Two things are almost criminal about this content. 1. That we on UA-cam get this level of education for free 2. That more people don’t know about this channel and content. Thank you Mr. Gore, thank you
A Police officer pulls over a priest. "Father have you been drinking tonight?" "Of course not! i've been drinking the blood of Christ!" The police officer, surprisingly knowledgeable in theology replies "Ah yes but the accidents remain.
The truly sublime teacher lives so deeply inside the material being taught, that from his mouth the IDEAS appear to take on wings, enter the MIND of the listener, and actually transport the listener to the realm where the Ideas in Truth ... exist.
I feel truly amazed and mesmerised with my experience of watching your video. There wasn’t a single point of time when I felt that I am not a part of this class. I laughed every time you cracked a joke and felt the same excitement as the students would have felt there. Especially when you said we are done for the day, even I made the same noise here, like the way your students did in the class. The way you teach shows your love for philosophy, and today we need people who wants to love it more than mere studying. I wish I could attend your sessions physically but thank you for this video. I would request you to please share more sessions of yours. Really appreciate the exceptional work that you are doing. Love and respect from India. 🙏🏻
It should be noted that Mr. Gore's duly noted fine teachings...having good QUALITY...become more efficient when placed on UA-cam where the QUANTITY of views CHANGES or increases due to it's shareable 'LOCATION'. Mr. Gore's effective or 'actual' classroom size increases over TIME due to UA-cam's dissemination format (for which we are thankful) but shouldn't we move to apply the ideal concept of 'Mr. Gore's Philosophy class' to our entire educational system as well? In other words, shouldn't we compile the works of our best math teachers (like Jaime Escalante) or civics teachers (like Ben Stein) or music teachers (like Marvin Hamlisch) or just notable teachers (like John Taylor Gatto) and videotape their teaching moments for posterity as well as for profit? Shouldn't every college offer the very finest teachers ONLINE for the poor to achieve a college level education. Shouldn't colleges profit mainly in this way? Shouldn't colleges be focused primarily on testing, hands on internships and reaching the widest possible audience for the highest quality teachers? Isn't this what the POTENTIAL of the internet was designed for? Or does the ACTUALITY of making an old school profit off of brick n' mortar colleges supersede actual education? To Gore...or not to Gore? That is the question.
I am using this lecture for me to help me explain Metaphysics to my 15 year old son who is taking a Great Books course. Phew, our heads are spinning. I am so glad to have found this lecture! Thank you Mr. Gore.
Rebecca, I find myself wondering how your son is doing today. I'm 68 years old and began studying through the "Online Great Books" program 2 1/2 years ago. If I had life to live over again, I would've started decades earlier.
Very critical,radical exploration on Aristotle philosophy comparing simultaneously with Plato and other evidence and proof in order to understand is inspired . Thank you sir and I am always ruminate your lecture while reading Aristotle.
I'm watching this in 2021 so that I can have more insight into Aristotelian Metaphysics for my essay, and just like his teachings, your lecture is still truly relevant and useful. Thank you, Professor!
I really enjoyed this class. I believe that understanding Aristotle is the key to any good education . We could not license all the current moral and social ills of our society if we truly understood Aristotle.
Thank you so much for this lessons. I found it amazing how the human thought has evolved through the track of time. Excellent classes. Very much appreciated.
Somewhere around minute 26 he was asked "what is in the middle?" What is both form and matter? He didn't offer a sufficient answer. The student was correct. We, people, are definitely both form and matter. Our soul is the form (substance) and our bodies are the matter (accidents).
This is a fantastic lecture. I am currently reading Frederick Copelston`s history of philosophy and I found this very helpful to assist in understanding his discussion of Aristotle`s Metaphysics. Any student would be blessed to have you as a professor. I look forward to watching your other videos, particularly the one on the Neo-Platonists!
A little before 25:00, when the lecturer speaks of "perfect things way out in outer space", he's referring to transcendentals or what Plato referred to as forms.
I've been enjoying these talks on Philosophy. They're very interesting. Admittedly they're difficult to understand, but I can always go back over them. Good job Mr. Gore.
Wish I had this class! Wow, what a fun and informative lecture! I love the interaction with the students as well. Really keeps people engaged and follows a very Aristotelian way of presentation to the public. :) Great job.
It’s such an exciting feeling to give an answer that the professor doesn’t know what to do with the way Nichole did. It doesn’t mean you’re correct but it means you’re thinking and making the professor think too
I really enjoyed the lecture thank you. I had a deep thought about the perfect balance of actuality and potentiality, plants are my answer. Constantly changing but never changed.
Im just a bit confused on the “formal cause”. I was wondering if you or someone here could expand on how the formal and “exemplary cause” work and how they fit together or how they don’t? Thanks for your lectures; I’m literally taking notes and I’m not in study!
I have two questions, if that's alright. 1. Must all four causes act together to effect any/all of the four changes? In the case of the decaying apple, for example, I take it the apple undergoes the fourth change--generation/corruption. I see the material cause--the apple. I see the efficient cause--bacteria and oxidation (although I doubt Aristotle saw those). I would appreciate help to see the formal and final causes. 2. Once you have deformed the chair with your sledgehammer to the point where the chair is no longer suitably called a chair, and you have ceased your work on the chair and it remains untouched again, does the deformed chair now take on a new "actuality" and exist as "perfection" of this new "actuality". Or is it forever "imperfect" even though "dynamis" has ceased? Thanks for you amazing lessons!
5:00 - I think the reason why “dynamis” pronounces like “dunamis” is because the Greek letter upsilon: υ, is the equivalence of both the English letters u AND y. 🤓
Hi, thank you for this video, it is amazing. I don't understand something, the form/matter relationship ("more form" vs "more matter") is just dependant of how "stable" is the object? Does the apple have more "matter" than the gold in so far the gold have more "form"? I don't know if I'm able to explain myself. Do we know the ratio of form/matter of something when we compare the thing to other things?
The "6th sense" referred to sounds like a samādhi- a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the observing object. In my opinion another sense we have is of emotions, of our own and of others. I can feel non physical emotions without physically touching, hearing, seeing, smelling, or tasting them.
Its 5:30 a.m this just blew my mind with substance and accidents. When he gave the example of the marker and then mentioned atoms and said they only way we can see them is threw a microscope. Just one giant flow everything flows in and out.
Concerning the question you answered at ~ 16:00 or so about whether or not there is change at the 'atomic' level in trans-substantiation, wouldn't the answer be yes? Between the physical body of Christ and the bread there are obvious physical differences, which are accidents, while the substance is understood not to vary.
thank you so much for that. you know i am also pursuing my philosophical studies and i am now looking at metaphysics as my measure course for my master degree.
Hi, very helpful video, thank you. A question though: how can "nothing" be pure potentiality? "Nothing" has no potentiality by definition, let alone pure potentiality. Nothingness is a lack or an absence, and a lack can't have any kind of potential. Doesn't pure potentiality refer to a kind of "prima materia"?
Is it accurate to say that the essence of the marker (in Aristotle's understanding), is that which the marker is when no one is experiencing it? The essence is that which accounts for why the marker is still around when you leave the room and come back to it?
Good introductory lecture. One thing, though: I fail to see how atomic theory at all affects the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even a cursory understanding of Thomas/Trent would show why this is wrong. So... I'm not sure what you mean by "the Catholic Church has been pressed on this" as if we're sitting around panicked over atomic theory... :P
The preeminent goal of philosophy should be that of encompassing a maximum of epistemological concepts through logical deduction with a minimum of hypotheses or axioms. That is, to take all of the philosophical isms out there and create the understanding of them all by the usage of one hypothesis or axiom, don’t you think?
But this is really just making ism's out of ism's. And this is essentially what philosophy began doing. What was most primally know to us is the physical world, so early Presocratics tried to find the underlying archae behind everything. (Today we might elect to call the proton this, for material things). The problem is that not everything admits of the same being. There is world which we know by the senses, but there are other objects that we know because they are intelligible. One such example would be math, hence the Pythagorean's principle. Another 'rationalist' move was to say that all things do belong to a single, static Being, as the Eleatic school did. It was with Plato and Aristotle that the ball really got rolling with the principles that can be said of nature and beyond. To make a long story short, how can we know that some one principle can lend an explanation to the many things that are, when those many things may not themselves admit the same nature?
+Bradley Moyer If these are his Sunday School classes, imagine if he were teaching something really in depth. I've been in a lot of Sunday School and it made me so bored because the teacher never actually taught anything and used it as a platform to start preaching. This guy is not only interesting, but funny as well. I can see that he does spend a lot of time researching subject material.
That would reflect more of a post-Kantian perspective. For Aristotle, form is quite objective. It is part of the 'substance' of the universe, and does not depend in the human mind for its reality.
Mr. Gore please allow me to congratulate you for such an amazing class. You and your students are simply amazing. When I watch your videos I always feel like I'm actually there, present in the physical classroom and I think that's wonderful. I'm not completely sure but it seems to me that you are Catholic given the reason that I have seen you praying in other videos. I'm saying this because if you're Catholic I would like you to advise me in something specific. I would like to know if you would recommend a Catholic person the subject of alchemy. I've personally noticed that alchemy may be a great subject and tool to better understand the world of immaterial substances and perhaps even to understand the world of spirits. Do you personally have anything to say about alchemy? Is that something that the Catholic Church would have a problem with? I would like to get involved in alchemy but I'm afraid that it may be too esoteric or dark for a Catholic young man like me. Thanks a lot for your service!
Accidents are the qualities we perceive which have nothing to do with the essence of the substance. For instance, a man is the substance, that man being white or brown is the accident.
It should be noted that Mr. Gore's duly noted fine teachings...having good QUALITY...become more efficient when placed on UA-cam where the QUANTITY of views CHANGES or increases due to it's shareable 'LOCATION'. Mr. Gore's effective or 'actual' classroom size increases over TIME due to UA-cam's dissemination format (for which we are thankful) but shouldn't we move to apply the ideal concept of 'Mr. Gore's Philosophy class' to our entire educational system as well? In other words, shouldn't we compile the works of our best math teachers (like Jaime Escalante) or civics teachers (like Ben Stein) or music teachers (like Marvin Hamlisch) or just notable teachers (like John Taylor Gatto) and videotape their teaching moments for posterity as well as for profit? Shouldn't every college offer the very finest teachers ONLINE for the poor to achieve a college level education? Shouldn't colleges profit mainly in this way? Shouldn't the best presenters of entertaining concepts (Hollywood) be equally focused on educational concepts as well? Shouldn't colleges be focused primarily on testing, hands on internships and reaching the widest possible audience for the highest quality teachers? Isn't this what the POTENTIAL of the internet was designed for? Or does the ACTUALITY of making an old school profit off of brick n' mortar colleges supersede actual education? To Gore...or not to Gore? That is the question.
I think it should be noted that this lecture is visibly influenced by thomism (like linking formal cause with actuality and material cause with potentiality).
Hello Sir! could you tell me about metaphysic which come from Greek word meta and physika or phusika or physikon?which one is right?physika or phusika or physikon?
Aristotle's original treatment of metaphysics is in his book, 'The Metaphysics,' which is readily available (and not overly easy reading). You can find a decent translation in the Penguin series:www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Penguin-Classics-Aristotle/dp/0140446192
It should be mentioned though that the Metaphysics may not have been intended as a compilation. It could just be different sets of notes that are thrown together, though it sorta reads like a single work. And the Physics is certainly relevant and suggested reading prior to the Metaphysics.
so Aristotle was wrong then? Becuase in mystical meditation, thats excatly what happens, you experience the essense of the metaphysical spiritual experience.
An inauspicious start. The speaker just lists a bunch of words grouped into two sets with very minimal explanation of how they're related to one another or how they contribute to the head word or concept each one falls under (or, in the case of "entelechy", even of what it means). Hmm. Worth listening on? [PS. It occurs to me that, in general, the more perfomartive a speaker is, the less they have to say of real substantial ellucidation and analysis.]
@@anoj06 I had completely forgotten about this. He's teaching to high school kids? I hadn't realized. It doesn't say that in the description. In any case, it's disrespecful and not very helpful to high school kids to assume they're stupid or simple-minded.
We cannot know the essence of a thing, but have an acquaintance with objects in the world through sensory perception. [The God of Abraham, immaterial and sensorially imperceptible, but on Sunday: "allow me to introduce you to the essence of God."] A certain partitioning of the brain is essential to the theist given to pagan philosophy, or at least to the marrying of Aristotelian epistemology and reformed [Christian] epistemology. Fascinating; but the wedding is not necessarily one that is being undertaken in this video, so given this charity please spare me the offense.
Wasn't Aristotle simply trying to investigate physics and chemistry, without knowing what we know now, instead of developing metaphysics, which seems to me totally outdated today, useless and probably incoherent?
@@GaudioWind In Aristotelian terms the initial cause, or the qua Being is beyond sensationalist sciences, and is metaphysical. He defined theology as the study of this cause.
@@hanansheikh5016 He didn't even know what physical reality means, so he was even behind us. Therefore he couldn't know what could be beyond physical reality. Let me ask you a question. Is an electric field, for example, something physical or not?
Two things are almost criminal about this content.
1. That we on UA-cam get this level of education for free
2. That more people don’t know about this channel and content.
Thank you Mr. Gore, thank you
i second that
A Police officer pulls over a priest. "Father have you been drinking tonight?" "Of course not! i've been drinking the blood of Christ!" The police officer, surprisingly knowledgeable in theology replies "Ah yes but the accidents remain.
I didn't get it
good one !
a tip: watch series at Flixzone. I've been using them for watching all kinds of movies lately.
@Damien Dalton yea, have been watching on flixzone} for months myself :)
@Brian Brady, I really wish more people would talk the way you did, very creative :)
sir , you have the true ''spirit of a teacher '' . You are the rarest of the rare
+prashant kumar parmanu You are very kind, my friend. Thank you!
The truly sublime teacher lives so deeply inside the material being taught, that from his mouth the IDEAS appear to take on wings, enter the MIND of the listener, and actually transport the listener to the realm where the Ideas in Truth ... exist.
Agreed
?
My God Mr. Gore! I don't think I've ever had so much fun listening to a lecture! That forty plus minutes felt like ten minutes. You are a treasure!
Thank you!
Mr. Bruce i am deeply grateful for all of your videos, this is how philosophy should be taught. Thank you so much!!
Thanks for this Mr. Gore. I’m also a teacher and I’m using this material to teach my students. Thank you for the knowledge
I feel truly amazed and mesmerised with my experience of watching your video. There wasn’t a single point of time when I felt that I am not a part of this class. I laughed every time you cracked a joke and felt the same excitement as the students would have felt there. Especially when you said we are done for the day, even I made the same noise here, like the way your students did in the class. The way you teach shows your love for philosophy, and today we need people who wants to love it more than mere studying. I wish I could attend your sessions physically but thank you for this video. I would request you to please share more sessions of yours. Really appreciate the exceptional work that you are doing. Love and respect from India. 🙏🏻
I am deeply grateful for your kind and encouraging comments!
It should be noted that Mr. Gore's duly noted fine teachings...having good QUALITY...become more efficient when placed on UA-cam where the QUANTITY of views CHANGES or increases due to it's shareable 'LOCATION'.
Mr. Gore's effective or 'actual' classroom size increases over TIME due to UA-cam's dissemination format (for which we are thankful) but shouldn't we move to apply the ideal concept of 'Mr. Gore's Philosophy class' to our entire educational system as well?
In other words, shouldn't we compile the works of our best math teachers (like Jaime Escalante) or civics teachers (like Ben Stein) or music teachers (like Marvin Hamlisch) or just notable teachers (like John Taylor Gatto) and videotape their teaching moments for posterity as well as for profit?
Shouldn't every college offer the very finest teachers ONLINE for the poor to achieve a college level education.
Shouldn't colleges profit mainly in this way?
Shouldn't colleges be focused primarily on testing, hands on internships and reaching the widest possible audience for the highest quality teachers?
Isn't this what the POTENTIAL of the internet was designed for?
Or does the ACTUALITY of making an old school profit off of brick n' mortar colleges supersede actual education?
To Gore...or not to Gore?
That is the question.
I am using this lecture for me to help me explain Metaphysics to my 15 year old son who is taking a Great Books course. Phew, our heads are spinning. I am so glad to have found this lecture! Thank you Mr. Gore.
+Rebecca L Thank you very much!
Rebecca, I find myself wondering how your son is doing today. I'm 68 years old and began studying through the "Online Great Books" program 2 1/2 years ago. If I had life to live over again, I would've started decades earlier.
Very critical,radical exploration on Aristotle philosophy comparing simultaneously with Plato and other evidence and proof in order to understand is inspired . Thank you sir and I am always ruminate your lecture while reading Aristotle.
This guy has literally saved my life, i have an exam in three days and only now have i actually come to understand metaphysics. Thank you my savour
I'm watching this in 2021 so that I can have more insight into Aristotelian Metaphysics for my essay, and just like his teachings, your lecture is still truly relevant and useful. Thank you, Professor!
I really enjoyed this class. I believe that understanding Aristotle is the key to any good education . We could not license all the current moral and social ills of our society if we truly understood Aristotle.
I quite agree. Aristotle saw it all, and described it well!
Thank you so much for this lessons. I found it amazing how the human thought has evolved through the track of time. Excellent classes. Very much appreciated.
Don't you mean devolved.
How I wish I could've had this education in high school.
Somewhere around minute 26 he was asked "what is in the middle?" What is both form and matter? He didn't offer a sufficient answer. The student was correct. We, people, are definitely both form and matter. Our soul is the form (substance) and our bodies are the matter (accidents).
This is a fantastic lecture. I am currently reading Frederick Copelston`s history of philosophy and I found this very helpful to assist in understanding his discussion of Aristotle`s Metaphysics. Any student would be blessed to have you as a professor. I look forward to watching your other videos, particularly the one on the Neo-Platonists!
A little before 25:00, when the lecturer speaks of "perfect things way out in outer space", he's referring to transcendentals or what Plato referred to as forms.
Thanks for the clarification!
Thanks
I've been enjoying these talks on Philosophy. They're very interesting. Admittedly they're difficult to understand, but I can always go back over them. Good job Mr. Gore.
Thanks, Bruce Gore for this great work. I have learned a lot from this lecture.
Thanks for the feedback!
You are a wonderful teacher, Bruce. Very, very close to "perfection".
Wonderful. The key to understanding reality. The first steps.
Wish I had this class! Wow, what a fun and informative lecture! I love the interaction with the students as well. Really keeps people engaged and follows a very Aristotelian way of presentation to the public. :) Great job.
Thanks for the excellent lecture on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Sir.
Sir, I thank you very much for this excellent introduction.
massively underrated channel
It’s such an exciting feeling to give an answer that the professor doesn’t know what to do with the way Nichole did. It doesn’t mean you’re correct but it means you’re thinking and making the professor think too
I really enjoyed the lecture thank you. I had a deep thought about the perfect balance of actuality and potentiality, plants are my answer. Constantly changing but never changed.
this is one of the best metaphysics' lectures i had, thanks 👍
Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Im just a bit confused on the “formal cause”. I was wondering if you or someone here could expand on how the formal and “exemplary cause” work and how they fit together or how they don’t?
Thanks for your lectures; I’m literally taking notes and I’m not in study!
This was brilliant and essential. Thanks
thank you very much. please keep doingthis!
I plan to until old age catches up with me.
You earned my subscription to your channel.
I have two questions, if that's alright.
1. Must all four causes act together to effect any/all of the four changes? In the case of the decaying apple, for example, I take it the apple undergoes the fourth change--generation/corruption. I see the material cause--the apple. I see the efficient cause--bacteria and oxidation (although I doubt Aristotle saw those). I would appreciate help to see the formal and final causes.
2. Once you have deformed the chair with your sledgehammer to the point where the chair is no longer suitably called a chair, and you have ceased your work on the chair and it remains untouched again, does the deformed chair now take on a new "actuality" and exist as "perfection" of this new "actuality". Or is it forever "imperfect" even though "dynamis" has ceased?
Thanks for you amazing lessons!
5:00 - I think the reason why “dynamis” pronounces like “dunamis” is because the Greek letter upsilon: υ, is the equivalence of both the English letters u AND y. 🤓
Thank you for sharing! I'm going to watch all of these:)
A handy study aid for my Philosophy of Mind class. Thanks!
What School is this?
Hi, thank you for this video, it is amazing. I don't understand something, the form/matter relationship ("more form" vs "more matter") is just dependant of how "stable" is the object? Does the apple have more "matter" than the gold in so far the gold have more "form"? I don't know if I'm able to explain myself.
Do we know the ratio of form/matter of something when we compare the thing to other things?
The "6th sense" referred to sounds like a samādhi- a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the observing object.
In my opinion another sense we have is of emotions, of our own and of others. I can feel non physical emotions without physically touching, hearing, seeing, smelling, or tasting them.
Sir...i really can't express my respect level towards you...you are a genius 😇
Would you mind mentioning that to my wife? She's not so sure. Thanks much for the kind feedback.
Its 5:30 a.m this just blew my mind with substance and accidents. When he gave the example of the marker and then mentioned atoms and said they only way we can see them is threw a microscope. Just one giant flow everything flows in and out.
Excellent, Lessons from you and David Pawson helped me in better understanding the scriptures. Do we have a physical copy of your book?
Amazing lecture! I was yelling "final & efficient" at my computer screen around 30:00 lol
Thanks !! This is so useful to help me preparing my General Philosophy class !
Engaging lecture, enjoyed the class throughout...although virtually. Loaded with Conceptual clarity...Thanks Sir :)
Many thanks to you!
Concerning the question you answered at ~ 16:00 or so about whether or not there is change at the 'atomic' level in trans-substantiation, wouldn't the answer be yes? Between the physical body of Christ and the bread there are obvious physical differences, which are accidents, while the substance is understood not to vary.
Contemporary Roman Catholic theology has tended to take this approach, as I understand it.
Great Lecture
+Kevin Murphy Thanks!
Thanks for lessons
nice teaching
thank you so much sir for your great job. i really appreciate the dynamic of your classes. i have enjoyed your class.
+sammuel tumbela Happy to have you with us!
thank you so much for that. you know i am also pursuing my philosophical studies and i am now looking at metaphysics as my measure course for my master degree.
Great.... love this explanation
Hi, very helpful video, thank you. A question though: how can "nothing" be pure potentiality? "Nothing" has no potentiality by definition, let alone pure potentiality. Nothingness is a lack or an absence, and a lack can't have any kind of potential. Doesn't pure potentiality refer to a kind of "prima materia"?
You are quite correct. This is only a theoretical idea.
being and not-being are co-existing in his metaphysics. nothing is not an aristotelian term
Is it accurate to say that the essence of the marker (in Aristotle's understanding), is that which the marker is when no one is experiencing it? The essence is that which accounts for why the marker is still around when you leave the room and come back to it?
Any idea about the spanish guitar at the beginning? Thanks
This is a great class, and don't let anyone tell you you aren't funny
I would like to sit with this amazing guy in a prison cell for eternity and still our discussions and debates would never end.
Would fire be a better example of mostly matter with little form?
And wouldn’t the distinction between form and matter be better understood as the non-reducible and the non-reducible?
Good introductory lecture. One thing, though: I fail to see how atomic theory at all affects the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even a cursory understanding of Thomas/Trent would show why this is wrong. So... I'm not sure what you mean by "the Catholic Church has been pressed on this" as if we're sitting around panicked over atomic theory... :P
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I gave a unintended impression of the Catholic metaphysics and its treatment of transubstantiation.
Paw print Hmm, can you refer to a source on this?
The preeminent goal of philosophy should be that of encompassing a maximum of epistemological concepts through logical deduction with a minimum of hypotheses or axioms. That is, to take all of the philosophical isms out there and create the understanding of them all by the usage of one hypothesis or axiom, don’t you think?
But this is really just making ism's out of ism's. And this is essentially what philosophy began doing. What was most primally know to us is the physical world, so early Presocratics tried to find the underlying archae behind everything. (Today we might elect to call the proton this, for material things). The problem is that not everything admits of the same being. There is world which we know by the senses, but there are other objects that we know because they are intelligible. One such example would be math, hence the Pythagorean's principle. Another 'rationalist' move was to say that all things do belong to a single, static Being, as the Eleatic school did. It was with Plato and Aristotle that the ball really got rolling with the principles that can be said of nature and beyond. To make a long story short, how can we know that some one principle can lend an explanation to the many things that are, when those many things may not themselves admit the same nature?
nice job man.
+Bradley Moyer If these are his Sunday School classes, imagine if he were teaching something really in depth. I've been in a lot of Sunday School and it made me so bored because the teacher never actually taught anything and used it as a platform to start preaching.
This guy is not only interesting, but funny as well. I can see that he does spend a lot of time researching subject material.
19:55 Atoms are mostly empty space…and very little matter.
From which reference are been take off Ariostotel's theories such as substance theory? Can anybody give me information about a book and page. Thanks
Please refer to Aristotle's Metaphysics, which is summarized very briefly here.
What is a 'direct mystical experience'?
There is form and function. Form always follows function.
You can perceive the marker with your mind in addition to senses.
In what way?
When you go to the carnival you get some cotton candy whats that, mostly form or mostly matter?
Its delicious
What would be an example of substance which is 100% form?
God.
Bruce Gore What about ideas and thoughts which are clearly not matter but 100% form?
Well...I'm speaking for Aristotle. Pure form is changeless. Thoughts and ideas change, and so, whatever they are, they are not pure form.
Bruce Gore I get it forms can exist only if we think of a certain object in our head.
That would reflect more of a post-Kantian perspective. For Aristotle, form is quite objective. It is part of the 'substance' of the universe, and does not depend in the human mind for its reality.
Impressively lucid.
31:00 Efficient and final
Mr. Gore please allow me to congratulate you for such an amazing class. You and your students are simply amazing. When I watch your videos I always feel like I'm actually there, present in the physical classroom and I think that's wonderful.
I'm not completely sure but it seems to me that you are Catholic given the reason that I have seen you praying in other videos. I'm saying this because if you're Catholic I would like you to advise me in something specific. I would like to know if you would recommend a Catholic person the subject of alchemy. I've personally noticed that alchemy may be a great subject and tool to better understand the world of immaterial substances and perhaps even to understand the world of spirits. Do you personally have anything to say about alchemy? Is that something that the Catholic Church would have a problem with? I would like to get involved in alchemy but I'm afraid that it may be too esoteric or dark for a Catholic young man like me.
Thanks a lot for your service!
I like the part where you call the students that aren't that one girl "lesser people"
the only regret i have in this video is that i havent discover this years ago..
how about spoken words? mostly form or matter?
Neither. Aristotle gives his most comprehensive assessment of the nature of speech in his Politics.
I challenge all viewers to actually read Metaphysics to understand it in its best form. Particularly Books 4 and 5 on these topics referred to.
How is matter(potentiality) different with accidents?
Accidents are the qualities we perceive which have nothing to do with the essence of the substance.
For instance, a man is the substance, that man being white or brown is the accident.
@@hanansheikh5016 thank you very much!
It should be noted that Mr. Gore's duly noted fine teachings...having good QUALITY...become more efficient when placed on UA-cam where the QUANTITY of views CHANGES or increases due to it's shareable 'LOCATION'.
Mr. Gore's effective or 'actual' classroom size increases over TIME due to UA-cam's dissemination format (for which we are thankful) but shouldn't we move to apply the ideal concept of 'Mr. Gore's Philosophy class' to our entire educational system as well?
In other words, shouldn't we compile the works of our best math teachers (like Jaime Escalante) or civics teachers (like Ben Stein) or music teachers (like Marvin Hamlisch) or just notable teachers (like John Taylor Gatto) and videotape their teaching moments for posterity as well as for profit?
Shouldn't every college offer the very finest teachers ONLINE for the poor to achieve a college level education?
Shouldn't colleges profit mainly in this way?
Shouldn't the best presenters of entertaining concepts (Hollywood) be equally focused on educational concepts as well?
Shouldn't colleges be focused primarily on testing, hands on internships and reaching the widest possible audience for the highest quality teachers?
Isn't this what the POTENTIAL of the internet was designed for?
Or does the ACTUALITY of making an old school profit off of brick n' mortar colleges supersede actual education?
To Gore...or not to Gore?
That is the question.
I think it should be noted that this lecture is visibly influenced by thomism (like linking formal cause with actuality and material cause with potentiality).
Because Thomism was heavily influenced by Aristotelianism and retrospectively influenced Aristotelianism.
What a thing is, and how a thing may be...
Aristotle is a genius IFF its true he predicted plank's constants without understanding why they are true.
"we couldnt access to essence of any abject "
is it something has told himself or his commentator?
Odd that Aristotle would view gold as mostly form, not mostly matter. The absurdity of his view should have been apparent even back in his time.
wow Glenn Beck teaches Aristotle. Something new everyday eh??
Thanks! (I think...)
Marker 20:00
Hello Sir! could you tell me about metaphysic which come from Greek word meta and physika or phusika or physikon?which one is right?physika or phusika or physikon?
Physika. “Metaphysics” comes from Aristotle’s work “Meta ta Physika”
thanks
In which of Aristotle's books/essay does he discuss his views on substance?
Aristotle's original treatment of metaphysics is in his book, 'The Metaphysics,' which is readily available (and not overly easy reading). You can find a decent translation in the Penguin series:www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Penguin-Classics-Aristotle/dp/0140446192
It should be mentioned though that the Metaphysics may not have been intended as a compilation. It could just be different sets of notes that are thrown together, though it sorta reads like a single work. And the Physics is certainly relevant and suggested reading prior to the Metaphysics.
Mainly book zeta
Of the metaphysics
so Aristotle was wrong then? Becuase in mystical meditation, thats excatly what happens, you experience the essense of the metaphysical spiritual experience.
25:00
Me screaming "efficient cause"
Correction : Pure potentiality, no actuality = hyle not nothing...
If something is pure potentiality, I don't think it exists...?
First because it doesn't have form (actuality) so it's not a composite
I don't know xd
An inauspicious start. The speaker just lists a bunch of words grouped into two sets with very minimal explanation of how they're related to one another or how they contribute to the head word or concept each one falls under (or, in the case of "entelechy", even of what it means). Hmm. Worth listening on? [PS. It occurs to me that, in general, the more perfomartive a speaker is, the less they have to say of real substantial ellucidation and analysis.]
Er.. he's teaching to a bunch of high school kids! What do you expect? PhD level analysis?
@@anoj06 I had completely forgotten about this. He's teaching to high school kids? I hadn't realized. It doesn't say that in the description. In any case, it's disrespecful and not very helpful to high school kids to assume they're stupid or simple-minded.
If the chair is actually broken it’s far from being perfect. In fact, in actuality few things are perfect. This concept seems nonsensical unless.
The Golden Apple.
...once you realize that nothing is "nothing"...does it make it something?..lol..(I believe that's true though...lol).
We cannot know the essence of a thing, but have an acquaintance with objects in the world through sensory perception. [The God of Abraham, immaterial and sensorially imperceptible, but on Sunday: "allow me to introduce you to the essence of God."] A certain partitioning of the brain is essential to the theist given to pagan philosophy, or at least to the marrying of Aristotelian epistemology and reformed [Christian] epistemology. Fascinating; but the wedding is not necessarily one that is being undertaken in this video, so given this charity please spare me the offense.
20:20 a virus.
This guy is psychic.
@@amoohadiji5232 lol
"Entelechia" =" presence of intelligence"? Really? You got to be kidding.
The root of the word 'entelechia' is telos, meaning purpose. It is also the root of the English word 'intelligence.'
Yes, telos means goal/end in Greek, But intelligence comes from Latin Intelligere (inter + lego) - nothing to do with telos.
Thank you. You are quite correct.
r u with me yah uu mmmm ahhh
really means nah. .. not really ?
Nicole --- see me after class --- ASAP ?
You are a very good teacher but modern science has given Aristotle an ever lasting wedgie.
How?
More like the other way around.
Wasn't Aristotle simply trying to investigate physics and chemistry, without knowing what we know now, instead of developing metaphysics, which seems to me totally outdated today, useless and probably incoherent?
Yeah. He was trying to figure out the cause of everything, by using linguistics.
@@hanansheikh5016 yeah, I agree. But to me, the question is, is "cause" a metaphysics concept or a physical reality?
@@GaudioWind In Aristotelian terms the initial cause, or the qua Being is beyond sensationalist sciences, and is metaphysical. He defined theology as the study of this cause.
@@GaudioWind In other words metaphysics might be the realm beyond human perspective. It is a physical reality, but beyond our sensations.
@@hanansheikh5016 He didn't even know what physical reality means, so he was even behind us. Therefore he couldn't know what could be beyond physical reality. Let me ask you a question. Is an electric field, for example, something physical or not?