I'm an atheist, but not a moronic liberal (raised Catholic) but I think this guy is a good teacher, which is rare these days...Hell, that’s rare period.
Wow! Those kids were lucky to have this guy as a teacher! I found this channel because I’m currently reading Book I of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I’m looking forward to the following lectures! Thank you, Bruce Gore, for sharing your expertise. Really appreciate it!
One studies Aristotle by studying the logical works, then the moral works and then the natural works. To be clear it means: 1. Categories 2. De Interpretatione 3. Prior Analytics 4. Posterior Analytics 5. Topics 6. Sophistical Refutations 7. Nicomichian Ethics 8. Politics 9. Economics 10. Physics 11. Metaphysics
At 12:51, one of your students suggests something about the gesture of Aristotle in the School of Athens painting--it is not audible, would you let me know what it was. I am intrigued that you were intrigued by the suggestion.
Thank you. I like your student's observational skills here. With regard to his statement, perhaps it would hold more merit in terms of art history if four fingers were being held up, but the thumb is extended as well. In the painting, the foreshortening effect of the representation of an extended arm and fingers perhaps alludes to a primacy of the four fingers, but I don't think that it was intended as the thumb is not significantly lower on the picture plane. The entire hand, palm-facing toward the earth is what is significant here with regard to Aristotle's reference to the physical world. Again, no can be 100% certain.
Do you have an opinion on why an overlap might exist (abstracting out the core message) between the cynics (Diogenes etc) and contemporary post-modernist and nihilist philosophy (as we see so eminantly in todays culture)? Is it simply that one train of thought is rooted in the other and so you see thematic similarity or is there a deeper meta-reason (like the objective reality of plato), "the ideal-world cynic" and these things which seem similar throughout time are an instantiation of that. Within a Christian world-view would this ideal cynic be the spirit of satan or "that which opposes creation and what is good" (for example, civilisation, order, the law, attempts to parse and articulate the world into something more than animalistic drives and behaviour etc), like the chaos of Tiamat in the Enuma Elish... How might I decipher where (if any) the truth lies in this kind of quesioning thought and where I am simply post-hoc overlaying my value-system willy-nilly onto all this new stuff im learning from your videos? Sincerely, Someone battling screwtape.
I think that we find a clue in Kierkegaard's Masters Thesis. Kierkegaard noted that Hegel had noted that the German romantic irony that was associated with Schlegel and Fichte was used as a purely negative tool to tear down the idea of institutions, customs, beliefs, etc, as something permanent and right. For them, irony was used in the service of relativism and nihilism to criticize anything and everything upon which societal customs were based. Note that in Hegel's lectures he was very critical of the romantics because he saw them as relativists who were trying to impose their own whimsical views on accepted customs and traditions. (Tink of Hollywood producers and writers trying to impose their version of morality today as they attack the idea of biological gender differences, different preferences by men or women, as they promote and edify of alternative lifestyles, etc.) If you examine Kierkegaard's Socrates you see that he is a nihilist but uses his nihilism to give them the freedom to search for the truth subjectively. The major difference between Kierkegaard's Socrates and Hegel's/Kierkegaard's Romantics is that Socrates doesn't ever stop his search or make up some positive conception of the truth. In fact, Socrates agrees with the cynics that no positive definition has ever survived or can survive the process of critical examination. Note that this is not a problem for Kierkegaard, who takes a long time of very detailed and critical examination to determine that what is needed to move forward is to take a leap of faith. Please note that we see the same message today being provided by thinkers like the very controversial Jordan Peterson who simply states that even if someone is sceptical of the existence of God, the proper way forward is to behave as if God existed. I find that argument attractive because Peterson's suggestion does away with the minor arguments about detailed points of doctrine while concentrating on what is essential to religious teaching in all faiths with which I am familiar with. Ironically, it is also consistent with natural law theorists who do not use religious texts as the foundation of their conclusions and even with the supposed goals of radical atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I imagine that is why Peterson bothers the professional radical atheists so much; his argument is very compatible with religious thinking and exposes their faith-based atheism as outright fraud.
@@VangelVe Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I first started listening to Peterson in late 2015. I subsequently consumed almost all his material on youtube in 2016.. when he published his biblical series it was my first exposure to scripture which pierced through the spiritual death and cynicism I had since about age 13, as a result I began attending a local bible study and about 8 months later came to faith (also after experiences with psychedelic substances which I now condone since becoming born again). Ironically I now disagree with many of Petersons Gnostic-esque and heretical views - I saw him live and could feel the atmosphere of so many lost men being guided so close to the truth, he spoke so much of the Bibles truth... allegorically crucially avoiding taking christ at his simple word and correctly identifying him. Undeniably he is at the forefront of however God is working in his "left of field" kind of way through the nations and generations. He might just be saving a generation of men from what ive witnessed amongst my generation, being raised by contemporary standards, by women who hate men and taught no values or principles, taught to pathologise their own nature and i've seen it so often this hopeless nihilistic abdication of responsibility all the while claiming to be intellectually superior due to knowledge of internet culture etc.. but its just identical to the underlying theme we see Gore talk about whenever there is a "philsophical impasse". Fascinating stuff, anyway thanks for your response and thank you Mr Gore for this great content - I cant afford to go to university and study anything like religion or philosophy so these free resources are a blessing sir.
I’m only about halfway through the Organon and I understand even less. But at 5:28 you say Aristotle believed the substance changes but the accidentals stay the same. I understood Aristotle to have believed the opposite. But you mentioned transubstantiation before this, so I’m confident that I’ve both misunderstood Aristotle and I feel I’ve missed out on some metaphysical concept
Check out Gregory B Sadler, he has a series of videos that do a close reading of Aristotle, helps clarify some of the densely packed concepts in the Organon.
I taught the course for many years, but it was never recorded. I've considered putting together a course in political theory for adults, and may do so at some point, but it hasn't happened yet! Thanks for asking!
I don think so. They knew the earth was round from the kind of shadow that took place on the moon. One Greek even measured the radius of the earth using queer maths( angle of the shadow of tower at a solar eclipse or something with the compared to the sun when seem from below a well. I saw this on a vid. I'll link:ruclips.net/video/BMPaq8sf8Ko/видео.html ). I haven't read it but Aristotle has left a work that has survived called meteorology.
This teacher I’m not sure if he’s a professor. I think he teaches like a someone would teach a dog how to do tricks. This teacher has. Arrogance. When the student had an idea he replies oh I’ve never heard that before get your PhD write a paper and come back to me to me and maybe we can talk about it. Instead of addressing it maybe later with the student, he just wants people to remember what he said not to actually interact with him With dialogue. He’s just there to preach. He’s a soffit. He’s there to collect his paycheck a test and go home at night not really a philosophy, teacher or professor more like a dog trainer training at students oh, you don’t have to memorize this name because I’m not gonna test you on that just memorize what I’m gonna test you on don’t even think about what it actually means and how pertains to you just listen, so you can pass the test that way I’ll keep my job
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm an atheist, but not a moronic liberal (raised Catholic) but I think this guy is a good teacher, which is rare these days...Hell, that’s rare period.
Wow! Those kids were lucky to have this guy as a teacher! I found this channel because I’m currently reading Book I of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I’m looking forward to the following lectures! Thank you, Bruce Gore, for sharing your expertise. Really appreciate it!
really awesome lectures! thank you so much for putting them online
Thank you!
Thank you very much for the wonderful lecture on Aristotle sir.
One studies Aristotle by studying the logical works, then the moral works and then the natural works. To be clear it means:
1. Categories
2. De Interpretatione
3. Prior Analytics
4. Posterior Analytics
5. Topics
6. Sophistical Refutations
7. Nicomichian Ethics
8. Politics
9. Economics
10. Physics
11. Metaphysics
Any idea about the spanish guitar at the beginning?
It’s bach invention in f major
Great lecture.
At 12:51, one of your students suggests something about the gesture of Aristotle in the School of Athens painting--it is not audible, would you let me know what it was. I am intrigued that you were intrigued by the suggestion.
Yes...the student asked if the four fingers might be referring to the four elements of Greek thought, earth, air, fire, and water. What do you think?
Thank you. I like your student's observational skills here. With regard to his statement, perhaps it would hold more merit in terms of art history if four fingers were being held up, but the thumb is extended as well. In the painting, the foreshortening effect of the representation of an extended arm and fingers perhaps alludes to a primacy of the four fingers, but I don't think that it was intended as the thumb is not significantly lower on the picture plane. The entire hand, palm-facing toward the earth is what is significant here with regard to Aristotle's reference to the physical world. Again, no can be 100% certain.
H Hofman Thanks! Helpful!
Damn shame we don't have the dialogues of Aristotle.
Damn shame we don't have the lecture notes of Plato.
What was the question by the student at 12:52?
'Is it possible that the four fingers represent our elements?' I think.
Do you have an opinion on why an overlap might exist (abstracting out the core message) between the cynics (Diogenes etc) and contemporary post-modernist and nihilist philosophy (as we see so eminantly in todays culture)? Is it simply that one train of thought is rooted in the other and so you see thematic similarity or is there a deeper meta-reason (like the objective reality of plato), "the ideal-world cynic" and these things which seem similar throughout time are an instantiation of that.
Within a Christian world-view would this ideal cynic be the spirit of satan or "that which opposes creation and what is good" (for example, civilisation, order, the law, attempts to parse and articulate the world into something more than animalistic drives and behaviour etc), like the chaos of Tiamat in the Enuma Elish... How might I decipher where (if any) the truth lies in this kind of quesioning thought and where I am simply post-hoc overlaying my value-system willy-nilly onto all this new stuff im learning from your videos?
Sincerely,
Someone battling screwtape.
Great questions for which I have no simple answers.
I think that we find a clue in Kierkegaard's Masters Thesis. Kierkegaard noted that Hegel had noted that the German romantic irony that was associated with Schlegel and Fichte was used as a purely negative tool to tear down the idea of institutions, customs, beliefs, etc, as something permanent and right. For them, irony was used in the service of relativism and nihilism to criticize anything and everything upon which societal customs were based. Note that in Hegel's lectures he was very critical of the romantics because he saw them as relativists who were trying to impose their own whimsical views on accepted customs and traditions. (Tink of Hollywood producers and writers trying to impose their version of morality today as they attack the idea of biological gender differences, different preferences by men or women, as they promote and edify of alternative lifestyles, etc.)
If you examine Kierkegaard's Socrates you see that he is a nihilist but uses his nihilism to give them the freedom to search for the truth subjectively. The major difference between Kierkegaard's Socrates and Hegel's/Kierkegaard's Romantics is that Socrates doesn't ever stop his search or make up some positive conception of the truth. In fact, Socrates agrees with the cynics that no positive definition has ever survived or can survive the process of critical examination. Note that this is not a problem for Kierkegaard, who takes a long time of very detailed and critical examination to determine that what is needed to move forward is to take a leap of faith. Please note that we see the same message today being provided by thinkers like the very controversial Jordan Peterson who simply states that even if someone is sceptical of the existence of God, the proper way forward is to behave as if God existed. I find that argument attractive because Peterson's suggestion does away with the minor arguments about detailed points of doctrine while concentrating on what is essential to religious teaching in all faiths with which I am familiar with. Ironically, it is also consistent with natural law theorists who do not use religious texts as the foundation of their conclusions and even with the supposed goals of radical atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I imagine that is why Peterson bothers the professional radical atheists so much; his argument is very compatible with religious thinking and exposes their faith-based atheism as outright fraud.
@@VangelVe Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I first started listening to Peterson in late 2015. I subsequently consumed almost all his material on youtube in 2016.. when he published his biblical series it was my first exposure to scripture which pierced through the spiritual death and cynicism I had since about age 13, as a result I began attending a local bible study and about 8 months later came to faith (also after experiences with psychedelic substances which I now condone since becoming born again). Ironically I now disagree with many of Petersons Gnostic-esque and heretical views - I saw him live and could feel the atmosphere of so many lost men being guided so close to the truth, he spoke so much of the Bibles truth... allegorically crucially avoiding taking christ at his simple word and correctly identifying him. Undeniably he is at the forefront of however God is working in his "left of field" kind of way through the nations and generations. He might just be saving a generation of men from what ive witnessed amongst my generation, being raised by contemporary standards, by women who hate men and taught no values or principles, taught to pathologise their own nature and i've seen it so often this hopeless nihilistic abdication of responsibility all the while claiming to be intellectually superior due to knowledge of internet culture etc.. but its just identical to the underlying theme we see Gore talk about whenever there is a "philsophical impasse". Fascinating stuff, anyway thanks for your response and thank you Mr Gore for this great content - I cant afford to go to university and study anything like religion or philosophy so these free resources are a blessing sir.
I’m only about halfway through the Organon and I understand even less. But at 5:28 you say Aristotle believed the substance changes but the accidentals stay the same. I understood Aristotle to have believed the opposite. But you mentioned transubstantiation before this, so I’m confident that I’ve both misunderstood Aristotle and I feel I’ve missed out on some metaphysical concept
That statement is referring to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, rather than a comment on Aristotle as such.
Check out Gregory B Sadler, he has a series of videos that do a close reading of Aristotle, helps clarify some of the densely packed concepts in the Organon.
thanks for sharing
Thank you!
Is your civics course available online anywhere ?
I taught the course for many years, but it was never recorded. I've considered putting together a course in political theory for adults, and may do so at some point, but it hasn't happened yet! Thanks for asking!
Thank you
Did anyone hear the students theory???
According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato's first successor was his nephew Speusippus of Athens ...
i know Christ Jesus
He's all you need.
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"- Socrates
Did Aristotle believe the Earth was flat?
I don think so. They knew the earth was round from the kind of shadow that took place on the moon. One Greek even measured the radius of the earth using queer maths( angle of the shadow of tower at a solar eclipse or something with the compared to the sun when seem from below a well. I saw this on a vid. I'll link:ruclips.net/video/BMPaq8sf8Ko/видео.html ). I haven't read it but Aristotle has left a work that has survived called meteorology.
This teacher I’m not sure if he’s a professor. I think he teaches like a someone would teach a dog how to do tricks. This teacher has. Arrogance. When the student had an idea he replies oh I’ve never heard that before get your PhD write a paper and come back to me to me and maybe we can talk about it. Instead of addressing it maybe later with the student, he just wants people to remember what he said not to actually interact with him With dialogue. He’s just there to preach. He’s a soffit. He’s there to collect his paycheck a test and go home at night not really a philosophy, teacher or professor more like a dog trainer training at students oh, you don’t have to memorize this name because I’m not gonna test you on that just memorize what I’m gonna test you on don’t even think about what it actually means and how pertains to you just listen, so you can pass the test that way I’ll keep my job
chill bro