I listened during work and I gotta say -- you're AMAZING at explaining. A lot of videos on YT either graze over things or assume that concepts are already well cemented after they're mentioned ince. But you end up repeating things and re-defining them in other words, which is EXACTLY what we need, as beginners, to understand the explanation as it progresses and compounds. I feel like you really care about making sure the video is a clear and easy to understand as possible -- not about making it "tight" and "snappy" like we're told to do to "keep people's attention on YT" Tysm! I'm looking forward to what you'll post next, and to exploring your existing videos 🙌
Loved it. I started as a subscriber with the videos you made on the works of Machiavelli. Very happy to spend an hour digesting a 25 minute video like this.
Hey paul thank you for this excellent video, sincerely appreciate your work. I was wondering if you could eventually do a video on John Mill's essays? (especially "on liberty" considering the lasting legacy of his work i think it'd be worthwile. Thank you
Probably not, but I dealt with Mill and the lies most people have been indoctrinated into in this essay many years ago: medium.com/arc-digital/the-myth-of-illiberal-liberalism-aa606f701bae
What fo you think is the relationship between the Crisis of Dualism and the concept of spiritual bodies? The specific concept i am referring to is the Christian one beginning with Origen's Spiritual Senses, continuing in Bonaventure's thought on the Angels and now since the modern period existing through Christian theosophy and Sophiology with the Three Principles of Jakob Böhme. In it's current manifestation it's both Anti-Materialist and Anti-Idealist, Franz von Baader explicitly wrote both against the thought of Atheistic Science and of Hegelian Idealism (which itself is heavily influenced by Böhme)
Depends on what you're defining "spiritual bodies" as. There's obviously the "Gnostic" view, which also sees a crisis of dualism -- being trapped in an (evil) material body to which we are meant to escape. Then there's the more orthodox Christian view, in which we are both body and soul, but of which our "truer" identity (so to speak) is spiritual rather than material (certainly true of some of those figures you listed like Origen and Bohme). Christian anthropology tries to hold the two together as a unity of opposites, and, historically, provided the functional synthesis before it was ripped apart by modern philosophy. Christians, on the whole, haven't really been too concerned with the "crisis of dualism" because Christian theology, if true, already overcame the problem with the God-Man relationship.
@@PaulJosephKrauseYeah i meant the Orthodox view, for Böhme for example we don't just have a Intellegientia united to God (like in Isaac of Stella) but also anybody that is united to him :)
Very interesting. I am not a philosopher by education but I have learned on my own and through a lot of reading, videos. I was hoping you can clarify on video or maybe your muck rack link - Strauss emphasizes natural law and universal knowledge. Ergo knowable by human reason. Your video about Dualism presupposes disconnect between subjective, interior disposition and external world. Can you give more examples of latter? Why? I am a bit confused between Augustine’s interior search, universal natural law and external world? How do 1st, 2nd (different approaches) both lead to proper understanding of exterior world, objects?
So there’s a lot to potentially unpack, too much for only lay education, but to be brief and concise even if somewhat reductive for the sake of brevity: There are really 2 schools of “natural law” philosophy: classical natural right and Christian natural law (the two are very distinct despite overlap). From the Greeks, including the Pre-Socratics, Plato, and especially Aristotle: the cosmos is rational and intelligible, therefore, knowable by human reason via observation of external nature and its operational movement. Therefore, knowledge of the cosmos is the highest wisdom/knowledge possible. From Christianity: God is Reason, therefore, rationality and reasonableness has its origins in God. To know the cosmos is to come and know the Divine Maker. The Divine Maker, of course, also Love itself (most importantly). Reason and Love are one and the same or reason is the bridge to love (love is rational). Therefore, knowledge of Love (God) is the highest wisdom/knowledge possible. In the Greek tradition, this knowledge is meant to be applied for practical living in a polis. It has a political element to it. In Christianity, this knowledge leads to relationship ultimately leading to friendship as an expression of love in the world. The cosmos exists for the purpose of love and procreation, etc. Christian natural law is about how to relate to people (implication: ethics) and knowledge of what people desire (love). Greek natural right is about how to organize yourself and society (implication: politics). The Augustinian perspective leads to the question: what does a thing exist for? The object-oriented perspective leads to the question: why does a thing do what it does? Thus, either things exist for love (Augustinian approach) or things exist as merely an extension of nature and the operational laws of nature (Greek approach/Modern Science). Of course, our approach to this dichotomy leads to wildly different conclusions about the world and how we relate to it (if we relate to it at all!), and what really matters in life. The "proper" understanding then is derived from these two paths we take in understanding the world: what is a thing for vs. what does a thing do. Hopefully this helps.
Good evening Mr. Krause! I'll attribute this meeting to fate, but being a philosopher, with the vast amount of accolades that you've accomplished, wouldn't that bring about the chance for debate? Nevertheless ever since I've discovered your Websites (which is what I've been wanting to find for such vast period of time, one who shares the same passion for the Arts as I do, as well being an autodidact, basically there's nothing more important in my life as of yet; Philosophy, Literature, History, Art History, The Enlightenment........etc.) Vogelin View, The Imaginative Conservative, Discourses on Minerva, I feel as if I've found a kindred spirit. As well I feel that I've achieved a formidable platform with countless substratum goals that'll take massive efforts from me to accomplish, all of this to write that if one keeps pushing all goals can and will submit to outstanding efforts. I'm going to mentally digest your essays, allowing your path in academics to be my roadmap for future endeavors. Thanks again! Keep pushing the envelope until a new dynamic is reached and that becomes the new achievable standard!
I appreciate the kind words and hope that you will embrace your obvious passion for learning and so put it to good use. It’s a wonderful world and a wonderful thing. Learning, in of itself, is always good - but the love of learning is more important as it is the catalyst for everything that follows. As for “up to debate,” I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t debate and haven’t done debates since high school. Personally, I find debate to be immature and not worth anyone’s time. It implies a right/wrong that must be destroyed and is almost entirely rooted in sophistry (which Plato exposed as shallow): debate is nothing but rhetoric and much to my shame I knew that in high school and put on performative shows in debate just to “win.” Almost nothing substantive ever comes from debate as rhetoric, charisma, and showmanship rule the environment. For instance, someone who is boring but has all the substantial points will lose simply because he/she is boring. Plus, in debate, all you really need is a few great one-liners and that's all people remember. The true intellectual life isn’t about debate but Conversation, as conversation entails friendship and the possibility of conversion. When I am invited to speak on podcasts, or even long-form radio, I only accept on the presumption that we will have a conversation and not debate: what can be shared in friendly conversation is the only thing that should really motivate one. You can find an example here, a two-hour conversation with a friend of mine and fellow Yale grad Erich Prince: www.callin.com/episode/paul-krause-the-literary-life-SpjRfFtUqY
@@PaulJosephKrause Good evening Mr. Krause, thank you for the swift reply. The "debate" comment was purely an attempt at a comical anecdote, with the central issue being the age old philosophical question of if "I have the ability to act freely then determinism doesn't exist", subsequently is false, which is a shortsighted compressed for time version of a far more intricate topic. So, coming back to the fate issue, was it fate or a form of determination that I came across your website? That's all, and in no manner did I propose for us to engage in debate and as well conversations are far superior to debating of any kind.
Within the modes found in critique of mind, where now can we see the evolution of post "Wall" philosophy. How does the world of thinking reclaim the fractured truths? Thank you
I feel I always get conflicting takes on to what extent the solutions that thinkers of German idealism came up with, can be tied back to some sort of solipsism.
You're not wrong to think this. One of the earliest, and most persistent, criticism of German Idealist philosophies is that it cannot escape solipsism! The rebuttal is, of course, this is a "misunderstanding, (I would agree), but it's not hard to see with the emphasis on the subjective self how, if the metaphysics underpinning the various schools of Idealism collapse or are rejected, you don't just end up back with the problem of solipsism.
This was extremely timely, thank you; I’ve been thinking about these issues this week, with only a rudimentary history of philosophy to go on - your video fills in the gaps. My own thinking about this problem comes from complexity science: isn’t the self an emergent quality of the object? A flock of geese is a set of bodies with characteristics seperate and distinct from the body of any one goose; so too are the qualities of life and conciousness and spirit seperate and distinct characteristics from the bodies of the heart and lungs and spleen; its not apparent why this should be so, leaving open the question of divinity or atheism.
I listened during work and I gotta say -- you're AMAZING at explaining.
A lot of videos on YT either graze over things or assume that concepts are already well cemented after they're mentioned ince. But you end up repeating things and re-defining them in other words, which is EXACTLY what we need, as beginners, to understand the explanation as it progresses and compounds. I feel like you really care about making sure the video is a clear and easy to understand as possible -- not about making it "tight" and "snappy" like we're told to do to "keep people's attention on YT"
Tysm! I'm looking forward to what you'll post next, and to exploring your existing videos 🙌
Awesome syntesis
The man behind the voice!
Loved it. I started as a subscriber with the videos you made on the works of Machiavelli. Very happy to spend an hour digesting a 25 minute video like this.
I'm glad to know you gain from these lectures and talks, after all, every single one of them is meant for people like you!
Thank you. Very interesting! Is there a contemporary 'Idealist' refutation of Bertrand Russell's epistemology?
Hey paul thank you for this excellent video, sincerely appreciate your work. I was wondering if you could eventually do a video on John Mill's essays? (especially "on liberty" considering the lasting legacy of his work i think it'd be worthwile. Thank you
Probably not, but I dealt with Mill and the lies most people have been indoctrinated into in this essay many years ago: medium.com/arc-digital/the-myth-of-illiberal-liberalism-aa606f701bae
What fo you think is the relationship between the Crisis of Dualism and the concept of spiritual bodies? The specific concept i am referring to is the Christian one beginning with Origen's Spiritual Senses, continuing in Bonaventure's thought on the Angels and now since the modern period existing through Christian theosophy and Sophiology with the Three Principles of Jakob Böhme. In it's current manifestation it's both Anti-Materialist and Anti-Idealist, Franz von Baader explicitly wrote both against the thought of Atheistic Science and of Hegelian Idealism (which itself is heavily influenced by Böhme)
Depends on what you're defining "spiritual bodies" as. There's obviously the "Gnostic" view, which also sees a crisis of dualism -- being trapped in an (evil) material body to which we are meant to escape. Then there's the more orthodox Christian view, in which we are both body and soul, but of which our "truer" identity (so to speak) is spiritual rather than material (certainly true of some of those figures you listed like Origen and Bohme). Christian anthropology tries to hold the two together as a unity of opposites, and, historically, provided the functional synthesis before it was ripped apart by modern philosophy. Christians, on the whole, haven't really been too concerned with the "crisis of dualism" because Christian theology, if true, already overcame the problem with the God-Man relationship.
@@PaulJosephKrauseYeah i meant the Orthodox view, for Böhme for example we don't just have a Intellegientia united to God (like in Isaac of Stella) but also anybody that is united to him :)
Very interesting. I am not a philosopher by education but I have learned on my own and through a lot of reading, videos. I was hoping you can clarify on video or maybe your muck rack link - Strauss emphasizes natural law and universal knowledge. Ergo knowable by human reason. Your video about Dualism presupposes disconnect between subjective, interior disposition and external world. Can you give more examples of latter? Why? I am a bit confused between Augustine’s interior search, universal natural law and external world? How do 1st, 2nd (different approaches) both lead to proper understanding of exterior world, objects?
So there’s a lot to potentially unpack, too much for only lay education, but to be brief and concise even if somewhat reductive for the sake of brevity:
There are really 2 schools of “natural law” philosophy: classical natural right and Christian natural law (the two are very distinct despite overlap). From the Greeks, including the Pre-Socratics, Plato, and especially Aristotle: the cosmos is rational and intelligible, therefore, knowable by human reason via observation of external nature and its operational movement. Therefore, knowledge of the cosmos is the highest wisdom/knowledge possible.
From Christianity: God is Reason, therefore, rationality and reasonableness has its origins in God. To know the cosmos is to come and know the Divine Maker. The Divine Maker, of course, also Love itself (most importantly). Reason and Love are one and the same or reason is the bridge to love (love is rational). Therefore, knowledge of Love (God) is the highest wisdom/knowledge possible.
In the Greek tradition, this knowledge is meant to be applied for practical living in a polis. It has a political element to it. In Christianity, this knowledge leads to relationship ultimately leading to friendship as an expression of love in the world. The cosmos exists for the purpose of love and procreation, etc. Christian natural law is about how to relate to people (implication: ethics) and knowledge of what people desire (love). Greek natural right is about how to organize yourself and society (implication: politics).
The Augustinian perspective leads to the question: what does a thing exist for? The object-oriented perspective leads to the question: why does a thing do what it does? Thus, either things exist for love (Augustinian approach) or things exist as merely an extension of nature and the operational laws of nature (Greek approach/Modern Science). Of course, our approach to this dichotomy leads to wildly different conclusions about the world and how we relate to it (if we relate to it at all!), and what really matters in life. The "proper" understanding then is derived from these two paths we take in understanding the world: what is a thing for vs. what does a thing do.
Hopefully this helps.
Thank you Paul for detailed response. I enjoy your writings & videos. I learn a great deal.
Good evening Mr. Krause! I'll attribute this meeting to fate, but being a philosopher, with the vast amount of accolades that you've accomplished, wouldn't that bring about the chance for debate? Nevertheless ever since I've discovered your Websites (which is what I've been wanting to find for such vast period of time, one who shares the same passion for the Arts as I do, as well being an autodidact, basically there's nothing more important in my life as of yet; Philosophy, Literature, History, Art History, The Enlightenment........etc.) Vogelin View, The Imaginative Conservative, Discourses on Minerva, I feel as if I've found a kindred spirit. As well I feel that I've achieved a formidable platform with countless substratum goals that'll take massive efforts from me to accomplish, all of this to write that if one keeps pushing all goals can and will submit to outstanding efforts. I'm going to mentally digest your essays, allowing your path in academics to be my roadmap for future endeavors. Thanks again! Keep pushing the envelope until a new dynamic is reached and that becomes the new achievable standard!
I appreciate the kind words and hope that you will embrace your obvious passion for learning and so put it to good use. It’s a wonderful world and a wonderful thing. Learning, in of itself, is always good - but the love of learning is more important as it is the catalyst for everything that follows.
As for “up to debate,” I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t debate and haven’t done debates since high school. Personally, I find debate to be immature and not worth anyone’s time. It implies a right/wrong that must be destroyed and is almost entirely rooted in sophistry (which Plato exposed as shallow): debate is nothing but rhetoric and much to my shame I knew that in high school and put on performative shows in debate just to “win.” Almost nothing substantive ever comes from debate as rhetoric, charisma, and showmanship rule the environment. For instance, someone who is boring but has all the substantial points will lose simply because he/she is boring. Plus, in debate, all you really need is a few great one-liners and that's all people remember. The true intellectual life isn’t about debate but Conversation, as conversation entails friendship and the possibility of conversion. When I am invited to speak on podcasts, or even long-form radio, I only accept on the presumption that we will have a conversation and not debate: what can be shared in friendly conversation is the only thing that should really motivate one. You can find an example here, a two-hour conversation with a friend of mine and fellow Yale grad Erich Prince: www.callin.com/episode/paul-krause-the-literary-life-SpjRfFtUqY
@@PaulJosephKrause Good evening Mr. Krause, thank you for the swift reply. The "debate" comment was purely an attempt at a comical anecdote, with the central issue being the age old philosophical question of if "I have the ability to act freely then determinism doesn't exist", subsequently is false, which is a shortsighted compressed for time version of a far more intricate topic. So, coming back to the fate issue, was it fate or a form of determination that I came across your website? That's all, and in no manner did I propose for us to engage in debate and as well conversations are far superior to debating of any kind.
Within the modes found in critique of mind, where now can we see the evolution of post "Wall" philosophy. How does the world of thinking reclaim the fractured truths?
Thank you
I feel I always get conflicting takes on to what extent the solutions that thinkers of German idealism came up with, can be tied back to some sort of solipsism.
You're not wrong to think this. One of the earliest, and most persistent, criticism of German Idealist philosophies is that it cannot escape solipsism! The rebuttal is, of course, this is a "misunderstanding, (I would agree), but it's not hard to see with the emphasis on the subjective self how, if the metaphysics underpinning the various schools of Idealism collapse or are rejected, you don't just end up back with the problem of solipsism.
Is the subject a united mind/body and object all things external to the body or is the subject purely mental, object beginning with the body?
That's a dispute that was never settled, some would say the first and others ended up going down the path of subjectivity being a mental object.
This was extremely timely, thank you; I’ve been thinking about these issues this week, with only a rudimentary history of philosophy to go on - your video fills in the gaps.
My own thinking about this problem comes from complexity science: isn’t the self an emergent quality of the object? A flock of geese is a set of bodies with characteristics seperate and distinct from the body of any one goose; so too are the qualities of life and conciousness and spirit seperate and distinct characteristics from the bodies of the heart and lungs and spleen; its not apparent why this should be so, leaving open the question of divinity or atheism.
3:24 ... « deeply superficial » ... then there's superficially deep ..
🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡