John Milbank - Metaphysics of the Soul

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 9 лют 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 70

  • @DamienRowatt
    @DamienRowatt 6 років тому +7

    Great material.

    • @DamienRowatt
      @DamienRowatt 4 роки тому +1

      @Clark Harney what is matter, doesn't mind, what is mind, doesn't matter 😂

  • @hope12792
    @hope12792 9 місяців тому

    Thank you.

  • @DarkMoonDroid
    @DarkMoonDroid 4 роки тому +1

    There is a quote from the Vedic Traditions which I am not certain of the source. But it is so concise that it cuts like a knife - pitiless towards our bleeding need to understand. But it goes down much easier if - as you described - it comes in phases. 3 phases.
    1. The World is illusory.
    2. Only Brahman is Real.
    3. Brahman is the World.
    Any one of these alone is an heresy of one form or another. But all together, they show us the process of The One Disclosing the secret that it is the only thing there is.
    Each austere Tradition has a way of handling this - as well as a place for those who cannot understand or believe it to remain as they are with the full Grace of Heaven protecting them.
    Each is provided for by the All, in All.

  • @ceh5526
    @ceh5526 2 роки тому +1

    Renaissance magic kept the truth of things going through the dry times - absolutely

  • @chazzplaya
    @chazzplaya 5 років тому +14

    Anna Bonta Moreland hasn't aged well

  • @cross3934
    @cross3934 7 років тому +2

    ...wow...sing Goddess

  • @lysanderofsparta3708
    @lysanderofsparta3708 3 роки тому

    John Milbank looks like he could be related to Edward Feser.

  • @napoleon474
    @napoleon474 6 років тому +2

    This is what you get from studying theology? Who can understand this stuff? I've been listening for a few minutes and I feel as if I'm listening to a foreign language that I cannot understand.

    • @philosotuber
      @philosotuber 6 років тому +20

      And philosophy. To an outsider, I'm sure it sounds like gibberish at times. Theology and philosophy have a long tradition they have built for themselves through sustained discourses. Basically, they developed their own language in order to talk about their fundamental questions. This is just like any other science and the coinage of new terms.

    • @alittlebitoflight
      @alittlebitoflight 6 років тому +11

      For mine, understanding the Greeks (pre-Socratics, Plato and Aristotle, and then later thinkers - the neo-Platonists) is a prerequisite for grasping this conversation. Very much worth it. For most of us, the Greeks (apologies purists) are our first foray into seeing that the world might be understood in different ways (all the way down).

    • @casperjack7452
      @casperjack7452 5 років тому +8

      Noa Napoleon - That's the way it is when you first get into this stuff. The very first book in philosophy that I ever read was by David Bentley Hart. It was profound, deep, and as a noob I found it quite difficult (especially since he uses every word in the English language). Now, some years later, I'm starting to swim a little better in these waters.

    • @mattboulter1
      @mattboulter1 5 років тому

      @@alittlebitoflight Yes!

    • @DarkMoonDroid
      @DarkMoonDroid 4 роки тому +5

      If he were preaching a sermon, he would speak very differently.
      His audience here is prolly all egg-heads and philosophy nerds. The internet brings this - previously insular - community out where everyone can see and hear. It can be quite the culture-shock. But if it's not your cup of tea, just remember, they _can_ speak in terms you'd understand _if_ they were actually speaking to you.
      Peace.

  • @myopenmind527
    @myopenmind527 7 років тому +2

    What a load of pretentious waffle.
    This guy could have save himself a load of grief and effort if he’d just studied science.
    Pity he didn’t start by defining what a soul is and then provide evidence for said soul. He could have cut the talk to 1 minute.
    The Templeton foundation paid for this?

    • @flyingmonk6599
      @flyingmonk6599 7 років тому +24

      My OpenMind I m sorry, but that's retarded. His talk is about the soul and it's metaphysics not the evidence that it exists. Imagine if anytime biologists had to give a talk about a topic in evolutionary biology, they had to prove the theory of evolution by natural selection. Or that cosmologists had to prove that the big bang happened everytime they said anything about the universe. But for theists, the standards are different and they have to prove their whole worldview at once every time they speak.

    • @myopenmind527
      @myopenmind527 7 років тому

      Flying Monk so you believe in life after death? Why?

    • @flyingmonk6599
      @flyingmonk6599 7 років тому +9

      My OpenMind I didn't say anything about me believing in afterlife. You're good at assuming things without evidence, right?

    • @myopenmind527
      @myopenmind527 7 років тому

      Flying Monk
      what is a soul?
      Why would you need a soul?
      Etc etc etc

    • @flyingmonk6599
      @flyingmonk6599 7 років тому +4

      My OpenMind Did I say anything about me believing in a soul?