Dr. Sadler, I came upon this video today, and I wanted to tell you that after seeing this in 2013, I went out and bought Action by Blondel, and I found it extraordinary. Blondel and Austin Farrer are the least known thinkers who have most shaped by theological thinking, and I hope one day to write something extensive on Blondel, when time allows. Anyway, I just thought today, about 10 years later, I should express my gratitude. Indeed, I owe you are lot.
I just finished reading Action (1893). I found it to be a amazing achievement in Philsophy. I found from reading this book so many different arguments that one could spend a whole semester on. Four years ago I didn't even know that philsophy was a discipline , four years later I just finished reading Action. It thanks to your videos Dr Sadler that I am now reading Blondel and numerous other thinkers ....
You're very welcome. I'm not sure that I'd say Blondel was the one thinker in that sense -- at the time, Pascal, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and Epictetus were also playing major roles for me.
What you have in mind is Hegel's version of the dialectic, in which, however, what has been surpassed is not left behind, but integrated (aufgehoben). That's not the only understanding of the dialectic out there -- and there's a lot more to dialectical thinking than just conflict and progress.
The short answer is that there was something lacking in their philosophies, and I found it in these Catholic and Protestant thinkers -- I will eventually do a video, or rather a set on those issues
Part 1: Fascinating. I like all your videos that I've watched so far, especially the Kierkegaard lectures. :) I'm still trying to understand the big question of how and why you converted to Christianity after being so deeply influenced by those great atheist existentialist philosophers like Sartre and especially Nietzche.
Well, I'd get your hands on Action (1893), which is available in English translation, and start looking at that. With Blondel it is very hard to give any sort of short answers!
I was at my library today looking for a book on Blondel and I saw your "Reason Fulfilled by Revelation". If I had known my system had it, I would have read it much earlier!
Old Colony Library Network. The reference librarian knew we had an electronic resource of it already. After reading it, I asked if he could get a hard copy and he put it on his list.
I'm not sure why you would say that. Blondel has an entire corpus of work, most of which has long been translated into German, and some of which has been translated into English (including the 4 articles of his in my book)
Well, it is in the broad dialectical Hegelian tradition, so to speak, as are Marx and Kierkegaard, two other quite different dialectical thinkers. They're just not "Hegelians"
Part 2: In your “Nietzhean Phase” video you mentioned that you after time saw the inadequacies of Nietzche's thought in regards to missing things in older Catholic thinkers. I'd love to hear more details about that and how you'd respond to his critique of Christianity in general as found in The Anti-Christ.
You mentioned that there is a ton of philosophical material out there that deserves to be translated into English. Im curious where one might go to find material that has yet to be translated??
Thank you for the answer, like I said I don't know philosophy to well. It is quite intersting that Freanch Hegel, was dialectic philosopher, but not in Hegelian dialectic tradition.
Well, after the Council -- not so much because of the Council, but because of the other massive sociological changes occurring around the same time -- quite a few Catholic figures end up in less prominence, including even Thomas Aquinas -- fewer people working on and through Aquinas these days than, say in 1940. Blondel doesn't disappear after the Council though -- he continues to be read in European circles, and is still a going concern in American Catholic thought well into the 70s and 80s.
Could you do a short introduction or half-hour series on Blondel's Action? I've read your IEP entry on Maurice Blondel and the 1930s french debates and found them very interesting. I'm reading Action (1893) right now and would really appreciate one of your videos on it. And regardless, thank you for your content!
Glad you enjoy the content. For the time being, my video production on thinkers/texts is pretty focused on what 'm teaching. As to a Half Hour series, it would need to be crowdfunded, like the Half Hour Hegel series is
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for the quick reply Dr. Sadler. I know you have many projects ongoing and I'm afraid a crowdfunding for Blondel would be difficult to realize. Are there any books you would particularly recommend that can help to grapple with his thought? Any help is much appreciated.
@@GregoryBSadler The way he subordinates postive science to action is a compelling antidote to today's despotism of mathematics. Thank you for the hint, Gregory, I would have never paid attention to Blondel were it not for you video.
@@GregoryBSadler The way he subordinates postive science to action is a compelling antidote to today's the despotism of mathematics. Thank you for the hint, Gregory, I would have never paid attention to Blondel were it not for you video.
@@GregoryBSadler I'm mainly working in the field of dramatic storytelling. In this area the purpose or goal of the hero orients the whole story. Often, in the better films, a real goal is hidden behind a false goal. Blondel is very helpful to sort out what's going on.
Hey Dr Sadler, I've recently purchased your book on 1930's French theological thought which I am really enjoying (especially the long introduction). I was wondering why you don't produce more videos on theology? It's clear your thought is informed by many theologians. I've heard you mention David Bentley Hart, which shows me you know about the contemporary theological landscape as well. I would wager to guess you would agree with me that one cannot get a good hold on the history of philosophy or ideas in general without recognizing the importance theology has had for virtually all classical philosophers. I'd love to see some videos about different understandings of God throughout different eras. Second, do you believe Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead? Do you think God interacted in nature as a secondary instance of efficient causality to resuscitate Jesus' body? If so, do you not think this categorically defines God as 'a being' capable of secondary efficient causality instead of 'Being itself' which is embodied by primary causality within formal, final, and ontological causation? I know Aquinas thinks miracles can be conceptualized without characterizing God's action as an instance of secondary causality, but I personally don't buy his explanation. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Thanks for the videos, as always.
Glad you enjoy the videos - and especially the book. As far as doing more videos on theology, it's really a matter of having the time to get to that work more than anything else. As I get more regular financial support on Patreon that frees me up to take on more projects. If you'd like to become a supporter, here's my page - www.patreon.com/sadler I really need to do some new videos about the Christian philosophy debates book as well sometime
Ah, now I see -- Yes, I suspect not a lot of Blondel has been translated into Polish. Too bad, because Wojtyla knew and referenced his work -- I suspect some of the other Lublin Thomists did as well.
So 8 years later I am still awaiting those videos on Blondel! :) Any update on whether this is something you might still pursue, are you still thinking along with Blondel at the moment? It is still very difficult to find english translations in print.
Ah apologies i did just find a comment from a year ago mentioning you were focused on other projects. Shame but understandable of course, you are already prolific. An inspirational work ethic.
Not sure why you'd say it's hard to find English translations in print. There's Action (1893), The Idealist Illusion and Other Essays, The Letter on Apologetic and History and Dogma, and my book, which has 4 Blondel pieces in it. All readily available, as far as I know
I would like to encourage your efforts to bring Blondel to UA-cam. Believe it or not, I am trying to read "Action" for lent this year. Not going as well as I thought it would. Only to page twenty-eight and feel I understand about one third of the whatever it is he is trying to express. I find his writing style unfocused and references unclear. Certainly would be challenging for you to explain these to the amateur philosopher. (A small hint in there.) My initial appetite for Blondel was prompted by a short book by Jean Lacroix, which I read with some relish and understanding many years ago. I purchased the Blanchette biography, but got bogged down around page 100 when I realized I needed to be better read in Leibniz and Spinoza. Any advice you could give prepping myself for your video lectures--or maybe help me get through lent--would be appreciated. John
Well, Blondel requires reading and rereading. I doubt you'll make it through all of Action (1893) over the course of Lent, though -- it's very dense work, which I suppose can appear "unfocused" until things start coming together. He's not called the "French Hegel" for nothing. Down the road, I might do for Action (1893) what I'm currently doing for Hegel's Phenomenology -- creating an entire video series going through it paragraph by paragraph. But, until the Hegel's done, or at least a good ways underway, I'm not taking on new projects of that sort
Gregory B. Sadler I think you are right about "Action." Sadly, I have been forced to shelve my lenten project. Perhaps after I have seen your lecture series on Blondel, I will return to it. Until then, I am watching your Hegel lectures. Thanks.
You could always switch to Saint Anselm's Proslogion. . . . that's a much shorter, and still very rich work by someone solidly within the Christian intellectual tradition
Gregory B. Sadler Had to laugh and had to reply! I spent some time with the Benedictines, and Saint Anselm was the monastic father of choice--that would be the choice of my theology instructor. He was a very thoroughgoing man leading me through Anselm's writings and prayers one line at a time carefully explaining the ontological argument and dragging me through complete disjunctions. He's now in Heaven where he has little need of medieval logic, but I still suffer a bit. I have never forgotten the opening chapter of the Proslogion: Up now, slight man....Enter the inner chamber of thy mind. Thanks for the tip all the same and prompting the memory of things past.
Interestingly, Anselm in his approach has much in common on a deep level with someone like Blondel -- the stress on thought itself as an activity in relation to being, rather than as something merely propositional for one. . . .
Well, to answer the question -- both, I suppose, but registered in different ways. I realized there was something lacking to Sartre and Nietzsche's philosophies as a whole -- and to others as well, e.g. Hegel's. Now in my own personal distance from God and disordered attitudes towards God, I'd say, yes, there is something lacking -- a privation of the good that ought to be there, in myself
Your advise got me to reading Blondel or mostly the excellent book of Blanchette. I'm totally fascinated by Blondels thought. I think it deals with the subject that's summarized by Wittgenstein in Tractatus 6.4312: Die zeitliche Unsterblichkeit der Seele des Menschen, das heißt also ihr ewiges Fortleben auch nach dem Tode, ist nicht nur auf keine Weise verbürgt, sondern vor allem leistet diese Annahme gar nicht das, was man immer mit ihr erreichen wollte. Wird denn dadurch ein Rätsel gelöst, dass ich ewig fortlebe? Ist denn dieses ewige Leben dann nicht ebenso rätselhaft wie das gegenwärtige? Die Lösung des Rätsels des Lebens in Raum und Zeit liegt außerhalb von Raum und Zeit. (Nicht Probleme der Naturwissenschaft sind ja zu lösen.)
@@GregoryBSadler Yes, Blanchette's 700 pages BLONDEL. I know it is not Blondel himself but it feels like a pretty thorough rendering of his thought, namely that philosophy it a way to delineate the unsayable. I do think that this is exactly the point the Tractatus is making. Afterwards, I shall read Henricis Hegel und Blondel. I wouldn't have noticed Blondel without our mention which is very much appreciated.
@@MartinThau There's no substitute for reading Blondel. And there's no way you can judge whether its' a "pretty thorough rendering of his thought" without actually reading Blondel
I have a question, but I must confess it may be only my lack of knowledge of philosophy. Dialectic seems to have tendency to thinking about past as something from we now, crudely speaking, grown up, and we should abandoned it, because is because is inadequate to present. But it is fundamental property of God that is unchangeable, because time is not His property, so abandoning understanding of Him from the past just don't make sense. How Blondel avoid such collision?
@@GregoryBSadler Cool! I am wondering if he has a forceful critique of modernity like Macintyre. I've only read "After Virtue" (and it's a little - actually a lot - over my head), but it seems that his apocalyptic vision of modernity is what leads him into the arms of the Church as a stable moral tradition. Does Blondell start with the crisis of modernity in a similar way or does he get to the Church by a different path?
I'm sorry, I don't speak its very well. I refer to the publications of Bondel in my country, which is a Poland. Here ,,Exigences philosophiques du christianisme'' is his only book I can found translated to polish language. And even its publisher call Blondel modernist.
Kind of going through a second Heidegger phase right now and the paths Blondel seems to be going down from your cursory overview here are areas that seem (imo) sort of weak or only lightly touched on in Heidegger. It’s hard to imagine starting another massive systematic phenomenonologist after Heidegger and my dabblings with Bergson, but Blondel is way up there. If you’ve got a minute, is there a shorter work by Blondel that could serve as a decent introduction? I can read French. EDIT: Also, so interesting Brehier was in the 1930’s debates! I really liked his book on Chrysippus.
"is there a shorter work by Blondel that could serve as a decent introduction"? There's plenty of shorter works, but they are usually focused on particular topics, so they can kinda be an introduction, but also not really
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for your response. hm I’m most interested in seeing how someone with such a nuanced metaphysical system brings it into ethics or real world applications, particularly interpersonal ones. Sorry if that’s overly vague. I got into Heidegger through “On the Essence of Truth” and your lectures on that, so I kind of anticipate starting on a narrow piece of Blondel’s system and slowly working my way in.
@@jeffsullivan4182 Well, There's the pieces I translated in my book. There's also those early pieces like the Letter on Apologetics, History and Dogma, or The Idealist Illusion. And there's a variety of pieces occasioned by Semaine Sociales stuff and controversies, including Patrie et Humanite.
It is something very strange in story of Blondel influences. One thing is that man equally important in his lifetime as Bergson, is forgotten is secular world, almost immediately after his death (he died in 1949, so just before 50's), because Fame isn't fateful Lady. But surviving still in Catholics circles and disappears almost totally, after Council which philosopher he is, just make no sens. All these words about Council and someone such important for it abandon? Something must go wrong.
Thank you for the answer. Yes, after the Council many great man were abandoned, other, in my opinion, were use and abuse. In my country in was even publish 1970 by extremely prominent author article ,,End of thomistic christianity''. Blondel isn't well to. Only published work which I find is ,,Exigences philosophiques du christianisme''.
Dr. Sadler, I came upon this video today, and I wanted to tell you that after seeing this in 2013, I went out and bought Action by Blondel, and I found it extraordinary. Blondel and Austin Farrer are the least known thinkers who have most shaped by theological thinking, and I hope one day to write something extensive on Blondel, when time allows. Anyway, I just thought today, about 10 years later, I should express my gratitude. Indeed, I owe you are lot.
I just finished reading Action (1893). I found it to be a amazing achievement in Philsophy.
I found from reading this book so many different arguments that one could spend a whole semester on.
Four years ago I didn't even know that philsophy was a discipline , four years later I just finished reading Action.
It thanks to your videos Dr Sadler that I am now reading Blondel and numerous other thinkers ....
Nice! And very cool that you worked through L'Action!
One of my personal talks, discussing why and how I ended up becoming a Blondel scholar
Glad to hear it -- it sounds as if some of what you took away was personal, reflection on the practice of philosophy as something a person does
You're very welcome. I'm not sure that I'd say Blondel was the one thinker in that sense -- at the time, Pascal, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and Epictetus were also playing major roles for me.
Please don't forget to do a Half Hour Blondel series eventually.
That would be a very interesting project
Where the heck do I find Maurice Blondel books in English?
Have you tried Amazon? Bookfinder? University libraries?
Yes, and that's just a bit of them. My wife and I arguably have too many books
What you have in mind is Hegel's version of the dialectic, in which, however, what has been surpassed is not left behind, but integrated (aufgehoben).
That's not the only understanding of the dialectic out there -- and there's a lot more to dialectical thinking than just conflict and progress.
The short answer is that there was something lacking in their philosophies, and I found it in these Catholic and Protestant thinkers -- I will eventually do a video, or rather a set on those issues
Hey have you yet done a video on why you converted to Christianity?
@@thebigcapitalism9826 You mean reconverted. And no. I've discussed it probably more times than I need to at a number of points
Part 1: Fascinating. I like all your videos that I've watched so far, especially the Kierkegaard lectures. :)
I'm still trying to understand the big question of how and why you converted to Christianity after being so deeply influenced by those great atheist existentialist philosophers like Sartre and especially Nietzche.
Would love to hear you do that Half Hour Blondel Series working through L'Action (1893).
PLEASE!
First, I need to finish Hegel. Then I'll think about what to do next
@@GregoryBSadler Did you ever get around to doing Blondel?
@@HarryYoung97 Anytine you want to see what’s in the channel - for any philosopher - you can use the search bar.
Well, I'd get your hands on Action (1893), which is available in English translation, and start looking at that. With Blondel it is very hard to give any sort of short answers!
I was at my library today looking for a book on Blondel and I saw your "Reason Fulfilled by Revelation". If I had known my system had it, I would have read it much earlier!
That's interesting to know -- what is your library system?
Old Colony Library Network. The reference librarian knew we had an electronic resource of it already. After reading it, I asked if he could get a hard copy and he put it on his list.
Interesting
- I didn't know it was available in electronic form
I'm not sure why you would say that. Blondel has an entire corpus of work, most of which has long been translated into German, and some of which has been translated into English (including the 4 articles of his in my book)
Well, it is in the broad dialectical Hegelian tradition, so to speak, as are Marx and Kierkegaard, two other quite different dialectical thinkers.
They're just not "Hegelians"
I look forward to your lecture series on Blondel.
I may be able to get that this year. . . if not, at least Action (1893) next year
Looking forward to it!
Part 2: In your “Nietzhean Phase” video you mentioned that you after time saw the inadequacies of Nietzche's thought in regards to missing things in older Catholic thinkers. I'd love to hear more details about that and how you'd respond to his critique of Christianity in general as found in The Anti-Christ.
You mentioned that there is a ton of philosophical material out there that deserves to be translated into English. Im curious where one might go to find material that has yet to be translated??
Thank you for the answer, like I said I don't know philosophy to well.
It is quite intersting that Freanch Hegel, was dialectic philosopher, but not in Hegelian dialectic tradition.
Splendid. Thank you!
You’re welcome!
Well, you're in good company -- nearly everyone has never heard of Blondel!
Well, after the Council -- not so much because of the Council, but because of the other massive sociological changes occurring around the same time -- quite a few Catholic figures end up in less prominence, including even Thomas Aquinas -- fewer people working on and through Aquinas these days than, say in 1940.
Blondel doesn't disappear after the Council though -- he continues to be read in European circles, and is still a going concern in American Catholic thought well into the 70s and 80s.
Well, that very specific talk might have to wait a bit. . . .
Could you do a short introduction or half-hour series on Blondel's Action? I've read your IEP entry on Maurice Blondel and the 1930s french debates and found them very interesting. I'm reading Action (1893) right now and would really appreciate one of your videos on it. And regardless, thank you for your content!
Glad you enjoy the content. For the time being, my video production on thinkers/texts is pretty focused on what 'm teaching. As to a Half Hour series, it would need to be crowdfunded, like the Half Hour Hegel series is
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for the quick reply Dr. Sadler. I know you have many projects ongoing and I'm afraid a crowdfunding for Blondel would be difficult to realize. Are there any books you would particularly recommend that can help to grapple with his thought? Any help is much appreciated.
I'm studying L' Action. It will take the best part of the year. The chapter on mathematics blows my mind.
It certainly is an excellent work
@@GregoryBSadler The way he subordinates postive science to action is a compelling antidote to today's despotism of mathematics. Thank you for the hint, Gregory, I would have never paid attention to Blondel were it not for you video.
@@GregoryBSadler The way he subordinates postive science to action is a compelling antidote to today's the despotism of mathematics. Thank you for the hint, Gregory, I would have never paid attention to Blondel were it not for you video.
@@MartinThau Well, he's definitely not well known these days, that's for certain!
@@GregoryBSadler I'm mainly working in the field of dramatic storytelling. In this area the purpose or goal of the hero orients the whole story. Often, in the better films, a real goal is hidden behind a false goal. Blondel is very helpful to sort out what's going on.
Hey Dr Sadler, I've recently purchased your book on 1930's French theological thought which I am really enjoying (especially the long introduction).
I was wondering why you don't produce more videos on theology? It's clear your thought is informed by many theologians. I've heard you mention David Bentley Hart, which shows me you know about the contemporary theological landscape as well. I would wager to guess you would agree with me that one cannot get a good hold on the history of philosophy or ideas in general without recognizing the importance theology has had for virtually all classical philosophers. I'd love to see some videos about different understandings of God throughout different eras.
Second, do you believe Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead? Do you think God interacted in nature as a secondary instance of efficient causality to resuscitate Jesus' body? If so, do you not think this categorically defines God as 'a being' capable of secondary efficient causality instead of 'Being itself' which is embodied by primary causality within formal, final, and ontological causation?
I know Aquinas thinks miracles can be conceptualized without characterizing God's action as an instance of secondary causality, but I personally don't buy his explanation. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Thanks for the videos, as always.
Glad you enjoy the videos - and especially the book. As far as doing more videos on theology, it's really a matter of having the time to get to that work more than anything else. As I get more regular financial support on Patreon that frees me up to take on more projects. If you'd like to become a supporter, here's my page - www.patreon.com/sadler
I really need to do some new videos about the Christian philosophy debates book as well sometime
Ah, now I see -- Yes, I suspect not a lot of Blondel has been translated into Polish. Too bad, because Wojtyla knew and referenced his work -- I suspect some of the other Lublin Thomists did as well.
Dr.Sadler, What do you think of Somerville's Total Commitment, Blondel's L'Action?
I wouldn't rely heavily upon it
So 8 years later I am still awaiting those videos on Blondel! :) Any update on whether this is something you might still pursue, are you still thinking along with Blondel at the moment? It is still very difficult to find english translations in print.
Ah apologies i did just find a comment from a year ago mentioning you were focused on other projects. Shame but understandable of course, you are already prolific. An inspirational work ethic.
Not sure why you'd say it's hard to find English translations in print. There's Action (1893), The Idealist Illusion and Other Essays, The Letter on Apologetic and History and Dogma, and my book, which has 4 Blondel pieces in it. All readily available, as far as I know
I would like to encourage your efforts to bring Blondel to UA-cam. Believe it or not, I am trying to read "Action" for lent this year. Not going as well as I thought it would. Only to page twenty-eight and feel I understand about one third of the whatever it is he is trying to express. I find his writing style unfocused and references unclear. Certainly would be challenging for you to explain these to the amateur philosopher. (A small hint in there.) My initial appetite for Blondel was prompted by a short book by Jean Lacroix, which I read with some relish and understanding many years ago. I purchased the Blanchette biography, but got bogged down around page 100 when I realized I needed to be better read in Leibniz and Spinoza. Any advice you could give prepping myself for your video lectures--or maybe help me get through lent--would be appreciated.
John
Well, Blondel requires reading and rereading. I doubt you'll make it through all of Action (1893) over the course of Lent, though -- it's very dense work, which I suppose can appear "unfocused" until things start coming together. He's not called the "French Hegel" for nothing.
Down the road, I might do for Action (1893) what I'm currently doing for Hegel's Phenomenology -- creating an entire video series going through it paragraph by paragraph. But, until the Hegel's done, or at least a good ways underway, I'm not taking on new projects of that sort
Gregory B. Sadler
I think you are right about "Action." Sadly, I have been forced to shelve my lenten project. Perhaps after I have seen your lecture series on Blondel, I will return to it. Until then, I am watching your Hegel lectures. Thanks.
You could always switch to Saint Anselm's Proslogion. . . . that's a much shorter, and still very rich work by someone solidly within the Christian intellectual tradition
Gregory B. Sadler
Had to laugh and had to reply! I spent some time with the Benedictines, and Saint Anselm was the monastic father of choice--that would be the choice of my theology instructor. He was a very thoroughgoing man leading me through Anselm's writings and prayers one line at a time carefully explaining the ontological argument and dragging me through complete disjunctions. He's now in Heaven where he has little need of medieval logic, but I still suffer a bit. I have never forgotten the opening chapter of the Proslogion: Up now, slight man....Enter the inner chamber of thy mind. Thanks for the tip all the same and prompting the memory of things past.
Interestingly, Anselm in his approach has much in common on a deep level with someone like Blondel -- the stress on thought itself as an activity in relation to being, rather than as something merely propositional for one. . . .
Well, to answer the question -- both, I suppose, but registered in different ways.
I realized there was something lacking to Sartre and Nietzsche's philosophies as a whole -- and to others as well, e.g. Hegel's.
Now in my own personal distance from God and disordered attitudes towards God, I'd say, yes, there is something lacking -- a privation of the good that ought to be there, in myself
thanx for all videos ...never heard of him ...
Blondel lead me to Leibniz, and now I think that what he has to say is condensed in the Monadology.
I guess you could consider it a "best hits"
Right on !
Your advise got me to reading Blondel or mostly the excellent book of Blanchette. I'm totally fascinated by Blondels thought. I think it deals with the subject that's summarized by Wittgenstein in Tractatus 6.4312: Die zeitliche Unsterblichkeit der Seele des Menschen, das heißt also ihr ewiges Fortleben auch nach dem Tode, ist nicht nur auf keine Weise verbürgt, sondern vor allem leistet diese Annahme gar nicht das, was man immer mit ihr erreichen wollte. Wird denn dadurch ein Rätsel gelöst, dass ich ewig fortlebe? Ist denn dieses ewige Leben dann nicht ebenso rätselhaft wie das gegenwärtige? Die Lösung des Rätsels des Lebens in Raum und Zeit liegt außerhalb von Raum und Zeit. (Nicht Probleme der Naturwissenschaft sind ja zu lösen.)
Are you talking about Blanchette's recent intellectual biography of Blondel? Because that's good, but it's not Blondel
@@GregoryBSadler Yes, Blanchette's 700 pages BLONDEL. I know it is not Blondel himself but it feels like a pretty thorough rendering of his thought, namely that philosophy it a way to delineate the unsayable. I do think that this is exactly the point the Tractatus is making. Afterwards, I shall read Henricis Hegel und Blondel. I wouldn't have noticed Blondel without our mention which is very much appreciated.
@@MartinThau There's no substitute for reading Blondel. And there's no way you can judge whether its' a "pretty thorough rendering of his thought" without actually reading Blondel
@@GregoryBSadler I found a lot of quotes of Blondel in Blanchette's book already. But I will read DIE TAT as well, don't worry.
@@MartinThau When you'll do, you'll probably move past wanting to tie him in with all this "unsayable" business. Good luck with your studies
I have a question, but I must confess it may be only my lack of knowledge of philosophy.
Dialectic seems to have tendency to thinking about past as something from we now, crudely speaking, grown up, and we should abandoned it, because is because is inadequate to present. But it is fundamental property of God that is unchangeable, because time is not His property, so abandoning understanding of Him from the past just don't make sense. How Blondel avoid such collision?
Ok I am dying to read this guy. How does his work relate to Alisdair Macintyre’s?
Depends on what you mean by “relate”. I can tell you that MacIntyre and I had a conversation about Blondel years back
@@GregoryBSadler Cool! I am wondering if he has a forceful critique of modernity like Macintyre. I've only read "After Virtue" (and it's a little - actually a lot - over my head), but it seems that his apocalyptic vision of modernity is what leads him into the arms of the Church as a stable moral tradition. Does Blondell start with the crisis of modernity in a similar way or does he get to the Church by a different path?
@@burtsbooks3495 You would be wrong about that reading of MacIntyre. So, keep reading
@@GregoryBSadler Thanks for your forthrightness - I will!
I'm sorry, I don't speak its very well.
I refer to the publications of Bondel in my country, which is a Poland. Here ,,Exigences philosophiques du christianisme'' is his only book I can found translated to polish language. And even its publisher call Blondel modernist.
Kind of going through a second Heidegger phase right now and the paths Blondel seems to be going down from your cursory overview here are areas that seem (imo) sort of weak or only lightly touched on in Heidegger.
It’s hard to imagine starting another massive systematic phenomenonologist after Heidegger and my dabblings with Bergson, but Blondel is way up there.
If you’ve got a minute, is there a shorter work by Blondel that could serve as a decent introduction? I can read French.
EDIT: Also, so interesting Brehier was in the 1930’s debates! I really liked his book on Chrysippus.
"is there a shorter work by Blondel that could serve as a decent introduction"?
There's plenty of shorter works, but they are usually focused on particular topics, so they can kinda be an introduction, but also not really
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for your response.
hm I’m most interested in seeing how someone with such a nuanced metaphysical system brings it into ethics or real world applications, particularly interpersonal ones. Sorry if that’s overly vague.
I got into Heidegger through “On the Essence of Truth” and your lectures on that, so I kind of anticipate starting on a narrow piece of Blondel’s system and slowly working my way in.
@@jeffsullivan4182 Well, There's the pieces I translated in my book. There's also those early pieces like the Letter on Apologetics, History and Dogma, or The Idealist Illusion. And there's a variety of pieces occasioned by Semaine Sociales stuff and controversies, including Patrie et Humanite.
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you so much professor! Will check them out.
It is something very strange in story of Blondel influences.
One thing is that man equally important in his lifetime as Bergson, is forgotten is secular world, almost immediately after his death (he died in 1949, so just before 50's), because Fame isn't fateful Lady. But surviving still in Catholics circles and disappears almost totally, after Council which philosopher he is, just make no sens.
All these words about Council and someone such important for it abandon?
Something must go wrong.
Thank you for the answer.
Yes, after the Council many great man were abandoned, other, in my opinion, were use and abuse.
In my country in was even publish 1970 by extremely prominent author article ,,End of thomistic christianity''.
Blondel isn't well to. Only published work which I find is ,,Exigences philosophiques du christianisme''.
888 views.