blazinchalice That is not valid, youtube makes it perfectly clear to share comments and statements in the comments sections, have they not? Think of what you're saying, if you walk into a grocery store and grab a shopping cart, what will you think of the man who walks up to you and says "no one asked you to grab that".?
If i grab a shopping cart and ram it into yours like they're two bumper cars, what will you think of me? Probably that I'm a rude, insensitive, uncongenial, condescending bitch.
I consider Russel's book to be something of a Logical Positivism technical demo. I think logicism is a bit hubristic in that it has it's own metaphysics capable of reading other metaphysical systems, so he assumes it must be something above metaphysics, but it isn't. It is a metaphysical system capable of transliteration because it is based on logic. That's impressive in it's own right, but hardly the Truth. But whatever I may think about Russel's metaphysics, it's impossible not to love him as a man.
@@Floral_Green I would point more towards the Naths and the larger Tantra branches... This is primarily due to the emphasis on overcoming dualities as a way towards the one... For me Advaita Vedanta expects you to uphold too much nonsense, but here actual experience matters.
I disagree, when Plotinus lived there was nothing like it in India. Adi Shankara is some 500 years later, while Gorakhnath is another 300 years later. For me it is the philosophical influence that has driven Hinduism and Buddhism in this direction. Before this there's just fire rituals and incantations expected to uphold the world. There is no direct experience even for priests, let alone common folk.
I would recommend not committing it to your brain word for word but thinking of it in abstract ways, i.e. shapes. Then add a certain emotion to each of the abstractions. And when recollecting - try to "feel" it as though it is material, and then explain it through intuition. This might not work for some dry university professor who lacks any thoughts of his own and spent his whole life repeating word for word other people's thoughts and ideas, but if you're doing it not to get a grade, then don't do what many "academicians" (university politicians) do.
Interesting that this is based on Russell's book as Russell is not one I would think would comprehend Plotinus, let alone accept his philosophy as relevant. I agree with Roy S that a logical positivist is externally focused when Plotinus was a highly introverted mystic. Russell is not one who I would want to help me to understand Plotinus (who has always been a natural fit for me).
To be eloquent is not a sign of True Wisdom ,it is a sign that the speaker doesn't understand the Spiritual Nature of "The Form of the Good" or "The Form of the Beautiful", Forms are not Lofty thoughts and intellectual sounding speech patterns ....."Forms" are .....🤔
I admire Russell immensely for his ability to debunk meaningless metaphysical ( or any other variety ) of drivel. Not sure however he is to be regarded as objective about Plotinus. ? Having said that ; how we need public intellectuals like Russell today.
So true. Actual intellectuals are considered boring. If you want to be a "public intellectual" you have to go on a terrible podcast or reality tv show and blame something on minoritIes and say you only eat bread so people will pay attention to you.
Plotinus and Christianity?! Christianity contains philosophy only because philosophers knew that the only way to preserve true metaphysics was to hide it in newly inforced religion. And while they were doing it, they had to make sure it wasn't obvious. Dionysius is good material to study for this topic.
You are right, besides, it is very likely that the main reason why Christinity has managed to survive in a society based on science and philosophy such as our modern western civilization is because it "hid" Platonic (including neo-platonic) and Aristotelian metaphysics in its dogmatic theology. This was more the case with Catholic than with Protestant theologians (the latter being more inclined to mysticism).
I think Russel errs in his thesis concerning the value of the philosophy of return in Plotinus. But Russel is a outward focused logical positivist sedused by the fallacies of scientific materialism and can do nothing other than judge the experiential direction of Plotinus. He is thus incapable of extending his intellect outside of the mechanistic box of reason in which all such materialists inevitably find themselves, mistaking the box for reality, as it were. Rusell was equally incapable of understanding the paradoxes of quantum theory and could only mentally play with relativity theory. Alas, he was unable to penetrate to the soul in site of his great capacity for words.
Kind of annoying how philosophers steeped in derterminism, such as Russell in this video, have to trot out their little "just so" stories about what was going on in the environment, that led to the thinker's position. - in this case the BS about how the hard times in the empire during that century drove Plotinus's other-worldly philosophy. Hard times didn't create that philosophy. Plotinus thought about what had come before and created a new synthesis. Because that's what he wanted to do. Not because some hard times drove him to it. Sheesh.
It is true that, in this book, Russell over-psychologizes the philosophers he is studying, and thar, at times, his approach is almost historicist; but, some information about the religious, scientific and political context in which philosophical systems were developed is necessary for a complete understanding of said systems.
Certain material conditions could certainly effect the path of thinking that one would take. Suffering cleanses the soul and can sharpen it. The primitive "idea a" + "idea b" = "idea c" is just that - primitive. Material conditions do absolutely play a role in how we think and behave (try to "objectively" compare a rich man and a poor man of the same time period, race, culture, city, etc. and their worldviews - quite different). So it would make sense for a man like Plotinus with his intellect AND within the confines of his respective time period to be the man closer to the Truth.
This is a serious mis-representation of the Neoplatonic perspective. It repeatedly assumes that Plotinus is speaking philosophically and theoretically . . . rather than experientially and practically.
QED, thank you for the insightful comment! I wholeheartedly agree! Plotinus treatise is very practical and scientific. Or scientific according to the standards of science in his day. It's not just theology or dreams or theory.
![History of Western Philosophy: Ch. 9 ECCLESIASTICAL REFORM [11TH CENTURY] (Bertrand Russell)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nohQk80RWWQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![History of Western Philosophy: Ch. 9 ECCLESIASTICAL REFORM [11TH CENTURY] (Bertrand Russell)](/img/tr.png)
Beautiful.
What I would give to be as eloquent as this speaker! A very good lecture.
Yes it is indeed a good lecture, but rather you should wish to think and contemplate as eloquently as the man did whom this lecture is about.
Aerautic Jojola Right now I wish you would shut the **** up, how's that for eloquence?
blazinchalice lol, i rest my case.
blazinchalice That is not valid, youtube makes it perfectly clear to share comments and statements in the comments sections, have they not? Think of what you're saying, if you walk into a grocery store and grab a shopping cart, what will you think of the man who walks up to you and says "no one asked you to grab that".?
If i grab a shopping cart and ram it into yours like they're two bumper cars, what will you think of me? Probably that I'm a rude, insensitive, uncongenial, condescending bitch.
Thank you - great presentation . I love Plotinus
excellent lecture. Well worth the time. Very informative and accurate.
Brilliant explaination
I consider Russel's book to be something of a Logical Positivism technical demo. I think logicism is a bit hubristic in that it has it's own metaphysics capable of reading other metaphysical systems, so he assumes it must be something above metaphysics, but it isn't. It is a metaphysical system capable of transliteration because it is based on logic. That's impressive in it's own right, but hardly the Truth. But whatever I may think about Russel's metaphysics, it's impossible not to love him as a man.
The thought of Plotinus finds its completion in the Indian religions.
Which school(?) Advaita Vedanta seems the most wholly harmonious.
@@Floral_Green I would point more towards the Naths and the larger Tantra branches...
This is primarily due to the emphasis on overcoming dualities as a way towards the one...
For me Advaita Vedanta expects you to uphold too much nonsense, but here actual experience matters.
I disagree, when Plotinus lived there was nothing like it in India.
Adi Shankara is some 500 years later, while Gorakhnath is another 300 years later.
For me it is the philosophical influence that has driven Hinduism and Buddhism in this direction.
Before this there's just fire rituals and incantations expected to uphold the world.
There is no direct experience even for priests, let alone common folk.
Why don't I ever remember this stuff
I would recommend not committing it to your brain word for word but thinking of it in abstract ways, i.e. shapes. Then add a certain emotion to each of the abstractions. And when recollecting - try to "feel" it as though it is material, and then explain it through intuition.
This might not work for some dry university professor who lacks any thoughts of his own and spent his whole life repeating word for word other people's thoughts and ideas, but if you're doing it not to get a grade, then don't do what many "academicians" (university politicians) do.
Not bad, actually -- just located the source: "History of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell.
This is very good! What book is this, please?
History of Western philosophy, Bertrand Russell
oh, sorry, I just noticed the comment from Wayne. THANK YOU!
Thanks for the upload.
Interesting that this is based on Russell's book as Russell is not one I would think would comprehend Plotinus, let alone accept his philosophy as relevant. I agree with Roy S that a logical positivist is externally focused when Plotinus was a highly introverted mystic. Russell is not one who I would want to help me to understand Plotinus (who has always been a natural fit for me).
VISHNU AS THE ONE. BRAMA AS NOUS. SHIVA AS TIME. BRACKMA AS THE TAO, AS THE MYTERIOUS FORCE BEHIND IT ALL. CATOR THE IMORTAL SOUL, POLEX THE MORTAL
To be eloquent is not a sign of True Wisdom ,it is a sign that the speaker doesn't understand the Spiritual Nature of "The Form of the Good" or "The Form of the Beautiful", Forms are not Lofty thoughts and intellectual sounding speech patterns ....."Forms" are .....🤔
ON THE GOOD AS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE, SEE WIKI, METAPHYSICS OF WUALITY AND ROBERT M PIRSIG
I admire Russell immensely for his ability to debunk meaningless metaphysical ( or any other variety ) of drivel.
Not sure however he is to be regarded as objective about
Plotinus. ? Having said that ; how we need public intellectuals like Russell today.
So true. Actual intellectuals are considered boring. If you want to be a "public intellectual" you have to go on a terrible podcast or reality tv show and blame something on minoritIes and say you only eat bread so people will pay attention to you.
Plotinus and Christianity?! Christianity contains philosophy only because philosophers knew that the only way to preserve true metaphysics was to hide it in newly inforced religion. And while they were doing it, they had to make sure it wasn't obvious. Dionysius is good material to study for this topic.
You are right, besides, it is very likely that the main reason why Christinity has managed to survive in a society based on science and philosophy such as our modern western civilization is because it "hid" Platonic (including neo-platonic) and Aristotelian metaphysics in its dogmatic theology. This was more the case with Catholic than with Protestant theologians (the latter being more inclined to mysticism).
Nonsense
I think Russel errs in his thesis concerning the value of the philosophy of return in Plotinus. But Russel is a outward focused logical positivist sedused by the fallacies of scientific materialism and can do nothing other than judge the experiential direction of Plotinus. He is thus incapable of extending his intellect outside of the mechanistic box of reason in which all such materialists inevitably find themselves, mistaking the box for reality, as it were. Rusell was equally incapable of understanding the paradoxes of quantum theory and could only mentally play with relativity theory. Alas, he was unable to penetrate to the soul in site of his great capacity for words.
Kind of annoying how philosophers steeped in derterminism, such as Russell in this video, have to trot out their little "just so" stories about what was going on in the environment, that led to the thinker's position. - in this case the BS about how the hard times in the empire during that century drove Plotinus's other-worldly philosophy. Hard times didn't create that philosophy. Plotinus thought about what had come before and created a new synthesis. Because that's what he wanted to do. Not because some hard times drove him to it. Sheesh.
historicism was a mistake
It is true that, in this book, Russell over-psychologizes the philosophers he is studying, and thar, at times, his approach is almost historicist; but, some information about the religious, scientific and political context in which philosophical systems were developed is necessary for a complete understanding of said systems.
@@dancingbanana627 Does not do what?
Certain material conditions could certainly effect the path of thinking that one would take. Suffering cleanses the soul and can sharpen it.
The primitive "idea a" + "idea b" = "idea c" is just that - primitive. Material conditions do absolutely play a role in how we think and behave (try to "objectively" compare a rich man and a poor man of the same time period, race, culture, city, etc. and their worldviews - quite different).
So it would make sense for a man like Plotinus with his intellect AND within the confines of his respective time period to be the man closer to the Truth.
This is a serious mis-representation of the Neoplatonic perspective. It repeatedly assumes that Plotinus is speaking philosophically and theoretically . . . rather than experientially and practically.
What do you understand by these distinctions exactly.
QED, thank you for the insightful comment! I wholeheartedly agree! Plotinus treatise is very practical and scientific. Or scientific according to the standards of science in his day. It's not just theology or dreams or theory.