History 2D: Science, Magic, and Religion, Lecture 2, UCLA
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2009
- Lecture Title: "Greek Mysticism and Rationality"
April 2nd, 2009
Professor Courtenay Raia lectures on science and religion as historical phenomena that have evolved over time. Examines the earlier mind-set before 1700 when into science fitted elements that came eventually to be seen as magical. THe course also question how Western cosmologies became "disenchanted." Magical tradition transformed into modern mysticisms is also examined as well as the political implications of these movements. Includes discussion concerning science in totalitarian settings as well as "big science" during the Cold War.
Some clips and images may have been blurred or removed to avoid copyright infringement.
* See all the UCLA History 2D: Science, Magic, and Religion classes in this series: ua-cam.com/users/view_play_list...
* See more courses from UCLA: / uclacourses
* See more from UCLA's main channel on UA-cam: / ucla
This is facinating. I'm really glad they're finally getting some good classes at UCLA!
Funny tidbit, unrelated to the content of the lecture: The classroom in which this lecture is given is the same room where Ted Mosby's "class in the wrong room" was filmed (in "How I Met Your Mother", Season 5, Episode 1).
1:08:22 Norton von Snorton is "the flawed material instance of the ideal form" 🤣
Thanks for these! I love how she shows the need for each magic, science, and religion in society, in personal vs. public knowledge and beliefs. I will be definitely be watching the rest of these lectures!
thank you for posting Professor Courtenay Raia UCLACourses! you are a Goddess!
Norton von Snorten. Gotta love the lecture dog!
This lecture reminds me of the first chapter of the book "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" by Manly P Hall.
Agreed
Near the end, the Professor’s lecture soared.
She's a fantastic teacher. Thanks UCLA.
Love this woman !!!!
Thaks 4 the vid:-) .A novel approach to history..Sciences and beliefs over wars And empires.Very interesting and may come back later...I'm off to Social Psychology. :-)
Ok it began to work with the playlist!
Brilliant!
Thank-you Prof. CR-G for unscrambling my brain.
The Professor says @ 30:47 that Empedocles was preferred by Plato and Aristotle, but at @ 31:32 she says Empedocles’ conception was despised by Plato and Aristotle. Earlier, during Democritus, she says his concept was random motion of particles, but then @ 30:12 she says atoms aren’t random. I think that she could have mentioned that 508 BC (late 6th century) was the beginning of democracy and precedes Democritus (4th and 3rd centuries BC). Parents gave their children names like Democritus because they revered the idea of democracy. So it predates the Pre Socratic philosophers she discusses.
She's the ray of light in our realm of darkness (as we Russians usually quote our writer Dobroliubov).
N.B. the phrase "christian scientist" is nasty )))
Great course, even better hat.
Did someone know where can i find the transcript text or subtitle of this lecture?
I love how there's a dog just sitting there.
Mademoiselle why don't u consider east or rather Indian epistemological journey in ur lecture?
@RoadRunnerLaser Lastly, my argument has been nothing more than saying that you have misunderstood her meaning and intent because the terms that she uses come from a discipline you were not trained in. It is important to be explicit about what concepts a term is being used to convey, otherwise there is this level of talking past each other. This is why it is important to not be so reactionary and to think critically about where she is coming from and what she is trying to convey.
can i be emailed a syilibis for this class, and what books do i need?
Amen brother!
No one is going to say ANYTHING about the straw hat?
Waltham1892 I like it.
I thought it was going to relate to the lecture somehow? Maybe it's bc of the bright lights??
I think it's cute and it goes with her outfit. I bet she's wearing boots as well.
Children do.
Nah, I'm good.
Professor Courtenay Raia has probably already participated in a performance by contemporary artist Paul McCarthy.
@RoadRunnerLaser - I ended up losing my previous comment that I was writing, so I'll just say this. Please refer to the previous lecture regarding the 'boundary' keeping religion out, and science in. Science as a way of thinking, an approach to knowledge or acquisition of knowledge, and the people who ascribe to that method. Akin, perhaps, to tutoring or standardized education 'walling off' other forms of learning or knowledge declaration.
-Ronnie
@RoadRunnerLaser I addressed your point. Science can wall of its domain because it is a philosophy that transformed into an institution that is ruled by people. She moves between science as philosophy and science as institution. Your problem, again, is that you conflate "science" with "scientific method." Your problem of conflation, sloppy thinking as she calls it, is that you conflate too much, which is indicative of a positivist philosophy that is inherently reductive.
I've watched the first two videos, and can't help but notice a subtle pro-protestant and anti-science undertone. Like how Greek philosophers are 'snobs' or how science 'wants' to supress religion.
Honestly, is there anything better then a cute girl in a hat teaching a secular religious studies class?
That is exactly what I thought too.
Why are the images out of focus?
@troweltheory - I didn't debase your arguments by insulting you. I addressed your arguments by repeatedly stating why your posts did not address my point, then insulted you for your attempt. The very fact that I addressed your comments and that my arguments did not rely on my portrayal of your character means that your accusation of making ad-hominem attacks is unfounded. You should learn the difference between an ad-hominem and an insult.
@troweltheory - Point out to me where you stated that science is an institution and I will not only concede that you actually addressed my argument, I'll apologise. However, you didn't. You called it an ideology (not an institution), an epistimology (not an institution) and a philosophy (not an institution). Only in this comment did you refer to science as an institution. However, although I might agree that you addressed my point, I would disagree with the idea of science as an institution.
@troweltheory - It seems you are ignorant of the meaning of "ad-hominem" and you are still attempting to draw attention away from the point that I raised rather than actually addressing it.
me too!!
@troweltheory - What you think I might sound like is irrelevant. You can define science as a method, an epistemology, an ideology or a philosophy and it still won't acquire the ability to "wall off its domain". If she is explaining how people have tried to define and understand science through time then isn't it obvious that it is people who have walled off domains, not science. If you disagree, then perhaps you'd address my point instead of putting words in my mouth.
What is this thing she refers to when she says "it will not bite"? Did she bring her baby to class or what?
+Inés Arango Her dog, you'll see it in later lectures.
It keeps getting stuck at 2:06min....
Fucking awesome hat. Also fascinating lectures so far, but I must admit that it saddens me to see a class about science and religion in which religion is not ridiculed.
N is your know why follies...
@troweltheory - ... and I'm sure you're not really so daft as to assert that one needs to know the entire history of an idea (such as geocentrism) to understand that it is flawed. I'd recommend that you don't pretend to be.
Um, it's not a secular religious studies class.
It is a History class. HISTORY 2D, to be specific.
If you paid attention you just might learn something.
I am in love...
It's an historical look at magic, science, and religion. It's not pro or anti anything.
@troweltheory - I agree that it is important to be explicit and to use language effectively. I think she is making an error in anthropomorphising something which although created by human-beings, lacks the intent and cognitive processes with which she endows it. She describes territorial behaviour consistent with a biological organism, not a philosophy, an epistomology nor an ideology.
@RoadRunnerLaser If your 20th century education is where you learned to argue through ad hominen attacks, I am delighted to fail in its measure of success. To understand a concept is flawed is one thing, but to argue why intelligently and coherently is completely another. If you want to have credibility as a scholar, then yes, you better know your history back and forth. While it might frighten lazy or impatient undergrads, this rigor is the norm for quality academic research.
Apparently you missed Lecture 1, where she explains the concept.
Too bad for you.
Just so you can put it out your mind and concentrate: 1) her dog is on the platform with her and 2) she never explains the hat. Great lecture.
i could go to UCLA campus and get her class text book... but i would appreciate it if someone email me her syllabus..Thanks!!
I don't mean to objectify her appearance, and I'm listening to these because she's a good lecturer, but when I clicked on this I couldn't help myself. That hat is adorable.
@RoadRunnerLaser Right, it sounds like you are a positivist. Science is an epistemology, not a method. I think you are conflating the scientific method with the philosophical term "science." They mean very different things, and the meaning of "science" is rooted in historical contingency, which is what she is trying to explain. She is explaining how people have tried to define and understand science through time. You think she is stupid because you think "science" is scientific method.
@GibbonJabber well well, let us leave our dear professor alone :) everyone has the right to wear anything so long as it does not offend anybody, right?
It would be nice if there were descriptive titles rather than twenty titles that are all the same except the number.
Also, the dog? Really? That just seems really unprofessional. It's clearly very distracting, unless of course she has some sort of medical condition or something.
***** Hahaha. Not buyin' it.
The hat's not too distracting... the string on the other hand... *lol*
@troweltheory - I went to school during the 20th Century. Today, it's the 21st. You might just as well tell anyone criticising geocentrism as a valid world-view to read Aristotle, pal!
Science is not an ideology. It is a method. Thanks to science, we reject false ideologies and we now understand the heliocentric model.
You know she kind a looks like Sandra Bullock.
Thank you!!! Thats been bugging me!
@RoadRunnerLaser - Your arguments have been shifting sand peppered with attributing characteristics to me which are the constructs of your own imagination. You didn't address my point and you argued with a figment of your own imagination.
That's just a guess at what I feel that many reading here surmise to be the message. Analogy, not necessarily prioritizing the anthropomorphism you feel that she is using to possibly condemn science in the manner of a close minded individual.
-Ronnie
i wouldn't mind but... the smirk on your face sir - let`s the world be affluent, so ... deliver me from the brand - mm.. henceforth - thanks )
Why the silly hat? I presumed it was a gimmick that would be revealed at the end, but nothing happened.
@RoadRunnerLaser Right, this is typical of internet "debates." You debase my arguments my asserting and reasserting my "daftness," "ignorance," my "failing education," lack of wisdom, and knack for "pretending." Forgive me if I left any other of your character assassinations out. You have constructed an image over several posts of me as a charlatan, a trickster, and a fool while arguing that she has made an error for no more reason than just because you say so.
Genetics got it correct.
For This Women.
Decoupling physical and moral causality would negate concepts such as karma and divine retribution in this life, necessitating a mundane justice system.
Read more about Karma.
And not the western view.
Your statement says you do not have self understanding of karma.
Isn't a religion you don't believe in just magic?
the hat is a little distracting but I like the way that she presents her material. this does not mean that I have to agree with everything either. Well presented material.
For me her presentation style is overly expressive, constant peaks result in a plain! It's just passing over me. As they say in music, 'don't be a star in every bar'. Grateful for the publication though.
Sure, the school building itself might not kick out other learning techniques, but those who ascribe a method of incremental knowledge and foundations of materials used for later derivations instead of rote formula memorization will not be able to abide or integrate other systems, and 'wall off', or isolate from and avoid discussing with those in the other territory.
"Any questions?" none. Of course. It's more performans then lecture.
I hope to God that hat is a prop for something.
@troweltheory - Sadly for you, twack, your diversionary tactics don't alter the fact that neither a method nor an ideology is capable of "walling off its domain". It requires people to do such a thing. To make such an error and then go on to discuss the importance of language demonstrates that she hasn't put enough thought into what she's actually saying. If you want to criticise, try reading the point I made. Your 21st Century education is failing you. Maybe you'll acquire wisdom with age.
Sad she has such hate for so many.
janet beckman ?
@RoadRunnerLaser I went to school during the 21st Century (I guess I am more modern than you!). Your lack of knowledge on the history of science, and adamant refusal to recognize its relevance, is terribly ahistorical. How can anyone criticize geocentrism if they have not read the research the model is based upon? So yes, if you want to critique geocentrism you should probably read Aristotle so you can at least look like you know what it is you are actually critiquing. It's called good science.
Will you marry me?
@RoadRunnerLaser she is talking about science as ideology, not as a method. read james frazer or any armchair sociologist/anthropologist from the 19th century to understand what she is talking about. you're the one who needs to go back to school, friend
She's a hottie!!
really ? I mean sure , but there's a LOT more to her than just a hottie. She is an amazing lecturer.
Indeed
The fact that she is both intelligent and hot is proof that there is no justice in this world.
I would walk out if I saw a lecturer wearing that stupid hat.
Please don't lick the hat. No one wants to see that.
Very sloppy speech, using catchy intellectual words to trash knowledge, the speech sounds religious to me.
Your statement presupposes that Truth is purely objective and that knowledge is solely empirically determined. You are trying to argue contra to a normative claim on a descriptive presentation.
ThatManinWhite If you think this is a clearly descriptive presentation, The is your issue I have nothing to do with it.
Agaperion Rex “Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion” Belief without good reason sucks! and that is my opinion.
Agaperion Rex Sounds like you need to brush up on your reasons ;)
***** Your definition of Epistemology is biased toward the premise you are. Epistemology is basically the study of knowledge. What is knowledge. How can one obtain knowledge? A simillar problem occurs when one recognizes philosophy as a love of wisdom, but defines wisdom as only that which can be known through empirical evidence (and to some extent, rationalism).