Dr. Darren Staloff, Aristotle's Metaphysical Views
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лют 2022
- You can find The Metaphysics here amzn.to/3SQOW7Q
This is the official UA-cam channel of Dr. Michael Sugrue.
Please consider subscribing to be notified of future videos, as we upload Dr. Sugrue's vast archive of lectures.
Dr. Michael Sugrue earned his BA at the University of Chicago and PhD at Columbia University.
The guy with a fancy car who steals your girlfriend in an 80s movie
(yes I'm actually watching the lecture I'm just not that far in)
Bingo
Oh my god yes
does anyone know what year is this lecture recorded?
LMAO I couldn't quite point my finger at it but this is it.
I feel so elevated after listening to lectures like these
Thank you. Please keep posting. Love you
Please keep growing this channel! This type of content is simply not readily available on you tube. Great stuff!!
I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from such a skilled lecturer. Dr. Staloff is simply flawless! His ability to convey the complexities of Aristotle's Metaphysics with such clarity and grace is truly remarkable.
Thank you for all the magnificent lecture series. Discovering people like Darren and Sugrue gives me immense joy and pride in the human species. Watching them makes me want to be better, aspire to be close to half articulate and knowledgeable as them if grace permits.
Sweet ! Looking forward to watching this.
21:56 Aristotle on Plato on natural numbers, forms, and abstraction: the square represents the cardinal/natural number four in two dimensions, but in three dimensions it would be a tetrahedron, and the tetrahedron has profound implications for crystal lattice structure (closest packing of spheres)…
41:25 Aristotle’s 9 category “Doctrine of Realism”:
1 Substance
2 Quantity
3 Quality
4 Relation to others-in-kind
5 Posture
6 Period
7 Act
8 Acted upon
9 Position
(Undeprecated until Emmanuel Kant)
42:38 …”until Kant, that remains an extremely problematic assertion“.
Wow Dr. Darren, you wrapped that up with a flourish! Well done my brother! (If I may so presume) 🥰
❤️❌🧢
@@BrBoyJuu too cryptic please decipher to clear text
@@OnerousEthic no lies here ❤️
This a great supplemental resource for those studying Aristole’s Metaphysics writings. Highly recommend as it fits it all together nice and concisely. Thank you for posting.
😊
Fantastic lecture. It's true.. I haven't bumped into a three lately, but I do carry a lot of one's.
Loving the Staloff collection! Thank you so much.
Thank you, these are invaluable. Would you be able to include the year the lectures were produced? That would be very helpful.
If this wasn’t 1991, I’d be shocked.
No it was later not sure which year but whenever American Psycho came out.
Most likely 1992. This is either from the 1st or 2nd edition of the "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition" course published by "The Great Courses". The 1st edition was published in 1992 and 2nd edition in 1994/96 and then a 3rd edition was released in 2000. The 3rd one did not have Dr Sugrue in it. I got these dates from the Worldcat site. I cannot confirm them, since the 1st and 2nd editions are no longer available in The Great Courses site.
this is from the first edition vhs
@@frimports Underrated comment.
THANK YOU
chill out, don’t get too transcendental on me, you’ll become invisible
OMFG, the best philosophical punchline! it made my day today
Dr. Staloff has had plenty of opportunity to sharpen and perfect his Humean sense of humor by deploying it against my grim Kantian seriousness.
I like Ari, I listened to audiobooks while walking. Good stuff
really awesome
William and Mary, eh? Did all these lectures take place there? He says they are in D.C. near the end. I am curious where this is taking place, and where these guys were lecturing at the time.
Greetings from Capitol Hill, Washington D.C.!
the king is back
Plato’s metaphysics is actually extremely more subtle than presented here. Contrarily to most “popular” interpretations, the word “form” is much less a technical term that you might expect, and in fact, there is not such a distinction of “form” and “non form”. A form is just a word used to convey a certain mode of being. When something is more real it will have a more definite nature, while if less real, a more indefinite nature. Furthermore, the relation between the different levels of reality is not of genus and species, as Aristotle seems to attribute to Plato, but is more like “reflection”, if we must use a metaphor. For example, the shadow in the wall does not owe its existence to the “form os shadowness ” as these people think, but to the actual object casting the shadow., which is more definite than the shadow. Therefore, there is not such a thing as an intelligible “form of cup” as he says in the video, but the cup is just, so to speak, a wrinkle in a sea of highly indefinite being that are bare shadows of something much more real and self-sufficient. When we think of a cup, we do so not with mind but with opinion, and opinion is the mode of reception of such non-eternal , wavering “generated” forms. So there is not that “duplicity” he mentions: the lower things are fragmentary shadows of entirely different things.
Brilliant
I wonder if someone can tell how much of the Metaphysics share a common ground with On the Soul? Thanks! :)
in one day! thanks!
Michael Sugrue! Love your series! Please consider doing a live stream with chat activated if you can! It's all the rage now a days and people can donate superchats and it's fun. Also, it's going to be a wild, nonsensical, hilariously bad experience. Like socrates going to the worst part of the polis to talk and face the real athens that killed him. But at the same time it would be so awesome and funny and epic. We need people planting the flag of knowledge straight into the head of the savages that we are all in this place.
This would be amazing!
He’s being doing livestreams
@@Garvey-vm3qt He uploaded webinars that were pre-recorded. Going live and speaking with chat live has still never happened I think. If Socrates was a person of the polis, It would be fun to see Micheal as a person of the interwebs, chatting with all the wise, well-read and definately not insane people that will appear in the chat with the smartest comments.
@@frankbongio I see. Well that’s kind of a relief, the chats I’ve seen from the webinars were psycho to the maximum.
@@Garvey-vm3qt 90's Professor of Classics and history vs Modern internet nihilistic culture. This is the Socrates vs Gorgias students of our modern age. I'd see so many red superchats.
Where is this?
He has completely imitated Dr. Sugrue.
Rational Explanation
Natural Science
Ideal Universals
3:44 What is there, how does it relate?
4:33 4 Causes
Formal Cause: Essence
5:40 Material Cause: Made of
6:18 Efficient Cause: Agency that proceeded change
7:14 Final Cause: The Place after Change, Purpose, Goal, End-Goal
10:03 Unity, Form, Parts without Division
11:57 Concrete Existence
Matter + Form
15:18 Simplicty
18:44 Change is Transient
21:17 “Have you bumped into a 3 lately? Have you been kickin a plus?”
24:00 Potentia
28:30 Souls
Plant: 1st
Animal: Sensitive
29:28 Human:
30:00 Intellective
Eternal
Pure Intellective Soul
Disembodied Intelligence
First Mover, Prime Mover
32:50 The Ultimate Cause
34:40 Perfection
36:05
GOD
Man
Animals
Plants
Inorganic Matter
Water, Earth, Fire, Air
Prime Matter
41:28 9 Categories
Substance - man, dog
Quantity
Quality
Relation
Posture
Period
Acted Upon
Position
Thanks a lot buddy, appreciate it
Thanks time-stamp guy.
thanks friend
is the opening the same music michael scott used when he was in ryan's class doing a presentation ?
Seems so, yes. Bach's second Brandenburg Concerto, first movement.
greetings from greece!please subtitles !thank you!
The scale of being reminds me of the food pyramid.
I never knew I would be learning philosophy from Andrew Garfield. Life’s crazy 😂. Cheers, and thanks for the great work you guys do!
I see a lot of Sergue in this chap
The way he says "okay..." and "now..." at the end of the sentences. It's really similar.
Copy cut of Mr Sugrue, even the choice of slacks.
They use the exact same cadences, it's weird!
They are friends after all
"Being is unity", have done psychedelics. This checks out.
Aristotle probably went to Eleusis and ingested psychedelic pharmakon too
Dougie houser, ( actually a great show )
he is inredible jumpy in themes
Great lecture.
Does anyone else think Darwin liked Aristotle?
Potentiality and Evolution seem similar to me.
At superficial level they seem similar. And yet, evolution is far from affirmation of being. It is a constant change. Whereas potentiality is an embeded power in being which makes a being actualize to a certain telos. In potentiality, there is called essence--the whatness of a being--realizing what it meant to be. What this entails is that potentiality is the actualization of the four causes which Aristotle discovered. In evolution both formal and final causes are not only ignored but also not recognized. Evolution entails a total change of being overtime--a very debetable at best hardly belivable theory. In short, whereas Darwinian evolution agonistic about the Mind behind all that is, where as Aristotlian potentiality acknoweldges implicityl Mind/Logos behind it all.
Simple, yet incredibly beautiful... and the least amount of moving parts. Hm... What could that be, a God perhaps? 😜
Dr Sugrue impersonation.😁
This was highly valuable to go with my reading 🫡
Efficient cause also became the main argument for the ✝️ God. That would probably be the most powerful example of its consequence, would you say? 😊
*Correction* You did.
Too much in its materialistic times
Yes Aristotle contributed something , but pales before Plato . Aristotle was merely good stenographer , nothing original in him. He killed western philosophy , by placing it firmly in visceral empiricism.Aristotle was not scientific, but this myth is promulgated to save this philosopher.
Aristotle rejected due diligence,, mind experiments . He is a philosopher ossified in doxa or respect for an accepted narrative. He has such a hold on western philosophy that even brilliant minds like Nietzsche , Marx, and Heidegger do not question his la k of due diligence.his rejection or alternate paradigms. His laughable critique of Parmenides and misrepresentation of Plato science e progressed only after Aristotle was trashed , but the west wants to keep eulogizing his thought system. This guy acted on prejudiced opinion or doxa and assumed that that was truth .
I have a lot of issues with Plato as well as Aristotle but the two compliment the groundbreaking ontological metaphysics that Socrates uncovered by turning the microscope from nature onto the observer, unpacking it from different angles in a way that ultimately led to phenomenology which ultimately led to the development of psychology. Aristotle maintains his prowess to this day when you relate his insights to the proper contexts, which is highly nuanced considering the myriad insights that have been hypothesized since their time which we may sometimes take for granted when approaching older works…I mean, Aristotle and Plato both rejected atomism, I think that plays a big part in why students of either may have a difficult time in objectively putting the horses before the cart.
@@TaxidermiedMessiah it is easy to eulogize someone without citing his grounding or ontology. Great minds of the west are stumped because of Aristotelian cage , where practice is divorced from theory. The mythology of finding mathematical truths through theory is the first categorical error Bertrand Russell takes 200 pages to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 ! This is an attempt to save the theological in mathematics, rejection of due diligence on funding the study of self from anything but savoring the subject as a third person is still the flavor ieven in Nietzsche who despite his insight of the internalization of cruelty never understands that life is ontologically a question of being before a a question of psychology of revenge.he is stuck in an Aristotelian binary accepting the reality of power as as a mission without recognizing its other,arrogant teenager Nietzsche has assumed that there are no other paradigms. He accepts Schopenhauer’ s pessimism without recognizing that the very pessimism is my own calling. Heidegger and the phenomenologists continue that error The issue lies with the entire western philosophy that considers God as the transcendent other, the so called atheist philosophers are believers u thus doxastic premise under the guise of Nature which is nothing but God presented as secular .the farce of division between faith and science is legitimation of Aristotelian Doxa , that claims its prejudiced opinion as” The truth”.Marx too is a victim of this Doxa. The entire approach to religion is based on Christian theme of accepting Gid as the other, not immanent but transcendent.The only difference between Bertrand Russell and Kierkegaard that Russel rejects the possibility of divinity because it is other worldly and Kierkegaard does nor, neither one of them can accept a Neo-Platenist position of immanence. The west does not understand that when I listen to Jimi Hendrix with all my heart that that is divinity.The west assume that when I refer to the music as divine I am being allegorical How close Schopenhauer comes to understand the realit is amazing but the negativity of Aristotle,e stops him he goes into pessimism as an ontological co diction as if it were god given! Sorry young man unless you are willing to prioritize ontology as experiential noumena always to be known through experience and deny the Kantian myth of not knowing noumena you operate under Aristotelian dogma the claims it’s Apriori prejudices as truthThe arragence if the west into a rejection of the study of the first person through s irnce is rejected when religion is exempted from scrutiny of due diligence and presented as a first person experience?Time to reject Aristotelian inquiry js ripe but due to the narrative set by the west eulogizing the Greeks this myth will continue in arts and letters in social sciences which operate on unquestioned premises . It serves the ruling classes to perpetuate the myth that their narrative is the truth that soundness questioning the premis is not important
@@arunjetli7909 that’s such a loaded response that you’re essentially just flexing by name dropping. It doesn’t disprove my suggesting an objective approach to their works, you are implying that I’m breaking bread with mainstream philosophical conceptions based on merely one comment - reveals more about you than it does about me.
@@TaxidermiedMessiah thsnks young messiah it would be better if you responded to the content rather than attacking me i said nothing about you
@@arunjetli7909 a) I’m going to step over your ad hominem accusations for the sake of respecting what you just proposed, regardless of whether or not I think you’re compensating for your emotional reactions with sophistry - b) your latter comment was loaded with way too many platitudes that would require hours to unpack, ex: when you cite Russell (a mathematician) who evaluated the bylaws associated with proposing 2+2=4 as an objective corollary to an ontology that outlines the dynamics of 1 being a singular object and 2 being a duplicate of the aforementioned compartmentalization, etc… I get that and concur with that. But then you jump to Nietzsche (a linguist) and outline another platitude that (pretentiously) contends his theory as an expansion to what you just said about Russell, are you proposing Wittgenstein’s formulation of alphanumerical delineation? Like I said, it just seems like name dropping. I’m not looking to meet some conclusion that is personally compromising to either you or me, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from when you propose that Aristotle should not maintain the status that he has…I mean, it’s coming off like you’re judging a cave painting in proportion to a baroque painting as if the caveman was exposed to the same faculty that a baroque painter would have at their disposal.
Aristotle as a methasisic is a biologist. Your methods are from the hard sciencies, when he spooks about human nature.
Wow this guy is handsome lol