This is a really really helpful and formative conversation David. Thank you so much. McCarraher is one of the most thought provoking thinking in political economy we have and I wish more people would listen to him. I also would love to see you host a conversation with Cornel West, a fellow Christian socialist. That could be incredibly rich and you you both share a sharp critique of capitalism. love and solidarity with those struggling with poverty and welcoming the stranger.
Great conversation. On fairies, I’ve always liked the the tale told by The Wife of Bath in Chaucer on their disappearance, in which the spread of Christianity plays a role. The comments on volume 3 of Capital are misguided, I think, given it is work Marx never published, cobbled together by Engels out of notes, and he observed there was no “finished draft, or even an outline plan to be filled in, but simply the beginning of an elaboration which petered out more than once in a disordered jumble of notes, comments and extract material.” Moreover, more recent work on Marx’s late (and rather deep) reading of the anthropology of his day complicates the view that he though socialism/communism necessarily went through capitalism or even a highly centralized state. I definitely need to read more Ruskin. Perhaps Richard Sennet’s trilogy on craft owes a debt to Ruskin’s legacy. Really enjoying these conservations.
Every time you talk about Thomists I think of that scene in Blazing Saddles where Hedley Lamarr reels off the list of ruffians he wants to hire and I end it with “and Thomists!”.
Also, I have been working back through the BEAUTY OF THE INFINITE and thinking about it in relation to you more recent work in YOU ARE GODS and conversations with Indigenous traditions and thinkers. That book still holds up, though I suspect there are things you would say differently if you did an updated version of it. Would it be fair to say that THE HIDDEN AND THE MANIFEST, YOU ARE GODS, and your book on tradition would provide more current ways that you would discuss much of the material in THE BEAUTY OF THE INFINITE? I am thinking particularly of universalism and syncretistic and fruitful conversations you have been having with Vedantic, Buddhist, and Indigenous traditions in relation to Christian trinitarian, incarnational tradition. By the way, I found your conversation on Gospel Conversations with the Northern Island and Aboriginal brothers in Australia to be extremely helpful and a beautiful example of interreligious conversation. Thanks for all you do.
Grateful ! What a conversation between Eugene and David wow so many big words didn’t matter. I still understood it !!! Plus their history knowledge… I’ll take a script of this, but I don’t have a printer so I’ll just watch it again. I’m kind of the repetitive type thank you thank you David and Eugene.
34:00 - my comment as a VFX artist. Some film makers use the same crew and use film instead of digital because they wanted to maintain the friendships and personal connections to craftsman and subject matter experts. We live in a hyper pragmatic age where there is a huge attempt to replace artists with a button that shits out results. My brother and I agree that art isn't just about the end product but the relationships made and the sharing between each-other in making the art.
I like your new look! I never expected you'd cut it (your beard) so short but it looks good! You mentioned Francis Bacon around the 18:20 mark of this conversation (or so I presumed). Strangely, I first heard of him through a band I liked, and still appreciate to this day, The Bolshoi. They were an English band so it seems to make sense they would include him in one of their songs, somewhere via 1987, I think. Anyway, per usual, I'm probably way off topic. He was a Scientist/Universalist in some regards? I've not done my research apparently!
@@piquant7103 I'll be honest with you. I haven't played the more modern variations of Zelda, and even the first two I did play have been a good while back.
1:03:43 (the topic of love) Where can we learn more abut love being a power, love is a correctly scientific ontology? I want to follow DBH on that thread of thought. I found that very fascinating. I want to study the argument that love is a real force.
Oh hell yeah Random thought: I'd love to see David do one of these with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of Zaytuna College. I vaguely recall him speaking positively of Renovatio, the college's journal, and I haven't seen him engage much with Islamic thought. Would be a great meeting of minds.
Great conversation, with the exception of one meteoric blunder on DBH's part: Dr. McCarraher is no middle-aged Ronald Colman, but David Strathairn on return from three weeks of sauntering in the Sierras.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Mission: Accomplished. Spry, Sprightly, Dashing, Debonair. Could he too enchant Carmela Soprano and go toe-to-toe with HUAC? Put your mortgage on it. [Just as a fun side note: Last time I saw Prof Hauerwas in his office, front and center on his desk was a book the size of an old-timey dictionary. I asked him what it was and he said, "It's a wonderful book called The Enchantments of Mammon," and just a little later I walk upstairs to Prof Bretherton's office and he had just finished reading it as well. I'm pumped that a guy that can write a scholarly tome like that is also so gregarious and affable in conversation.]
Can I second this! I found the conversation quite difficult to listen to because of the audio issues. A good mic (needn't cost the earth) would fix this.
The discussion on Marxism left much to be desired. Perhaps this is a consequence of being in post-McCarthyism academia. Marxism is a humanism. Roland Boer would be a very interesting chat on this channel. Great conversation regardless! Thank you for making these freely available.
Though if Dr Hart is hanging out with so-called Marxist who say things like "it's not what you're willing to die for, but what you're willing to kill for" who can blame him for having a confused view.
I don't think we can accuse the great American Marxists like Robeson, Winston, and Du Bois of being mechanistic determinists detached from the Beauty of Creation who view the humanity and the world as something to be exploited until sublation.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Apparently I didn't. Though I'm specifically responding to your Althusserian (if you will) characterization of Capital and the so-called late Marx. Perhaps I'm immaturely taking the criticism of an intellectual tradition personally - I'll meditate on that.
@@阳明子 I’m hardly the first to see Kapital III as just capitalism universalized and centralized. I acknowledge I may be wrong, but it certainly reads that way.
u cant tell me David humor and cutting jokes are the greatest part of his conversations, and seamlessly off the cuff is stunning and brilliant. is Zuckerberg a ai simulation 😂
It is worth noting that that most of whatever intellectual vitality contemporary Marxism enjoys comes from reading Marx as an anti-economistic thinker - ie. reading his work as critique of political economy, rather than a critical political economy. His theory of value and fetishism, after all, is precisely about how what we call 'economic objectivity' is not a trans-historical ontological sphere, but a particular historical form taken by social relations of interdependence. The 'economy', in this reading, is a capitalist spectre (and a vampiric one, to use Marx's image), which makes it all the more weird and tragic that it became reified by Marxist orthodoxy for so long.
But isn't Marx's theory of value a form of economic objectivity? I've always read it as an attempt to instantiate (or "ontologozie") value in some discernible metaphysical unit. I got frustrated reading Marx because he definetly seems to inch towards an understanding of the absolute abstractness of value, but ends up with his convoluted labour-theory to preserve some objectivity to value.
Well, I think that Marx's point is precisely that what we call economic value is a relational property - it is the way social relations of interdependence appear as the reified quality of a commodity. So yes, it is objective (in contrast to, say, marginalist theory) in the sense that it is a theory of how interdependence is organised at the level of a social totality, rather than emergent from the contingent interaction of abstract/atomised individuals. But it is immaterial in the sense that it is, as I mentioned, a relational phenomenon. I like Diane Elson's formulation on this: more than being a 'labour theory of value', it is a value theory of (social) labour - in other words, a theory of how what we do for each other is organised under capitalism, with all the consequences we see around us. In this sense, what we call 'economic objectivity' (eg capital, value, profit, rent, etc) is nothing but our relations of mutual constitution, in negated form. I think this is an interesting way to read Marx productively.
Stephen R. L. Clark, a favorite philosopher of Dr. Hart's, has two articles about fairies you may be interested in. 'How to Believe in Fairies' and 'Why We Believe in Fairies' are their titles. Dr. Hart has an article 'God, Gods, and Fairies' also.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a really really helpful and formative conversation David. Thank you so much. McCarraher is one of the most thought provoking thinking in political economy we have and I wish more people would listen to him. I also would love to see you host a conversation with Cornel West, a fellow Christian socialist. That could be incredibly rich and you you both share a sharp critique of capitalism. love and solidarity with those struggling with poverty and welcoming the stranger.
agreed
Gotta love the amazing backgrounds for these convos
That was completely delightful. Thank you both.
Nice conversation, David and Eugene!
Great conversation. On fairies, I’ve always liked the the tale told by The Wife of Bath in Chaucer on their disappearance, in which the spread of Christianity plays a role. The comments on volume 3 of Capital are misguided, I think, given it is work Marx never published, cobbled together by Engels out of notes, and he observed there was no “finished draft, or even an outline plan to be filled in, but simply the beginning of an elaboration which petered out more than once in a disordered jumble of notes, comments and extract material.” Moreover, more recent work on Marx’s late (and rather deep) reading of the anthropology of his day complicates the view that he though socialism/communism necessarily went through capitalism or even a highly centralized state. I definitely need to read more Ruskin. Perhaps Richard Sennet’s trilogy on craft owes a debt to Ruskin’s legacy. Really enjoying these conservations.
Two of my favorite thinkers. What a gift.
Poets and propagandists not 'thinkers'.
Every time you talk about Thomists I think of that scene in Blazing Saddles where Hedley Lamarr reels off the list of ruffians he wants to hire and I end it with “and Thomists!”.
Also, I have been working back through the BEAUTY OF THE INFINITE and thinking about it in relation to you more recent work in YOU ARE GODS and conversations with Indigenous traditions and thinkers. That book still holds up, though I suspect there are things you would say differently if you did an updated version of it. Would it be fair to say that THE HIDDEN AND THE MANIFEST, YOU ARE GODS, and your book on tradition would provide more current ways that you would discuss much of the material in THE BEAUTY OF THE INFINITE? I am thinking particularly of universalism and syncretistic and fruitful conversations you have been having with Vedantic, Buddhist, and Indigenous traditions in relation to Christian trinitarian, incarnational tradition. By the way, I found your conversation on Gospel Conversations with the Northern Island and Aboriginal brothers in Australia to be extremely helpful and a beautiful example of interreligious conversation. Thanks for all you do.
Grateful ! What a conversation between Eugene and David wow so many big words didn’t matter. I still understood it !!! Plus their history knowledge… I’ll take a script of this, but I don’t have a printer so I’ll just watch it again. I’m kind of the repetitive type thank you thank you David and Eugene.
Wow two hero’s in conversation. ❤
Two sheep bleating.
Thank You!
It will never be not entertaining to listen to mr Hart roasting Thomists
Facts
And roasting Calvinists too.
34:00 - my comment as a VFX artist.
Some film makers use the same crew and use film instead of digital because they wanted to maintain the friendships and personal connections to craftsman and subject matter experts. We live in a hyper pragmatic age where there is a huge attempt to replace artists with a button that shits out results. My brother and I agree that art isn't just about the end product but the relationships made and the sharing between each-other in making the art.
I like your new look! I never expected you'd cut it (your beard) so short but it looks good!
You mentioned Francis Bacon around the 18:20 mark of this conversation (or so I presumed). Strangely, I first heard of him through a band I liked, and still appreciate to this day, The Bolshoi. They were an English band so it seems to make sense they would include him in one of their songs, somewhere via 1987, I think. Anyway, per usual, I'm probably way off topic. He was a Scientist/Universalist in some regards? I've not done my research apparently!
@@piquant7103 Interesting analysis.
@@piquant7103 I'll be honest with you. I haven't played the more modern variations of Zelda, and even the first two I did play have been a good while back.
1:03:43 (the topic of love) Where can we learn more abut love being a power, love is a correctly scientific ontology? I want to follow DBH on that thread of thought. I found that very fascinating. I want to study the argument that love is a real force.
1:51:15 Hart discusses Tikkun Olam
Oh hell yeah
Random thought: I'd love to see David do one of these with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of Zaytuna College. I vaguely recall him speaking positively of Renovatio, the college's journal, and I haven't seen him engage much with Islamic thought. Would be a great meeting of minds.
Great conversation, with the exception of one meteoric blunder on DBH's part: Dr. McCarraher is no middle-aged Ronald Colman, but David Strathairn on return from three weeks of sauntering in the Sierras.
I was trying to make him feel dashing and debonair.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Mission: Accomplished. Spry, Sprightly, Dashing, Debonair. Could he too enchant Carmela Soprano and go toe-to-toe with HUAC? Put your mortgage on it.
[Just as a fun side note: Last time I saw Prof Hauerwas in his office, front and center on his desk was a book the size of an old-timey dictionary. I asked him what it was and he said, "It's a wonderful book called The Enchantments of Mammon," and just a little later I walk upstairs to Prof Bretherton's office and he had just finished reading it as well. I'm pumped that a guy that can write a scholarly tome like that is also so gregarious and affable in conversation.]
Please, please invest in better audio. The content is amazing, of course
Can I second this! I found the conversation quite difficult to listen to because of the audio issues. A good mic (needn't cost the earth) would fix this.
Eugene: Have you seen how to blow up a pipeline?
David: WHY ON EARTH
No, that’s not quite what I said.
@@leavesinthewind7441 I know. I was attempting to make a joke.
@@Jordan-hz1wr So was I, but badly.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Let's both just agree to never joke on the internet again.
@@Jordan-hz1wr Wise.
The discussion on Marxism left much to be desired. Perhaps this is a consequence of being in post-McCarthyism academia. Marxism is a humanism. Roland Boer would be a very interesting chat on this channel.
Great conversation regardless! Thank you for making these freely available.
Though if Dr Hart is hanging out with so-called Marxist who say things like "it's not what you're willing to die for, but what you're willing to kill for" who can blame him for having a confused view.
I don't think we can accuse the great American Marxists like Robeson, Winston, and Du Bois of being mechanistic determinists detached from the Beauty of Creation who view the humanity and the world as something to be exploited until sublation.
Apparently you didn’t follow the conversation very closely. The issue had to do with the current generation of Marxists in the academic world.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Apparently I didn't. Though I'm specifically responding to your Althusserian (if you will) characterization of Capital and the so-called late Marx. Perhaps I'm immaturely taking the criticism of an intellectual tradition personally - I'll meditate on that.
@@阳明子 I’m hardly the first to see Kapital III as just capitalism universalized and centralized. I acknowledge I may be wrong, but it certainly reads that way.
u cant tell me David humor and cutting jokes are the greatest part of his conversations, and seamlessly off the cuff is stunning and brilliant.
is Zuckerberg a ai simulation 😂
Flat flippancy is the limit of Christian 'humor'.
Of course McCarraher's book is a ridiculous price.
It is worth noting that that most of whatever intellectual vitality contemporary Marxism enjoys comes from reading Marx as an anti-economistic thinker - ie. reading his work as critique of political economy, rather than a critical political economy. His theory of value and fetishism, after all, is precisely about how what we call 'economic objectivity' is not a trans-historical ontological sphere, but a particular historical form taken by social relations of interdependence. The 'economy', in this reading, is a capitalist spectre (and a vampiric one, to use Marx's image), which makes it all the more weird and tragic that it became reified by Marxist orthodoxy for so long.
But isn't Marx's theory of value a form of economic objectivity? I've always read it as an attempt to instantiate (or "ontologozie") value in some discernible metaphysical unit. I got frustrated reading Marx because he definetly seems to inch towards an understanding of the absolute abstractness of value, but ends up with his convoluted labour-theory to preserve some objectivity to value.
Well, I think that Marx's point is precisely that what we call economic value is a relational property - it is the way social relations of interdependence appear as the reified quality of a commodity. So yes, it is objective (in contrast to, say, marginalist theory) in the sense that it is a theory of how interdependence is organised at the level of a social totality, rather than emergent from the contingent interaction of abstract/atomised individuals. But it is immaterial in the sense that it is, as I mentioned, a relational phenomenon. I like Diane Elson's formulation on this: more than being a 'labour theory of value', it is a value theory of (social) labour - in other words, a theory of how what we do for each other is organised under capitalism, with all the consequences we see around us. In this sense, what we call 'economic objectivity' (eg capital, value, profit, rent, etc) is nothing but our relations of mutual constitution, in negated form. I think this is an interesting way to read Marx productively.
Can mr Hart recommend a book for anyone interested in the existence of fairies?
Stephen R. L. Clark, a favorite philosopher of Dr. Hart's, has two articles about fairies you may be interested in. 'How to Believe in Fairies' and 'Why We Believe in Fairies' are their titles.
Dr. Hart has an article 'God, Gods, and Fairies' also.
I tend to use Neo-Scholastic, or Neo-Neo- Scholastic or Zombie Neo-Scholasticism for that kind of Thomism.
I use all sorts of terms for them, but I tried to confine myself to the non-obscene ones.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Neo-Scholastics fairly accurate, and I think a lot of them would actualy use it themselves.
😂
Good
Oh how I have waited for DBH to stomp transhumanists and Zuck et al.
Speed up automation and AI, so we can sit around and read theology!
All of that sounds bad to me.