & the social sciences, I have been self educating myself on the enlightened philosiphers to which I have been studying. What I have learned is of great importance to me relatively speaking as to this conversation & lecture. A thought occurred to me as to the relationship between FREEWILL &/ or MANKIND'S obtained knowledge in consciousness of the universal fundamentals of what FREEWILL encompasses in terms of the individual &/ or as a collective . It is in a statement that I have written down & Would like to share. HERE it goes folk's. " THE Alibi &/ or Alibies for, slash, FROM FREEWILL ". I would welcome any or all comments or views on this statement as to the relevance of this lecture or irrelevance in so regards. Ps; be advised, it is just a thought of mine & may not or may come to mind when discussing morals, ethics & values as it relates to MANKIND'S known knowledge &/ or unknown knowledge of the subject of FREEWILL . HOW say YOU?
“scientific and scientism” wonderful video. Philosophy is not scientific. It does not deal with weights and measures. WOW. This video blows me away.
This is the stuff if we want to understand what sanity means. Let's spread the word on these essential truths. Every time we hear someone speak of "values".
If someone refers to a universal as a value, what then?
@@CynicalBastard Values are options and relative not normative and the foundation of good law to such a person. And relativism is incoherent.
@@Youdamana So what is normative has no value? That seems incoherent.
@@CynicalBastard That misunderstanding of what he is saying is indeed incoherent. He is stating that universal moral norms... like don't rape children for instance... are objectively true and protect the inherent good of life and being. Whether the pedophile sees this as his or her "value" is only of criminal interest. Subjective evaluations are either sane and true or immoral.
@@tommore3263 They can just as well be 'amoral'. Stop acting like there isn't a set of twisted values out there. Values can be insane. People can hold insane "values", that would never be acceptable as a norm, and thus would only be as fringe as the day is night.
This guy is good! One quibble. He defines metaphysics as "what is". A more suitable definition is that Of RG Collingwood: metaphysics is concerned with historical "absolute presuppositions" which the answers to the repeated question "why" given by different cultures at different times. Aristotle represents the absolute presuppositions of the West up to the Enlightenment, Kant those that apply after it. Without denying the brilliance of Aristotle we cannot now go back to his metaphysics or epistemology. It is Kant who has set the frame for the "Mechanistic worldview" of what we call "science" that has dominated the World. The key presupposition is that identified by Gallileo before Kant: that nature is revealed in the language of mathematics and specifically calculus. However, Aristotelian ethics do have a role because ethics are not a matter of "science".
Collection of habits constitute character. Categorical imperative: Do unto others.... I bought the set of books for deeper study.
His books are fantastic!!! I reread them they are so good
These videos are incredible!
Really appreciate this video..
The Kant category analogy of light coming through stained glass is interesting. He says the color (reality) comes from the glass (our consciousness). But all this implies that there is a different me observing my consciousness (just like there is me looking at the colors coming through the glass). But the consciousness and me are the same thing, no?
In other words, Kant seems to say that my consciousness distorts reality, and then presents it to me. Consciousness being a step in awareness. But I don’t see why it is a “step.” I am my consciousness and the awareness of reality is direct.
Great idea to structure a lecture series in contrasting figures, this is indeed revealing in many respects.
I'm enjoying these lectures immensly. Thank you!
Praise the Lord
Great lecture, thanks so much.
This man is explaining what's wrong with the west.
Totally.
This lecture of this professor is quintessentially entwined with the abilities &/ or inabilities of mankind to acknowledge & disquish the parallels of what obtained knowledge mankind has achieved throughout the hx. Of mankind's limited knowledge of a nature unrelated of & / or of mankind 's inability to understand through quatatave measument the truth of forms that have yet to be resolved to the question of not only the nature of mankind, but more importantly, the nature of mankind's origins of makeup as it relates to quantity vs; mankind's qualities in form's of morals, values &/ or ethical principles.
Loved this! ❤
Perhaps what brings great minds together is dialog.
this was great! loving this series
Kant is beyond nominalist in my opinion, he is a transcendental idealist, from which he shows us that nominalism is an idea of itself. Kant lights the torch of the "Idea" and passes it to Hegel
We as a society have objectified Kantian subjectivity. Our subjectivism has brought us to the point of even denying scientific reality, ie the denial that there are only two genders. No matter how hard we try nature will not conform to who we think we are. This subjectivism is a complete seperation from reality.
That's not why people deny two genders. There's no point in discussing modern political topics because you must keep in mind that virtually everyone in politics, and really just everyone in general, is primarily concerned with negative liberty. Those who are concerned with positive liberty essentially have the Stoic mindset that anyone's a slave who depends on external goods. You won't see people like that very often because politics are inherently concerned with how humans interact with each other, but humans are an external good. It's no coincidence that people are torn between the right and the left, because these are ONLY based on judgements ie, I don't like trans people so I want them banned politically vs I'm fine with trans people so I don't want them banned. Notice how both of these concern negative liberty, though one's right and one's left. Feel free to respond, I'd be happy to have a discussion about this.
Thank you so much for this wonderful series, but where are (how can I find as I couldn't) the 1sr 2 lectures & the successive/next ones please??
Amazing
Interesting, as I have run into Kanz's arguments about will in those that support what they call "free will".
Excellent, synthesis and understanding of philosophy. A great mind Dr. Kreeft.
29:27 for anyone else who is here for Kant
This is wonderful thank you.
Thank you
I appreciate Dr. Kreeft's candid and concise delivery. These are complex ideas, but they deserve time and attention, as the very fabric of our world reflects the tension between them. For one, I am grateful to live in a time where profound insights into the nature of the world and ourselves are freely and openly available.
Very nice, Thank you.
However a small comment regarding the very end, about forgiveness. I think Aristotle can be forgiven for ignoring human freedom, because he is first and should be expected to be added to. Conversely Kant should not get lenience because he did not overall add to Aristotle, but actively ignored and even butchered important parts. IMO Kant is worth knowing because he offers a different perspective, but ultimately his is just a novelty with a few interesting new ideas, which unfortunately have been twisted to our detriment since.
Anyway, many thanks..
Thanks for this
Chomsky will, AND should, be remembered hundreds of years from now..
Thanks for the interesting discussion. One quibble at the end. The US did not end slavery. The 13th amendment ended privately owned slaves, but created the whole new category of slaves of the state for anyone convicted of any crime.
"For the time being, during his term of service in the penitentiary, he is in a state of penal servitude to the State. ."
Ruffin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 62 Va. 790, 796, (1871).
The moderns are mere kids compared to the ancients, the greatest of our kind
Dr. Kreeft insight into the Epistemology and Ethics of Aristotle is by design not taught in most American public high schools.
Aristotle is the 13th apostle of Catholicism. Without him several of Aquinas' and Augustine's main ideas would be vacuous and "out of the blue".
It seems that Dr. Kreeft considers Aristotle as one of the roots of christian moral philosophy, disregarding that he was a greek that grew around Zeus believers, and most likely atheist.
Aristotle did not believe in Zeus or any of the Greek gods. In fact, Aquinas borrowed some of Aristotle's arguments for the existence of God; however, Aristotle did not believe in a personal God, and he could accurately be described as a deist, like many of the founding fathers like Jefferson, Franklin, and Payne.
@markpeterson3063 What I said. Keywords "grew around" and the last word before the last period.
When reality to you is subjective, you will NOT like Aristotle. If you look at Todays society it’s obvious that there is a vocal and radical group of subjectivists.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:21 📜 Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are considered among the most important philosophers in history. No philosophers today are predicted to reach their level of greatness.
02:33 🤔 Aristotle's rationality and common sense often confound modern students and philosophers alike, making his ideas difficult to understand and accept.
06:22 🧠 Aristotle's philosophy upholds the concept of "form," the essence of things that includes their natural end or purpose (teleology). Modern science's focus on measurement and quantification has led to a decline in appreciation for such notions.
07:48 💡 Aristotle's theory of natural moral law, based on human nature's inherent essence, is in contrast to subjective values or desires. This concept of objective morality is often at odds with modern cultural trends.
10:11 🧩 Aristotle's logic, involving four key questions (what, whether, why), provides a structured approach to evaluating ideas. Inductive abstraction (moving from particulars to universals) and deductive reasoning (moving from universals to particulars) are central to his epistemology.
12:18 🕊️ Aristotle's hylomorphism explains that entities consist of both matter and form. This idea applies to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father.
15:21 🌏 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding causation and explanation in the world.
18:08 🌟 Aristotle's view on human nature strikes a balance between inherent virtue and potential vice. He believes in training and directing human impulses through reason to develop virtues and eradicate vices.
20:27 🤝 While Aristotle and Plato differ on some points, their overall agreement is more significant than their differences. Their shared understanding of the reality of God and the Divinity of Christ is analogous to the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism.
22:47 🧐 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) has practical applications, aiding in comprehensive explanations of various subjects.
25:01 🌞 Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, often translated as "happiness," actually refers to objective human flourishing and perfection, encompassing both physical and spiritual well-being.
26:52 🤔 Aristotle's approach to suffering and justice differs from modern interpretations. He would not consider the question of why the righteous suffer as an unanswerable mystery but would view it as a path to wisdom and humility.
27:18 🧠 Aristotle added virtues to Plato's foundation, but disagreed on the relationship between knowing and doing the true good.
28:15 🧘 Moral virtues come from practice, constructing good habits and character, not just knowing the good intellectually.
29:27 🤔 Kant and Aristotle offer serious ethical and epistemological options, avoiding extremes like skepticism and dogmatism.
31:02 🌍 Kant's epistemology, the "Copernican Revolution," asserts humans create the structure of reality rather than passively perceiving it.
33:19 🌈 Kant's view: We can't know objective reality; our knowledge is limited by our mental structures (categories) applied to experience.
35:11 🤯 Kant's skepticism becomes paradoxical; questioning objective truth leads to contradictions.
37:01 🏆 Aristotle's virtue ethics contrasts with Kant's ethics of rules; Kant's principles emphasize human dignity and equality.
38:11 🔄 Kant's categorical imperative: Act according to maxims that could become universal laws; treat humanity as an end, not a means.
39:23 ❗ Kant's principles are necessary but insufficient for a complete morality; they regulate how to treat others, not personal character.
40:47 🧙 Kant's third formulation exalts human will as the creator of moral law; autonomy replaces reverence to God's will.
42:23 🙏 Kant's epistemology and ethics both emphasize human activity and creation, sidelining receptive aspects like divine revelation.
43:35 🤝 Kant's idea that every individual is an end in themselves has influenced modern ethics, including Pope John Paul II's teachings.
Made with HARPA AI
When he says if all triangular things in the universe disappeared, the laws of trigonometry would NOT exist for Aristotle does he mean PHYSICALLY disappeared? Or all triangular things in the abstract (mental universe) AND in the physical universe.
Are the abstract and the physical in the same universe (one universe)?
I like this subjects
Watching it 19:50
BINGEWATCHING
Right view
@Dainis Geidmanis Dr. Marcus Grodi and Dr. Scott Hans might be essential to consult.
What’s with the background synth drone and the sound of running water?
I’m wondering what it’s supposed to add to the lecture. Listenability? Or is it there for those who want to be lulled to sleep? If so, is the content to be taken in subconsciously? Does that even work? I’m skeptical-I can’t imagine either sound be used with a lecture in mathematics.
It’s a good lecture. It doesn’t need to be watered down or enhanced with special effects.
Yikes! There's an entire new vocabulary here which I need to learn.
Kreeft interprets Kant a little bit ungenerously when he says that the will offers no absolute guidance for each person. Kant introduces respect (for the dignity of the self and other) precisely to that end. We must always see dignity as the only moral absolute and that is, als for Catholics, a very good basic guiding principle, I believe.
Dr. Kreeft’s opening statement is profound and I totally agree. But why? Dr. Kreeft goes right to the point and that is Aristotle was
“Reasonable to a fault and had ( what has been lost in humanity) Common Sense. Too very difficult concepts to embrace and accept at face value. It also makes me think rationality is a lost art. Many “ thinkers” today use opinion and conjecture in place or rationality. We question what is rational It is no longer a given.
Aristotle was a (the) original thinker. His ideas and conclusions were based on rational thinking not filled with conjecture or opinion. These two options are not facts and may not be reasonable. I want to believe “ Truth”- ultimate truth is unquestionable. Absolute. When we muddy the waters truth becomes dubious. Suspect. Society and current political arenas plus religious beliefs contribute to the obfuscation to truth thereby rendering it possibly true. Not completely true. Which to is a human failing.
Kant did make a real big shift in the history of philosophy. It was the Jewish thinker Moses Mendelssohn who called him
"the great destroyer". If you read Kant's works closely, it may really be in some way disillusioning. Kleist created the term "Kantian Crisis" and became his famous victim. His philosophy had thrown the poet in a deep existential crisis.
Kant divorced philosophy from reality, and ultimately created a subjective anything-goes attitude toward both facts and values, According to Kant, even scientific "facts" are merely inter-subjective and bear no connection at all with the real world.
Champion of the "return to form" - how original
Aristotle deserves his nickname #ThePhilosopher
Wonderful. Thank you for this great lecture 🙏
Sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the only source of authority or knowledge about God, only that it must be the highest. Great point about science though.
How can he conflate form with purpose when Aristotle explicitly separates form and purpose. 5:17
Truely I only take one meal a day but now changed
Great lecture. Interesting comparison. Thank you.
Thank you sir, something to teach my children.
Comment for traction🎉
The physical universe is designed by the Master scientist. Therefore design is measurable.
Aristotle, upon Plato’s demise, rejected his idea of FORMS which was the entire basis of objectivism.
No wonder people hate him.
What kind of student would do this?
Aristotle is the premier philosopher of all time
He’s all you need to live a happy and productive life.
So beautiful ❤❤❤❤❤❤.
Yes
Is it really true that all cultures didn't believe in contraception before the 1930s?
Simply put, No.
The first 'official' contraception to be invented was likely the condom, as there's evidence that condoms were used in the UK as early as 1640, but condom-like items were used as early as 3000 BC.
Maybe he meant widespread cultural acceptance.
Check out the museum of contraception at Case Western Reserve Medical History Center with artifacts in the USA going back to the 1800's.
43:43 bookmark
❤❤❤
Kreeft is simply plain wrong on Aristotle's views on contraception. In the third chapter of the seventh book of "History of Animals" he gives some very dubious advice on what ointments to use as a woman in order to avoid pregnancy.
This is from the Word on Fire Institute, but what does any of this have to do with the Catholic faith, or even faith in general? This has nothing to do with religion.
Milton Erickson was the reincarnation of Socrates
I think Dr. Peter Kreeft will be remembered for his contributions to philosophy the way Goldberg is revered and remembered for his variations (Bach). I would love to have been one of his students.
How exactly does faith enrich reason ? No doubt, faith is of vital importance to mankind, and there is no reason without a faith in its fundamental principles. But this is different from having faith in God, for even an atheist can have faith in logic. Socrates also believed in God, and he conceived of his philosophical journey as being a mission (indirectly) commanded by God to prove that only God is truly wise, and that, in comparison, human wisdom is worth little or nothing. But, still, reason is one thing, faith another. Faith in reason is the foundation upon which reason stands, yet it not the actual structure of reason itself. And, even if one conceives of philosophy as being a mission from God, faith in God is not identical with philosophical reasoning, nor does it enrich the actual arguments that form the structure of reason. Any rational argument must ultimately be judged independently of faith, for even atheists make rational arguments that must be judged in terms of reason itself, and not in terms of whether or not they believe in God.
Aristotle's "Final Cause" was a hack. He couldn't explain why not all biological organisms start as the "End Product" and seem to "improve" over time.
As most greek philosophers, Aristotle was an idealist at heart and also ignorant of what we know today; not his fault. But it is OUR fault to continue to be in awe of his ideas. He was a genius of HIS TIME, not ours.
Good lecture. Just two comments. One, the first to claim that man is an end in himself, or what is the same, the measure of all things, was Protagoras the sophist, so Kant was not original on this point at least. Two, Dr Kreeft seems to forget that the bible condones slavery in many instances.
👍