Fantastic point about a philosophy background leading one to become a more competent theologian. As a non-Catholic I see so much intellectual and linguistic sloppiness from various Evangelical pulpit ministries. Most Christians have a very difficult time constructing a theological whole from the biblical narrative.
This head to heart understanding by Edith Stein was best exemplified, for me, when I was trying to unpack St John of the Cross’ mysticism. I read Edith Stein’s “The Science of the Cross” and everything St John of the Cross said then resonated in my heart deeply. Still my favourite book. St Theresa Benedict of the Cross, pray for us🙏
I have been waiting for this interview for years! When I found out Dr. Rob moved to Franciscan I knew it was only a matter of time until these two sat down with a microphone. Praise God and thank you for a great episode! Sending this to a bunch of people now. 🙌
Great interview...thank you! ⚘️ Off topic.... Dr. Rob McNamara voice is amazing. It's a crossover of romance and the mafia! Very much reminds me of Lex Freedman. 😊
Fascinating episode. I actually recently came back to God after a few decades away from him. It was during a secular meditation session where I had some of the realizations about consciousness discussed here and everything just immediately fell into place. This was helpful, especially to point me in a direction for further reading and study. Thank you!
I want to learn from this man. One more reason I hope to attend Franciscan in the future, God willing. God bless you both. Thank you for sharing this discussion.
Ohhhh!!! this is where we get it so wrong talking to others... 1:05:38 we don't acknowledge the good they are seeking we are just telling them they are wrong which then, often, just shuts them down to any validity of our input.
Great stuff. But at 21:00 ff in discussing the Thomist critique Dr McNamara give a great phenomenological reply: subject and object are inter-defined. So the Scholastic and modern rationalist desire to affirm that physical things are essentially independent of mind is shown to be a key problem (pace Jordan Peterson). And it therefore undermines the advantages of Phenomenology for modern evangelisation which you highlight.
Does Dr. Robert McNamara offer online courses or have a book? I would LOVE to learn from this man. His thoughts on Personalism are so fascinating and he speaks with so much wisdom!
Now that you mention it it really does sound like a gentler northwestern NoDak accent. Speaking of, seeing a fellow North Dakotan online feels finding a needle in a haystack lol
Any thoughts on having Rob on the Hallow app? Not trying to sound weird but his voice would excel on the meditation or sleeping section... Does anyone else think this?
I watched parts of the discussion and tried to find the phenomenology but it seemed more like a kind of re-focusing on personal feelings and perspectives instead of actual phenomenological methodology.
I think we should hear out arguments against phenomenology like Don Pietro who authored 'The family under attack' and a good one at that. We have enough of TOB advocates that we have no clue the kind of disaster it has brought upon us.
I don’t understand what you mean so you’re probably right that we need more discussion on why TOB would be perceived as a bad thing. I have no clue what you might be referring to
@@ryancampbell3020 I wasn't asking for a discussion on why one would perceive as a bad thing rather why it is controversial and a novelty. Also more importantly, has this been the reason today's marriages are running the risk like never before?
@@punleashed8891 theology of the body is in line with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, it's just that many adherents (like Christopher West) introduce novelties
That's totally out of line. From what I've read of theology of the Body it seems like it's far more the answer to the problems of the modern view of sexuality rather than its cause. You'll recall that theology of the body didn't even come out until the 70s, well past the sexual revolution, and the excesses of sexual vice thrust upon the world because of contraception in earnest began more in the 20's and 30's of the 20th century.
@@MrJiffitz Lol...Well thanks Mr.Jiffitz, glad I'm not alone. I've never picked up a cup, looked at it, then tugged at my forelocks in existential angst about the meaning of it all.
Many Neo-Thomists were interested in Phenomenological Thomism e.g. St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. So it's not as simple as Thomism vs other philosophies. The founder of Phenomenology Edmund Husserl ended up leading many of his students to convert to Catholicism through phenomenology despite he himself not being catholic. At the same time the likes of Heidegger and Sartre, very famous atheists, were also heavily influenced by Phenomenology therefore not making it an obvious cure all philosophy so to speak.
They addressed this. Phenomenology and it's approach is good, but it needs to be balanced by the Thomistic, objective approach. It's a both/and, not opposed to each other
I mean absolutely no disrespect here, and acknowledge that placing the person at the center of your consideration worked wonders for men like Pope St. John Paul II, but I have a big problem with relating being to personhood rather than the other way around. It seems to me that, because being is more foundational than personhood, we ought to approach it the other way around. If we don't get our minds around "being", then any discussion of personhood is pointless.
Can you elaborate? What scenario comes to mind specifically? Because when it comes to children I would think that placing the child at the centre of your consideration is paramount especially when you in a position to teach
@Shana Hendricks I meant this more in the sense of overall philosophical framework. I feel like my personhood is grounded in my being, so it is more appropriate to start with being and then explore personhood, rather than what appears to be going the other way around.
That’s why Heidegger described our being as dasein (being there) and it’s mode of being is sorge (care). Such that phenomenology doesn’t become the new idealism, but it rather becomes an investigation of being and it’s relation to the being who question is being and dies. And if we interpret being as possibility, then death is the ultimate opening of the possible. Thus the question of death and being become bound up together. Placing the person at the center of being (dasein). A less jargoned response would be that of the logos. In Christianity the logos is the creator, the animating principle, and is a person. I suppose you must ask which takes priority. Being or logos? Is that the right question? Philosophy is an endless pit, and we are it’s shovel.
Phenomenology only teaches that you begin your study of reality with the immediate phenomena of sense experience; it does not say to end with that or be satisfied with that. It says to think deeply about things and recognize that is a real distinction between real and apparent goods.
@@musicarroll Yes, you can dress a pig up as much as you want, but you're missing the point I was trying to get across that it is still very subjective & many systems have come and gone based upon that, stoicism is one of them. Without God's revelation we cannot properly reason up using natural theology unlike what Catholicism believes, not to mention that it would almost suggest pelaganism.
@ThruTheUnknown If you judge every belief system by the bad use people have made of it through faulty interpretation, the same can be done regarding faulty interpretations of God's revelation. Think Cotton Mather and his supposedly "scriptural" justifications of slavery and witch hunting. You have to make use of some amount of reason to even properly understand revelation. The Bible itself exhorts us to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is within us, not because the truths of revelation can be proven by reason alone, but rather because objections to the contents of faith can be answered in reasonable fashion by proper use of both natural reason and Divine Revelation. It's not either/or; it is both/and.
@@musicarroll I'm not judging by bad believers (some of the stoics might have been very virtuous) once you are misunderstanding my argument. My argument is that without God's revelation due to man's fallibility & fallen nature it sets itself up as being ambiguous and inevitably prone to error, this is the problem with Catholic natural theology & it borders on being heretical as it reeks of pelaganism (I'm a bit miffed as to why the two Catholic scholars on this show didn't mention that, but in a way I also understand that's typical of Catholic reasoning).
@@musicarroll And while you believe it's not either/or (I'm glad you're not a philosopher of natural theology) that's not how this type of 'theology' developed. Natural theology presupposes that one can reason up to the triuine God through reason alone.
🚨 Get exclusive content by supporting me on Locals: mattfradd.locals.com/support
Dr. Rob McNamara's voice should be on Hallow sleep stories. What a lovely man
Matt I think it is the right time to talk about the philosophy of Dietrich Von Hildebrand.
Ah I love this guy. Rob - my fave MFradd guest. Thank you for interviewing this holy man of God with the heart of St Joseph. Such a blessing
Fantastic point about a philosophy background leading one to become a more competent theologian. As a non-Catholic I see so much intellectual and linguistic sloppiness from various Evangelical pulpit ministries. Most Christians have a very difficult time constructing a theological whole from the biblical narrative.
Finally after listening to this episode i can define my own personal philosophy! I am a phenomenonlogical,palamitic, Thomistic scotist. 😇
The thomistic scotist screams for deeper explanation
This head to heart understanding by Edith Stein was best exemplified, for me, when I was trying to unpack St John of the Cross’ mysticism. I read Edith Stein’s “The Science of the Cross” and everything St John of the Cross said then resonated in my heart deeply. Still my favourite book. St Theresa Benedict of the Cross, pray for us🙏
I'm rewatching this. It's very good, but there's so many big words lol. But I'm learning! Exercising my brain🤸
I have been waiting for this interview for years! When I found out Dr. Rob moved to Franciscan I knew it was only a matter of time until these two sat down with a microphone. Praise God and thank you for a great episode! Sending this to a bunch of people now. 🙌
The episode I've been waiting for. Very interested in St Theresa Benedicta of the Cross and her philosophy. I can't wait!
Great interview...thank you! ⚘️
Off topic....
Dr. Rob McNamara voice is amazing.
It's a crossover of romance and the mafia!
Very much reminds me of Lex Freedman. 😊
😄 agree!
I love his ASMR sleep stories 😆 😴
Fascinating episode. I actually recently came back to God after a few decades away from him. It was during a secular meditation session where I had some of the realizations about consciousness discussed here and everything just immediately fell into place. This was helpful, especially to point me in a direction for further reading and study. Thank you!
An important discussion. Thank you for having it!
I want to learn from this man. One more reason I hope to attend Franciscan in the future, God willing. God bless you both. Thank you for sharing this discussion.
So cool to see a fellow McNamara on Pints with Aquinas!!!! Hello from your distant cousins in Minnesota!!!!
Writing a book on this! Can't wait to watch!
Ohhhh!!! this is where we get it so wrong talking to others... 1:05:38 we don't acknowledge the good they are seeking we are just telling them they are wrong which then, often, just shuts them down to any validity of our input.
I love the train in the background. I grew up a mile at most from a train track. It takes me back to my childhood.
Matt, you need to interview Bas van Fraassen, philosopher of science. Also a convert to Catholicism.
Brilliant interview Matt! ❤
Great stuff. But at 21:00 ff in discussing the Thomist critique Dr McNamara give a great phenomenological reply: subject and object are inter-defined.
So the Scholastic and modern rationalist desire to affirm that physical things are essentially independent of mind is shown to be a key problem (pace Jordan Peterson). And it therefore undermines the advantages of Phenomenology for modern evangelisation which you highlight.
I lived in Dublin for a year. Miss it! Now I live in another rainy place with no sunshine 😅
Great conversation, I learned a lot. Thank you gentlemen!
I miss Dr. McNamara, I had his class in the Kartausa !
Does Dr. Robert McNamara offer online courses or have a book? I would LOVE to learn from this man. His thoughts on Personalism are so fascinating and he speaks with so much wisdom!
Oh I LOVED this so much❤
Great to see Padraig Harrington on the podcast.
Loved this!
Yo Thrsday!! I live in Indy! Have my whole life. You and Fr Lampert letting people know there’s more than corn in Indiana
Amazing interview
Thanks!
Wausau is Steubenville North.
Great stuff!
I didn’t notice his accent until you pointed it out. 😅😅. Lots of older people talk the same way where i live in North Dakota.
Now that you mention it it really does sound like a gentler northwestern NoDak accent. Speaking of, seeing a fellow North Dakotan online feels finding a needle in a haystack lol
Dr. McNamara should do sleep stories on Hallow.
I hope Matt brings Dr. Jim Madden or Dr. Jordan Wood some day to the show
Any thoughts on having Rob on the Hallow app? Not trying to sound weird but his voice would excel on the meditation or sleeping section... Does anyone else think this?
This guys must be a professional whisperer
I watched parts of the discussion and tried to find the phenomenology but it seemed more like a kind of re-focusing on personal feelings and perspectives instead of actual phenomenological methodology.
Rob McNamara… Not to be confused with the former secretary or defense haha.
I hope we get a clip of the great human sexuality section.
I think we should hear out arguments against phenomenology like Don Pietro who authored 'The family under attack' and a good one at that. We have enough of TOB advocates that we have no clue the kind of disaster it has brought upon us.
I don’t understand what you mean so you’re probably right that we need more discussion on why TOB would be perceived as a bad thing. I have no clue what you might be referring to
@@ryancampbell3020 I wasn't asking for a discussion on why one would perceive as a bad thing rather why it is controversial and a novelty. Also more importantly, has this been the reason today's marriages are running the risk like never before?
@@punleashed8891 theology of the body is in line with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, it's just that many adherents (like Christopher West) introduce novelties
TOB has contributed to bridging the gap between subjective and objective stances, not to making the gap wider.
That's totally out of line. From what I've read of theology of the Body it seems like it's far more the answer to the problems of the modern view of sexuality rather than its cause. You'll recall that theology of the body didn't even come out until the 70s, well past the sexual revolution, and the excesses of sexual vice thrust upon the world because of contraception in earnest began more in the 20's and 30's of the 20th century.
Well, it's official. I'm stupid. Shame too...for a while there I actually kept up.
It's good to stretch
@@DavidMatias79 Stretched so much it broke.
Ha! I felt exactly the same! 😄😄
@@MrJiffitz Lol...Well thanks Mr.Jiffitz, glad I'm not alone. I've never picked up a cup, looked at it, then tugged at my forelocks in existential angst about the meaning of it all.
🍓 🍓 🍓 🍓
How can we make Ad Orientem come back to the USA in the Norvus Ordo? With Bishops denying priests to do so.
Minute 1:05: "False good". No,no,no. The correct phrase is "apparent good" or "perceived good." The good is always true, never false.
This is what's up. Were Pope JPII and Pope Benedict XVI phenomenologists? Thomism is way better, no ?
Many Neo-Thomists were interested in Phenomenological Thomism e.g. St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. So it's not as simple as Thomism vs other philosophies. The founder of Phenomenology Edmund Husserl ended up leading many of his students to convert to Catholicism through phenomenology despite he himself not being catholic. At the same time the likes of Heidegger and Sartre, very famous atheists, were also heavily influenced by Phenomenology therefore not making it an obvious cure all philosophy so to speak.
They addressed this. Phenomenology and it's approach is good, but it needs to be balanced by the Thomistic, objective approach. It's a both/and, not opposed to each other
Most philosophies have something real to offer. They get into trouble when they try to make partial truths into the whole truth.
@@kingofmaglos3 Heidegger probably wasn’t an atheist. Started off Catholic, became Protestant with his wife and was buried by the Catholic Church.
I mean absolutely no disrespect here, and acknowledge that placing the person at the center of your consideration worked wonders for men like Pope St. John Paul II, but I have a big problem with relating being to personhood rather than the other way around. It seems to me that, because being is more foundational than personhood, we ought to approach it the other way around. If we don't get our minds around "being", then any discussion of personhood is pointless.
Can you elaborate? What scenario comes to mind specifically? Because when it comes to children I would think that placing the child at the centre of your consideration is paramount especially when you in a position to teach
@Shana Hendricks I meant this more in the sense of overall philosophical framework. I feel like my personhood is grounded in my being, so it is more appropriate to start with being and then explore personhood, rather than what appears to be going the other way around.
That’s why Heidegger described our being as dasein (being there) and it’s mode of being is sorge (care). Such that phenomenology doesn’t become the new idealism, but it rather becomes an investigation of being and it’s relation to the being who question is being and dies. And if we interpret being as possibility, then death is the ultimate opening of the possible. Thus the question of death and being become bound up together. Placing the person at the center of being (dasein).
A less jargoned response would be that of the logos. In Christianity the logos is the creator, the animating principle, and is a person. I suppose you must ask which takes priority. Being or logos? Is that the right question? Philosophy is an endless pit, and we are it’s shovel.
Is phenomenology really true? For instance I know many men that would love to be treated as merely a sexual object of gratification.
Phenomenology only teaches that you begin your study of reality with the immediate phenomena of sense experience; it does not say to end with that or be satisfied with that. It says to think deeply about things and recognize that is a real distinction between real and apparent goods.
@@musicarroll
Yes, you can dress a pig up as much as you want, but you're missing the point I was trying to get across that it is still very subjective & many systems have come and gone based upon that, stoicism is one of them. Without God's revelation we cannot properly reason up using natural theology unlike what Catholicism believes, not to mention that it would almost suggest pelaganism.
@ThruTheUnknown If you judge every belief system by the bad use people have made of it through faulty interpretation, the same can be done regarding faulty interpretations of God's revelation. Think Cotton Mather and his supposedly "scriptural" justifications of slavery and witch hunting. You have to make use of some amount of reason to even properly understand revelation. The Bible itself exhorts us to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is within us, not because the truths of revelation can be proven by reason alone, but rather because objections to the contents of faith can be answered in reasonable fashion by proper use of both natural reason and Divine Revelation. It's not either/or; it is both/and.
@@musicarroll
I'm not judging by bad believers (some of the stoics might have been very virtuous) once you are misunderstanding my argument. My argument is that without God's revelation due to man's fallibility & fallen nature it sets itself up as being ambiguous and inevitably prone to error, this is the problem with Catholic natural theology & it borders on being heretical as it reeks of pelaganism (I'm a bit miffed as to why the two Catholic scholars on this show didn't mention that, but in a way I also understand that's typical of Catholic reasoning).
@@musicarroll
And while you believe it's not either/or (I'm glad you're not a philosopher of natural theology) that's not how this type of 'theology' developed. Natural theology presupposes that one can reason up to the triuine God through reason alone.
Is Thursday single and would he like to meet my daughter?
*edith stein fan girl squee*