Just beautiful comparison and contrast of Aristotelian and Kantian epistemology and ethics. You left us with an honest conclusion. Brilliant and insightful, Professor. Thanks for sharing.
@@markwiechman8513 You took the words right out of my mouth Mark. I tried reading Chesterton and couldn't get through chapter two. For me the beauty of Dr. Kreeft's lectures is I can pause and rewind! I'm old. Really old. Blessings from Kansas~
Dear Peter Kreeft, thank you very much. You’re bringing together such a breadth of historical thought, with the utmost respect and with clarity. Plato, Aristotle and Kant are giants to whom we owe a great deal… and after Kant, there has always been a great silence. Paying him tribute and at the same time seeing his limits seems the right thing to me… Thank you so much for your dedication to philosophy. We really need this today.
This series is amazing. The parallel between Sola Scriptura and Scientism was fantastic (6:40). I've never heard of any more convincing argument against Sola Scriptura than that.
As a Calvinist, I know that Peter Kreeft created a strawman and attacked the strawman rather than what it means in reality. Sola Scriptura actually means that when a pope decides to sell indulgences to build a beautiful Church in the Vatican while the Bible tells us to be sober, he shouldn't be allowed to. He will be hostile to the Bible, which is God's Word.
@@davidconroy6350 Maybe but he is using it the same way most people do today. I will make an observation and I'm immediately challenged to provide a Bible verse for it. This is naked Scriptura. Which is how the vast majority understand Sola Scriptura.
I have to listen to it several times to take notes. The link of final cause with ethicts is an aspect I did not link so clearly. It is paramount to have a comprehensive understanding of ethics and how it links with the rest of existence.
Unless i misunderstood, you are asking about the relationship or the link between final cause and ethics right?? So here my take: In Aristotlian, final cause is not merely about time but about telos i.e. purpose or goal. So the final purpose of ethics is to know what ought to be done i.e. to know the purpose of ones action--both in thought and deed. I hope this explain your question :)
That disconnect is natural, here's why: a telos is something's end, whereas what's ethical is what has as itself an end. So, there's no apparent external telos to ethical action beyond the action itself, regardless of the result, in both Kant and Aristotle. However, the key difference is that Aristotle takes this final cause to take form as an entire life, such that a life filled with these inherently valuable actions, when done for their own sake, is an ethical life, a eudaimon/happy life. Kant, on the other hand, merely ascribes morality to the actions themselves, not an entire life.
@@golddmane I kind of follow you. I'm not so much interested in what Aristotleor kant say, as to what makes sense and brings us closer to truth. As i see it, every being has a final cause, both the living organism as well as the actions of that being. The final cause is external to the being, just as the efficient cause. But there is no being without a final cause. Would you agree?
A combination of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton is Dr. Kreeft but as himself; a wonderfully simple and direct man in all the best sense. A true teacher.
There is a difference between Aquinas and Aristotle. Much work has gone into articulating this difference since the early 19th Century by Historians of Ancient Greece. And, there are 20th Century Philosophers who were inspired by the Greek Aristotle but accepted the advent of Darwin. John Dewey led the way on this and John Herman Randall, Jr are worth a go. All that said, There is much to be learned from this lecture on Realism vs Idealism, Realism vs Nominalism and the rocky shoals of Skepticism both Ancient and Modern. Most importantly, let this talk prime you pump but don’t stop here. Find what stimulate your curiosity and don’t take any answer as final. There is always more to discover and amazing turns to be taken in the Adventure of Ideas 😊
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:21 📜 Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are considered among the most important philosophers in history. No philosophers today are predicted to reach their level of greatness. 02:33 🤔 Aristotle's rationality and common sense often confound modern students and philosophers alike, making his ideas difficult to understand and accept. 06:22 🧠 Aristotle's philosophy upholds the concept of "form," the essence of things that includes their natural end or purpose (teleology). Modern science's focus on measurement and quantification has led to a decline in appreciation for such notions. 07:48 💡 Aristotle's theory of natural moral law, based on human nature's inherent essence, is in contrast to subjective values or desires. This concept of objective morality is often at odds with modern cultural trends. 10:11 🧩 Aristotle's logic, involving four key questions (what, whether, why), provides a structured approach to evaluating ideas. Inductive abstraction (moving from particulars to universals) and deductive reasoning (moving from universals to particulars) are central to his epistemology. 12:18 🕊️ Aristotle's hylomorphism explains that entities consist of both matter and form. This idea applies to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father. 15:21 🌏 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding causation and explanation in the world. 18:08 🌟 Aristotle's view on human nature strikes a balance between inherent virtue and potential vice. He believes in training and directing human impulses through reason to develop virtues and eradicate vices. 20:27 🤝 While Aristotle and Plato differ on some points, their overall agreement is more significant than their differences. Their shared understanding of the reality of God and the Divinity of Christ is analogous to the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. 22:47 🧐 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) has practical applications, aiding in comprehensive explanations of various subjects. 25:01 🌞 Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, often translated as "happiness," actually refers to objective human flourishing and perfection, encompassing both physical and spiritual well-being. 26:52 🤔 Aristotle's approach to suffering and justice differs from modern interpretations. He would not consider the question of why the righteous suffer as an unanswerable mystery but would view it as a path to wisdom and humility. 27:18 🧠 Aristotle added virtues to Plato's foundation, but disagreed on the relationship between knowing and doing the true good. 28:15 🧘 Moral virtues come from practice, constructing good habits and character, not just knowing the good intellectually. 29:27 🤔 Kant and Aristotle offer serious ethical and epistemological options, avoiding extremes like skepticism and dogmatism. 31:02 🌍 Kant's epistemology, the "Copernican Revolution," asserts humans create the structure of reality rather than passively perceiving it. 33:19 🌈 Kant's view: We can't know objective reality; our knowledge is limited by our mental structures (categories) applied to experience. 35:11 🤯 Kant's skepticism becomes paradoxical; questioning objective truth leads to contradictions. 37:01 🏆 Aristotle's virtue ethics contrasts with Kant's ethics of rules; Kant's principles emphasize human dignity and equality. 38:11 🔄 Kant's categorical imperative: Act according to maxims that could become universal laws; treat humanity as an end, not a means. 39:23 ❗ Kant's principles are necessary but insufficient for a complete morality; they regulate how to treat others, not personal character. 40:47 🧙 Kant's third formulation exalts human will as the creator of moral law; autonomy replaces reverence to God's will. 42:23 🙏 Kant's epistemology and ethics both emphasize human activity and creation, sidelining receptive aspects like divine revelation. 43:35 🤝 Kant's idea that every individual is an end in themselves has influenced modern ethics, including Pope John Paul II's teachings. Made with HARPA AI
Thank you. This is very helpful. One minor correction regarding sola Scriptura. For the 16th century reformers, Sola Scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only authority, but that it is the supreme authority for matters of doctrine and practice, those things pertaining to salvation. The tradition of the church fathers and the councils, scholarship and reason also have authority (for doctrine and practice) but only insofar as they are compatible with scripture. The reformers were concerned that the Catholic Church was adding requirements for salvation that were not in scripture, or elevating doctrines that were not taught by scripture, which were then made mandatory. There are some protestants who reject all tradition, but that was not the original intent of the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Anglicans).
"Quantificational logic" does not mean that it only deals with mathematical quantity. It can handle all Aristotelian cases. Quantificational logic simply refers to the quantifiers "there exists" and "for each", which serve the same role as the quantifiers "some" and "all" in Aristotelian logic. It is more comprehensive than simple propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers. Hence the name. One advantage possessed by modern logic over Aristotelian logic is that it is possible to put quantifiers simultaneously in the subject and the predicate of a proposition.
What I have listened to this 2 times now, I will listen again. I' am completely astonished &/ or haven't got a view or opinion as to the content of this man' s insights & lecture. But to say that I was completely enthralled by him & his inquiry into the subject matter of which he discusses in complete detail of how he was able to lay out his own thesis of what might have been to the thoughts of the 3 most important Greek philosiphers that shaped the origins of MANKIND'S particular conscience of as to how to measure nature in form's to discover how knowledge is obtained by humankind's nature &/ or of the nature of matter which is unfamiliar to MANKIND'S knowledge. That's what I understood from this speech. How say YOU. Ps; please feel free to enlighten me as to the differential assumptions of which I have obtained through opinion rather than proof of my thoughts &/ or opinion on this most important lecture
I have listened again to this man' s intuition on the subject matter of which he elaborates. Once again, i' am profoundly in attendance of. I would like to interject a little bit if I can . While I admit that I have a limited knowledge of philosophy in terms of formal education in philosophy & the social sciences, I have been self educating myself on the enlightened philosiphers to which I have been studying. What I have learned is of great importance to me relatively speaking as to this conversation & lecture. A thought occurred to me as to the relationship between FREEWILL &/ or MANKIND'S obtained knowledge in consciousness of the universal fundamentals of what FREEWILL encompasses in terms of the individual &/ or as a collective . It is in a statement that I have written down & Would like to share. HERE it goes folk's. " THE Alibi &/ or Alibies for, slash, FROM FREEWILL ". I would welcome any or all comments or views on this statement as to the relevance of this lecture or irrelevance in so regards. Ps; be advised, it is just a thought of mine & may not or may come to mind when discussing morals, ethics & values as it relates to MANKIND'S known knowledge &/ or unknown knowledge of the subject of FREEWILL . HOW say YOU?
This is the stuff if we want to understand what sanity means. Let's spread the word on these essential truths. Every time we hear someone speak of "values".
@@CynicalBastard That misunderstanding of what he is saying is indeed incoherent. He is stating that universal moral norms... like don't rape children for instance... are objectively true and protect the inherent good of life and being. Whether the pedophile sees this as his or her "value" is only of criminal interest. Subjective evaluations are either sane and true or immoral.
@@tommore3263 They can just as well be 'amoral'. Stop acting like there isn't a set of twisted values out there. Values can be insane. People can hold insane "values", that would never be acceptable as a norm, and thus would only be as fringe as the day is night.
Great idea to structure a lecture series in contrasting figures, this is indeed revealing in many respects. I'm enjoying these lectures immensly. Thank you!
Is Peter Kreeft the finest philosopher of our time? God bless you sir as you so richly bless us and restore the possibility of rational sanity in our world.
This lecture of this professor is quintessentially entwined with the abilities &/ or inabilities of mankind to acknowledge & disquish the parallels of what obtained knowledge mankind has achieved throughout the hx. Of mankind's limited knowledge of a nature unrelated of & / or of mankind 's inability to understand through quatatave measument the truth of forms that have yet to be resolved to the question of not only the nature of mankind, but more importantly, the nature of mankind's origins of makeup as it relates to quantity vs; mankind's qualities in form's of morals, values &/ or ethical principles.
I appreciate Dr. Kreeft's candid and concise delivery. These are complex ideas, but they deserve time and attention, as the very fabric of our world reflects the tension between them. For one, I am grateful to live in a time where profound insights into the nature of the world and ourselves are freely and openly available.
Kant is beyond nominalist in my opinion, he is a transcendental idealist, from which he shows us that nominalism is an idea of itself. Kant lights the torch of the "Idea" and passes it to Hegel
The Kant category analogy of light coming through stained glass is interesting. He says the color (reality) comes from the glass (our consciousness). But all this implies that there is a different me observing my consciousness (just like there is me looking at the colors coming through the glass). But the consciousness and me are the same thing, no? In other words, Kant seems to say that my consciousness distorts reality, and then presents it to me. Consciousness being a step in awareness. But I don’t see why it is a “step.” I am my consciousness and the awareness of reality is direct.
This guy is good! One quibble. He defines metaphysics as "what is". A more suitable definition is that Of RG Collingwood: metaphysics is concerned with historical "absolute presuppositions" which the answers to the repeated question "why" given by different cultures at different times. Aristotle represents the absolute presuppositions of the West up to the Enlightenment, Kant those that apply after it. Without denying the brilliance of Aristotle we cannot now go back to his metaphysics or epistemology. It is Kant who has set the frame for the "Mechanistic worldview" of what we call "science" that has dominated the World. The key presupposition is that identified by Gallileo before Kant: that nature is revealed in the language of mathematics and specifically calculus. However, Aristotelian ethics do have a role because ethics are not a matter of "science".
Awesome talk. Im gonna have to listen to this a few times. I dont understand why he conflates math with nominalism though. Having a variable like x and deducing truths about it seems pretty platonic to me. "2," for example, is an instance of an integer, which is a form that involves universal truths that can be discovered and communicated through proof and theorem.
We as a society have objectified Kantian subjectivity. Our subjectivism has brought us to the point of even denying scientific reality, ie the denial that there are only two genders. No matter how hard we try nature will not conform to who we think we are. This subjectivism is a complete seperation from reality.
That's not why people deny two genders. There's no point in discussing modern political topics because you must keep in mind that virtually everyone in politics, and really just everyone in general, is primarily concerned with negative liberty. Those who are concerned with positive liberty essentially have the Stoic mindset that anyone's a slave who depends on external goods. You won't see people like that very often because politics are inherently concerned with how humans interact with each other, but humans are an external good. It's no coincidence that people are torn between the right and the left, because these are ONLY based on judgements ie, I don't like trans people so I want them banned politically vs I'm fine with trans people so I don't want them banned. Notice how both of these concern negative liberty, though one's right and one's left. Feel free to respond, I'd be happy to have a discussion about this.
What’s with the background synth drone and the sound of running water? I’m wondering what it’s supposed to add to the lecture. Listenability? Or is it there for those who want to be lulled to sleep? If so, is the content to be taken in subconsciously? Does that even work? I’m skeptical-I can’t imagine either sound be used with a lecture in mathematics. It’s a good lecture. It doesn’t need to be watered down or enhanced with special effects.
Very nice, Thank you. However a small comment regarding the very end, about forgiveness. I think Aristotle can be forgiven for ignoring human freedom, because he is first and should be expected to be added to. Conversely Kant should not get lenience because he did not overall add to Aristotle, but actively ignored and even butchered important parts. IMO Kant is worth knowing because he offers a different perspective, but ultimately his is just a novelty with a few interesting new ideas, which unfortunately have been twisted to our detriment since. Anyway, many thanks..
Aristotle is the 13th apostle of Catholicism. Without him several of Aquinas' and Augustine's main ideas would be vacuous and "out of the blue". It seems that Dr. Kreeft considers Aristotle as one of the roots of christian moral philosophy, disregarding that he was a greek that grew around Zeus believers, and most likely atheist.
Aristotle did not believe in Zeus or any of the Greek gods. In fact, Aquinas borrowed some of Aristotle's arguments for the existence of God; however, Aristotle did not believe in a personal God, and he could accurately be described as a deist, like many of the founding fathers like Jefferson, Franklin, and Payne.
When he says if all triangular things in the universe disappeared, the laws of trigonometry would NOT exist for Aristotle does he mean PHYSICALLY disappeared? Or all triangular things in the abstract (mental universe) AND in the physical universe. Are the abstract and the physical in the same universe (one universe)?
3:33 ''Common Sense'' th-cam.com/video/SJPX2SpcCqw/w-d-xo.html You can't live together, you can't live alone Considering the weather, oh my how you've grown From the men in the factories to the wild kangaroo Like those birds of a feather, they're gathering together And feeling exactly like you They got mesmerized by lullabies and limbo danced in Pairs Please lock that door, it don't make much sense That common sense, don't make no sense no more Just between you and me, it's like pulling When you ought to be shoving Like a nun with her head in the oven Please don't tell me that this really wasn't nothing One of these days, one of these nights You'll take off your hat and they'll read you, your rights You'll wanna get high every time you feel low Hey, Queen Isabella stay away from that fella He'll just get you into trouble, you know? But they came here by boat and they came here by plane They blistered their hands and they burned out their brain All dreaming a dream, that'll never come true Hey, don't give me no trouble, or I'll call up my double We'll play piggy-in-the-middle with you You'll get mesmerized by alibis and limbo dance in Pairs Please lock that door, it don't make much sense That common sense, don't make no sense no more It don't make much sense, that common sense Don't make no sense no more ~John Prine song album by the same name (1975) To the age old argument; ''Which came first the chicken or the egg?'' I unapologetically answer... ''Why! He Came First!'' The Creator, He came 1st. The Creators' Rooster, He came 2nd. The Creators' Hen, she came 3rd. For did she not have to be laid - before all 3 entity's eggs ever could ? Does that not prove then - that creation demands a Creator ? ~Just another one of those many one's of ''We His Believers'' who's patiently awaiting ''His✝ Just⚖ Return🪃'' Blessings be continual upon your every endeavor WoFI. So till that long ago promised time; When we are overwhelmingly blessed by those things yet to be seen, heard, felt, and smelt; Within those many mansions full of our past kin; Which await all those who've accepted His Sacrifice.
Kreeft interprets Kant a little bit ungenerously when he says that the will offers no absolute guidance for each person. Kant introduces respect (for the dignity of the self and other) precisely to that end. We must always see dignity as the only moral absolute and that is, als for Catholics, a very good basic guiding principle, I believe.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. One quibble at the end. The US did not end slavery. The 13th amendment ended privately owned slaves, but created the whole new category of slaves of the state for anyone convicted of any crime. "For the time being, during his term of service in the penitentiary, he is in a state of penal servitude to the State. ." Ruffin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 62 Va. 790, 796, (1871).
Kant did make a real big shift in the history of philosophy. It was the Jewish thinker Moses Mendelssohn who called him "the great destroyer". If you read Kant's works closely, it may really be in some way disillusioning. Kleist created the term "Kantian Crisis" and became his famous victim. His philosophy had thrown the poet in a deep existential crisis.
Kant divorced philosophy from reality, and ultimately created a subjective anything-goes attitude toward both facts and values, According to Kant, even scientific "facts" are merely inter-subjective and bear no connection at all with the real world.
Kant's epistemology is not self-contradictory. Kant is not claiming that we cannot know objective reality, he is claiming that we can only know objective reality as our human cognition structures it. Just because we can only see the shadows of what is really there doesn't mean that we can't make objective claims about reality by observing those shadows. The error is in mistaking the shadows for the things-in-themselves. Kant is claiming that our view of reality is not that of an omniscient being like God, but is particular to us as human beings, which, given your clear preference for a Christian worldview, I would have thought you might appreciate? I've always seen Kant's work as profoundly humbling. Also, you're citing Socrates as one of history's unsurpassable philosophers and then immediately making appeals to philosophies that seem to you to be based on "common sense"? Socrates would have a field day with you.
1) Kant said that identity, which itself is the essence of existence, invalidates consciousness. He said that any knowledge attained by a process of consciousness is inescapably subjective and therefore cannot match the facts of reality, because it is processed or altered knowledge. Whereas all consciousness is a relationship between a subject and an object, according to Kant a person would have to go outside of his consciousness in order to acquire knowledge of what is real ... which he cannot do. Kant said that to know what is true a man would have to abandon his own nature, which is an absurd impossibility. Kant said that any attempt to know true reality requires a consciousness that is not limited by any specific means of cognition. This is the criterion or goal of Kant’s argument, and in this idea of his he holds that man may not know anything. Except him!! Kant hoped that his audience would not notice that Kant required his own perspectives to be invalid. If we believe Kant's own claims then we must disbelieve Kant's own expressed views and his published conclusions. He prevents his own claims from being valid ... as a consequence of his own stated rules. 2) Kant says that if consciousness possesses its own identity, then it cannot grasp the identity of anything external to it. This Kantian argument attempts to divorce reason from reality. Reason, according to Kant, is limited, and only deals with appearances, and is unable to perceive reality or “things as they are in themselves.” He says that reason is powerless to deal with the fundamental metaphysical concerns of existence that properly reside in the unknowable world. Again, Kant is claiming knowledge about things, while simultaneously saying that he (as a fellow human) can never claim knowledge. 3) Kant’s concern is with judgments that can be known with certainty. He says that this disqualifies reason because of a priori limitations on what can be known via reason. He says that because the human mind’s categories are limited to appearances, knowledge of the real world is therefore not possible. He says that the inability to know reality must lead to relativism and skepticism AT ALL TIMES, and this is appropriate to man. Except when Kant himself wants to make conclusions - we are all asked to accept that his own statements are magically immune from his own doctrine. This is a philosophical fraud. And with what personal faculty of his did Kant evaluate and conclude this ... his reason. Throughout all of his materials Kant self-defeats his own proposition on-its-face and he prevents his own claims from being valid ... according to his own stated rules. Any student of Kant's materials can see for themselves that on each page whenever he says something similar to ... "and this is why reason cannot reveal or provide knowledge" ... the student can see (quite easily) that Kant is exercising his own faculty of reason in order to obtain & articulate his own asserted knowledge. Kant was consistently hypocritical because he disavowed a human faculty while he was simultaneously relying on that same faculty. Without much effort, any normal average student of Kant's materials can observe the above contradictions, as well as another several dozen important contradictions which result in his viewpoints being invalid.
Dr. Kreeft’s opening statement is profound and I totally agree. But why? Dr. Kreeft goes right to the point and that is Aristotle was “Reasonable to a fault and had ( what has been lost in humanity) Common Sense. Too very difficult concepts to embrace and accept at face value. It also makes me think rationality is a lost art. Many “ thinkers” today use opinion and conjecture in place or rationality. We question what is rational It is no longer a given. Aristotle was a (the) original thinker. His ideas and conclusions were based on rational thinking not filled with conjecture or opinion. These two options are not facts and may not be reasonable. I want to believe “ Truth”- ultimate truth is unquestionable. Absolute. When we muddy the waters truth becomes dubious. Suspect. Society and current political arenas plus religious beliefs contribute to the obfuscation to truth thereby rendering it possibly true. Not completely true. Which to is a human failing.
When reality to you is subjective, you will NOT like Aristotle. If you look at Todays society it’s obvious that there is a vocal and radical group of subjectivists.
Aristotle, upon Plato’s demise, rejected his idea of FORMS which was the entire basis of objectivism. No wonder people hate him. What kind of student would do this?
Simply put, No. The first 'official' contraception to be invented was likely the condom, as there's evidence that condoms were used in the UK as early as 1640, but condom-like items were used as early as 3000 BC. Maybe he meant widespread cultural acceptance. Check out the museum of contraception at Case Western Reserve Medical History Center with artifacts in the USA going back to the 1800's.
This is from the Word on Fire Institute, but what does any of this have to do with the Catholic faith, or even faith in general? This has nothing to do with religion.
I think Dr. Peter Kreeft will be remembered for his contributions to philosophy the way Goldberg is revered and remembered for his variations (Bach). I would love to have been one of his students.
Kreeft gives the Catholic apologist description of both Aristotle and Kant and then mentions that Aristotle and Aquinas will be still recognized as great in 100 years, but excludes Kant and other greats. Kreeft shows that Kant did offer a different epistemology and ethics from Aristotle and Aquinas, but Kreeft acknowledges that Kant showed that all people are free. Both Aristotle and Aquinas accepted slavery as natural. Kreeft does not discuss Kant's transcendental idealism at all and derides Kant's Christianity as misguided Pietism. Kreeft seems more just repeating the talking points of the Reformation than in critiquing the pure reason of Kant's transcendental Protestant reality. Kreeft does make it clear why Catholic apologists embrace Aristotle and Aquinas and reject Kant, but Kant is by far the more popular philosopher than Aristotle and Aquinas combined.
Well said, he strained himself in criticism of Kant and the Christian apologetics was all too apparent. It is very convenient for slave owners believe in the essence of slavery
Sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the only source of authority or knowledge about God, only that it must be the highest. Great point about science though.
Yes, since there is no sovereignty that does not reward those who obey it and punish the rebelliou an eternal sovereignty which is at the degree of absolute dominicality rewarding those who form a relation with it through belief and submit to its decrees, and its punishing rebellious disbelievers who deny its proud sovereignty will be in a manner fitting for its mercy and beauty, its dignity and glory. Thus, the Names Sustainer of All the Worlds and Just Monarch reply to our question. Also, we see as clearly as the sun, as daylight, a general mercy and all-embracing compassion and munificence on the face of the earth. For example, every spring that mercy adorns all the fruit-bearing trees and plants like houris; it fills their hands with every sort of fruit and they hold them out to us, saying: "Help yourselves, and eat!" So does it give us sweet, healing honey to eat from the poisonous bee, and dresses us in the softest silk by means of a handless insect. It deposits for us in a handful of tiny seeds pounds of food, making those tiny stores into reserve supplies. Such a mercy and compassion surely would not execute these lovable, grateful, worshipping believers which they nurture so kindly. They rather dismiss them from their duties in this worldly life to bestow on them still more brilliant instances of mercy, and in so doing the Names of All-Compassionate and Munificent answer our question. Also, we see before our eyes that a hand of wisdom works in all creatures on the face of the earth and a justice is in force with its measures, nothing superior to which the human mind can conceive of. For example, a pre-eternal wisdom inscribes in man's faculty of memory, which is one instance of wisdom in his thousands of faculties and physical systems and is as tiny as a miniscule seed, his entire life-story and the numerous events which touch on him, making it into a small library. He then places it in the pocket of his mind as a note from the register of his actions which will be published for his judgement at the Great Gathering, in order to continuously remind him of this. And an eternal justice places on all creatures their members with the finest balance, and makes all of them -from the microbe to the rhinoceros, and the fly to the simurgh bird, and from a flowering plant to the flower of the spring, which opens thousands of millions of flowers in the spring- with a beauty of art and balance with no waste within a mutual proportion, equilibrium, order and beauty; it gives all living creatures their rights of life with perfect balance, and makes good things produce good results and bad things, bad results; and since the time of Adam it has made itself felt forcefully through the blows it has dealt to rebellious and tyrannous peoples. Certainly and without doubt, just as the sun cannot be without the day, so that pre-eternal wisdom and eternal justice cannot be without the hereafter. The Names of All-Wise and Sapient, Just and Equitable would never permit the awesome injustice, inequity, and unwisdom of oppressed and oppressor being equal in death, and thus they decisively answer our question.(The Rays,Risale-i Nur)
Again & again & so on & so forth. I have once again listened to this man' s thoughts &/ or various views on the subject matter of which he is so inclined to do so , but, I didn't hear from the audience in attendance to which he is addressing at the podium. Maybe there isn't folk's, I even don't know where this speech took place, other than to know that there wasn't any &/ or question & answer phase from the audience of which he was addressing, if there was or any audience in attendance. But, I will say, if there was, a question arises to me , why wasn't there,&/ or if there wasn't, why not? I don't know the answer to that question, but I sure would like to know why or why not & I suspect to whom it may concern, to ask the same question? Ps; i' am neither in disagreement nor inclined to agree with him with my lack of accuman in the subject , but would like to have actually hear from the audience of which he is addressing if there is any or all , at the very least. How say YOU folk's? Please feel inclined to do so , for i' am asking the question?
Just beautiful comparison and contrast of Aristotelian and Kantian epistemology and ethics. You left us with an honest conclusion. Brilliant and insightful, Professor. Thanks for sharing.
I am only now learning of Dr. Kreeft. Had I only found him 30 years ago I feel I'd be a better person today.
There are tons of his material scattered across TH-cam. He is awesome!
Never too late 🙌🙏☝️
Me too! I found his Practical Theology book a few years ago. I struggle with almost every book about these subjects except his and Bishop Barron.
@@markwiechman8513 You took the words right out of my mouth Mark. I tried reading Chesterton and couldn't get through chapter two. For me the beauty of Dr. Kreeft's lectures is I can pause and rewind! I'm old. Really old. Blessings from Kansas~
My grandson liked him at 15.
Dear Peter Kreeft, thank you very much. You’re bringing together such a breadth of historical thought, with the utmost respect and with clarity. Plato, Aristotle and Kant are giants to whom we owe a great deal… and after Kant, there has always been a great silence. Paying him tribute and at the same time seeing his limits seems the right thing to me… Thank you so much for your dedication to philosophy. We really need this today.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. A generous man in true sense is how I think of you
I’m pumped for this. I’ve been following this series. It feeds me.
Professor Kreeft is maybe the most intelligent philosopher of our age. This is the core stuff of life.
I agree. Wolfgang Smith is also brilliant.
@@Bob-hr1rj Agreed for sure. Vertical causation....!
@@88SunsetStrip Is he a philosopher?
@Youdamana yes he teaches at Boston College
@@Bob-hr1rj Agreed. Vertical causation.. works so well with Aquinas' Final Cause.. the Cause of causes.Cheers🙂
This series is awesome, please do more. God bless Word on Fire!!
This series is amazing. The parallel between Sola Scriptura and Scientism was fantastic (6:40). I've never heard of any more convincing argument against Sola Scriptura than that.
Dr. Kreeft did not properly define Sola Scriptura.
As a Calvinist, I know that Peter Kreeft created a strawman and attacked the strawman rather than what it means in reality. Sola Scriptura actually means that when a pope decides to sell indulgences to build a beautiful Church in the Vatican while the Bible tells us to be sober, he shouldn't be allowed to. He will be hostile to the Bible, which is God's Word.
@@davidconroy6350Yes he did
@@davidconroy6350 Maybe but he is using it the same way most people do today.
I will make an observation and I'm immediately challenged to provide a Bible verse for it.
This is naked Scriptura. Which is how the vast majority understand Sola Scriptura.
May God bless Peter kreeft and his work for all the conversions he inspires and enlightens
This man is a national treasure.
Aristotle, Aquinas and Kreeft. Inconmensurable. Thank you.
M. J. Adler
Incommensurable means having no equally applicable standard, or simply incompatible. I'm sure you mean something else?
I have to listen to it several times to take notes. The link of final cause with ethicts is an aspect I did not link so clearly. It is paramount to have a comprehensive understanding of ethics and how it links with the rest of existence.
Unless i misunderstood, you are asking about the relationship or the link between final cause and ethics right??
So here my take: In Aristotlian, final cause is not merely about time but about telos i.e. purpose or goal. So the final purpose of ethics is to know what ought to be done i.e. to know the purpose of ones action--both in thought and deed. I hope this explain your question :)
@@lomaszaza7142 yes thank you
That disconnect is natural, here's why: a telos is something's end, whereas what's ethical is what has as itself an end. So, there's no apparent external telos to ethical action beyond the action itself, regardless of the result, in both Kant and Aristotle. However, the key difference is that Aristotle takes this final cause to take form as an entire life, such that a life filled with these inherently valuable actions, when done for their own sake, is an ethical life, a eudaimon/happy life. Kant, on the other hand, merely ascribes morality to the actions themselves, not an entire life.
@@golddmane I kind of follow you. I'm not so much interested in what Aristotleor kant say, as to what makes sense and brings us closer to truth. As i see it, every being has a final cause, both the living organism as well as the actions of that being. The final cause is external to the being, just as the efficient cause. But there is no being without a final cause. Would you agree?
❤ Peter Kreeft. ❤ His talks. ❤ His books. Go Red Sox #BostonStrong
Thank you so much for this series WOF and Dr. Kreft. We need more of both of you!
Kreeft gets better, clearer and more effective as he gets older and older. superb.
A combination of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton is Dr. Kreeft but as himself; a wonderfully simple and direct man in all the best sense. A true teacher.
Praise the Lord ❤
Listening to these lectures frames the retreat I have been looking for. Retreat to faith and teason
There is a difference between Aquinas and Aristotle. Much work has gone into articulating this difference since the early 19th Century by Historians of Ancient Greece. And, there are 20th Century Philosophers who were inspired by the Greek Aristotle but accepted the advent of Darwin. John Dewey led the way on this and John Herman Randall, Jr are worth a go. All that said, There is much to be learned from this lecture on Realism vs Idealism, Realism vs Nominalism and the rocky shoals of Skepticism both Ancient and Modern. Most importantly, let this talk prime you pump but don’t stop here. Find what stimulate your curiosity and don’t take any answer as final. There is always more to discover and amazing turns to be taken in the Adventure of Ideas 😊
These philosophy focused lectures are brilliant, so much context and concise information.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:21 📜 Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are considered among the most important philosophers in history. No philosophers today are predicted to reach their level of greatness.
02:33 🤔 Aristotle's rationality and common sense often confound modern students and philosophers alike, making his ideas difficult to understand and accept.
06:22 🧠 Aristotle's philosophy upholds the concept of "form," the essence of things that includes their natural end or purpose (teleology). Modern science's focus on measurement and quantification has led to a decline in appreciation for such notions.
07:48 💡 Aristotle's theory of natural moral law, based on human nature's inherent essence, is in contrast to subjective values or desires. This concept of objective morality is often at odds with modern cultural trends.
10:11 🧩 Aristotle's logic, involving four key questions (what, whether, why), provides a structured approach to evaluating ideas. Inductive abstraction (moving from particulars to universals) and deductive reasoning (moving from universals to particulars) are central to his epistemology.
12:18 🕊️ Aristotle's hylomorphism explains that entities consist of both matter and form. This idea applies to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father.
15:21 🌏 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding causation and explanation in the world.
18:08 🌟 Aristotle's view on human nature strikes a balance between inherent virtue and potential vice. He believes in training and directing human impulses through reason to develop virtues and eradicate vices.
20:27 🤝 While Aristotle and Plato differ on some points, their overall agreement is more significant than their differences. Their shared understanding of the reality of God and the Divinity of Christ is analogous to the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism.
22:47 🧐 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) has practical applications, aiding in comprehensive explanations of various subjects.
25:01 🌞 Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, often translated as "happiness," actually refers to objective human flourishing and perfection, encompassing both physical and spiritual well-being.
26:52 🤔 Aristotle's approach to suffering and justice differs from modern interpretations. He would not consider the question of why the righteous suffer as an unanswerable mystery but would view it as a path to wisdom and humility.
27:18 🧠 Aristotle added virtues to Plato's foundation, but disagreed on the relationship between knowing and doing the true good.
28:15 🧘 Moral virtues come from practice, constructing good habits and character, not just knowing the good intellectually.
29:27 🤔 Kant and Aristotle offer serious ethical and epistemological options, avoiding extremes like skepticism and dogmatism.
31:02 🌍 Kant's epistemology, the "Copernican Revolution," asserts humans create the structure of reality rather than passively perceiving it.
33:19 🌈 Kant's view: We can't know objective reality; our knowledge is limited by our mental structures (categories) applied to experience.
35:11 🤯 Kant's skepticism becomes paradoxical; questioning objective truth leads to contradictions.
37:01 🏆 Aristotle's virtue ethics contrasts with Kant's ethics of rules; Kant's principles emphasize human dignity and equality.
38:11 🔄 Kant's categorical imperative: Act according to maxims that could become universal laws; treat humanity as an end, not a means.
39:23 ❗ Kant's principles are necessary but insufficient for a complete morality; they regulate how to treat others, not personal character.
40:47 🧙 Kant's third formulation exalts human will as the creator of moral law; autonomy replaces reverence to God's will.
42:23 🙏 Kant's epistemology and ethics both emphasize human activity and creation, sidelining receptive aspects like divine revelation.
43:35 🤝 Kant's idea that every individual is an end in themselves has influenced modern ethics, including Pope John Paul II's teachings.
Made with HARPA AI
Thank you. This is very helpful. One minor correction regarding sola Scriptura. For the 16th century reformers, Sola Scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only authority, but that it is the supreme authority for matters of doctrine and practice, those things pertaining to salvation. The tradition of the church fathers and the councils, scholarship and reason also have authority (for doctrine and practice) but only insofar as they are compatible with scripture. The reformers were concerned that the Catholic Church was adding requirements for salvation that were not in scripture, or elevating doctrines that were not taught by scripture, which were then made mandatory. There are some protestants who reject all tradition, but that was not the original intent of the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Anglicans).
This is profound stuff. I am learning new perspectives with each lecture - thank you.
"Quantificational logic" does not mean that it only deals with mathematical quantity. It can handle all Aristotelian cases. Quantificational logic simply refers to the quantifiers "there exists" and "for each", which serve the same role as the quantifiers "some" and "all" in Aristotelian logic. It is more comprehensive than simple propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers. Hence the name. One advantage possessed by modern logic over Aristotelian logic is that it is possible to put quantifiers simultaneously in the subject and the predicate of a proposition.
humans motorical quantifying assessment suffices, and suplementing it artificially only emphasizes paranoia and learned helplessness.
Thank you so much for posting this!
What I have listened to this 2 times now, I will listen again. I' am completely astonished &/ or haven't got a view or opinion as to the content of this man' s insights & lecture. But to say that I was completely enthralled by him & his inquiry into the subject matter of which he discusses in complete detail of how he was able to lay out his own thesis of what might have been to the thoughts of the 3 most important Greek philosiphers that shaped the origins of MANKIND'S particular conscience of as to how to measure nature in form's to discover how knowledge is obtained by humankind's nature &/ or of the nature of matter which is unfamiliar to MANKIND'S knowledge. That's what I understood from this speech. How say YOU. Ps; please feel free to enlighten me as to the differential assumptions of which I have obtained through opinion rather than proof of my thoughts &/ or opinion on this most important lecture
I have listened again to this man' s intuition on the subject matter of which he elaborates. Once again, i' am profoundly in attendance of. I would like to interject a little bit if I can . While I admit that I have a limited knowledge of philosophy in terms of formal education in philosophy & the social sciences, I have been self educating myself on the enlightened philosiphers to which I have been studying. What I have learned is of great importance to me relatively speaking as to this conversation & lecture. A thought occurred to me as to the relationship between FREEWILL &/ or MANKIND'S obtained knowledge in consciousness of the universal fundamentals of what FREEWILL encompasses in terms of the individual &/ or as a collective . It is in a statement that I have written down & Would like to share. HERE it goes folk's. " THE Alibi &/ or Alibies for, slash, FROM FREEWILL ". I would welcome any or all comments or views on this statement as to the relevance of this lecture or irrelevance in so regards. Ps; be advised, it is just a thought of mine & may not or may come to mind when discussing morals, ethics & values as it relates to MANKIND'S known knowledge &/ or unknown knowledge of the subject of FREEWILL . HOW say YOU?
So good! I love Dr Kreeft!
Really appreciate this video..
This is the stuff if we want to understand what sanity means. Let's spread the word on these essential truths. Every time we hear someone speak of "values".
If someone refers to a universal as a value, what then?
@@CynicalBastard Values are options and relative not normative and the foundation of good law to such a person. And relativism is incoherent.
@@Youdamana So what is normative has no value? That seems incoherent.
@@CynicalBastard That misunderstanding of what he is saying is indeed incoherent. He is stating that universal moral norms... like don't rape children for instance... are objectively true and protect the inherent good of life and being. Whether the pedophile sees this as his or her "value" is only of criminal interest. Subjective evaluations are either sane and true or immoral.
@@tommore3263 They can just as well be 'amoral'. Stop acting like there isn't a set of twisted values out there. Values can be insane. People can hold insane "values", that would never be acceptable as a norm, and thus would only be as fringe as the day is night.
His books are fantastic!!! I reread them they are so good
Great idea to structure a lecture series in contrasting figures, this is indeed revealing in many respects.
I'm enjoying these lectures immensly. Thank you!
These videos are incredible!
Is Peter Kreeft the finest philosopher of our time? God bless you sir as you so richly bless us and restore the possibility of rational sanity in our world.
Collection of habits constitute character. Categorical imperative: Do unto others.... I bought the set of books for deeper study.
Loved this! ❤
the term "logophobic" explains the ills of our time so well
“scientific and scientism” wonderful video. Philosophy is not scientific. It does not deal with weights and measures. WOW. This video blows me away.
This lecture of this professor is quintessentially entwined with the abilities &/ or inabilities of mankind to acknowledge & disquish the parallels of what obtained knowledge mankind has achieved throughout the hx. Of mankind's limited knowledge of a nature unrelated of & / or of mankind 's inability to understand through quatatave measument the truth of forms that have yet to be resolved to the question of not only the nature of mankind, but more importantly, the nature of mankind's origins of makeup as it relates to quantity vs; mankind's qualities in form's of morals, values &/ or ethical principles.
I appreciate Dr. Kreeft's candid and concise delivery. These are complex ideas, but they deserve time and attention, as the very fabric of our world reflects the tension between them. For one, I am grateful to live in a time where profound insights into the nature of the world and ourselves are freely and openly available.
Kant is beyond nominalist in my opinion, he is a transcendental idealist, from which he shows us that nominalism is an idea of itself. Kant lights the torch of the "Idea" and passes it to Hegel
Thank you so much for this wonderful series, but where are (how can I find as I couldn't) the 1sr 2 lectures & the successive/next ones please??
Great lecture, thanks so much.
The Kant category analogy of light coming through stained glass is interesting. He says the color (reality) comes from the glass (our consciousness). But all this implies that there is a different me observing my consciousness (just like there is me looking at the colors coming through the glass). But the consciousness and me are the same thing, no?
In other words, Kant seems to say that my consciousness distorts reality, and then presents it to me. Consciousness being a step in awareness. But I don’t see why it is a “step.” I am my consciousness and the awareness of reality is direct.
This guy is good! One quibble. He defines metaphysics as "what is". A more suitable definition is that Of RG Collingwood: metaphysics is concerned with historical "absolute presuppositions" which the answers to the repeated question "why" given by different cultures at different times. Aristotle represents the absolute presuppositions of the West up to the Enlightenment, Kant those that apply after it. Without denying the brilliance of Aristotle we cannot now go back to his metaphysics or epistemology. It is Kant who has set the frame for the "Mechanistic worldview" of what we call "science" that has dominated the World. The key presupposition is that identified by Gallileo before Kant: that nature is revealed in the language of mathematics and specifically calculus. However, Aristotelian ethics do have a role because ethics are not a matter of "science".
Men of culture I'm glad we are here.
Great video
Praise the Lord
this was great! loving this series
This is wonderful thank you.
Amazing
29:27 for anyone else who is here for Kant
Awesome talk. Im gonna have to listen to this a few times.
I dont understand why he conflates math with nominalism though. Having a variable like x and deducing truths about it seems pretty platonic to me. "2," for example, is an instance of an integer, which is a form that involves universal truths that can be discovered and communicated through proof and theorem.
Perhaps what brings great minds together is dialog.
We as a society have objectified Kantian subjectivity. Our subjectivism has brought us to the point of even denying scientific reality, ie the denial that there are only two genders. No matter how hard we try nature will not conform to who we think we are. This subjectivism is a complete seperation from reality.
That's not why people deny two genders. There's no point in discussing modern political topics because you must keep in mind that virtually everyone in politics, and really just everyone in general, is primarily concerned with negative liberty. Those who are concerned with positive liberty essentially have the Stoic mindset that anyone's a slave who depends on external goods. You won't see people like that very often because politics are inherently concerned with how humans interact with each other, but humans are an external good. It's no coincidence that people are torn between the right and the left, because these are ONLY based on judgements ie, I don't like trans people so I want them banned politically vs I'm fine with trans people so I don't want them banned. Notice how both of these concern negative liberty, though one's right and one's left. Feel free to respond, I'd be happy to have a discussion about this.
What’s with the background synth drone and the sound of running water?
I’m wondering what it’s supposed to add to the lecture. Listenability? Or is it there for those who want to be lulled to sleep? If so, is the content to be taken in subconsciously? Does that even work? I’m skeptical-I can’t imagine either sound be used with a lecture in mathematics.
It’s a good lecture. It doesn’t need to be watered down or enhanced with special effects.
Interesting, as I have run into Kanz's arguments about will in those that support what they call "free will".
Excellent, synthesis and understanding of philosophy. A great mind Dr. Kreeft.
Thank you
Thanks for this
How can he conflate form with purpose when Aristotle explicitly separates form and purpose. 5:17
Very nice, Thank you.
However a small comment regarding the very end, about forgiveness. I think Aristotle can be forgiven for ignoring human freedom, because he is first and should be expected to be added to. Conversely Kant should not get lenience because he did not overall add to Aristotle, but actively ignored and even butchered important parts. IMO Kant is worth knowing because he offers a different perspective, but ultimately his is just a novelty with a few interesting new ideas, which unfortunately have been twisted to our detriment since.
Anyway, many thanks..
Aristotle is the 13th apostle of Catholicism. Without him several of Aquinas' and Augustine's main ideas would be vacuous and "out of the blue".
It seems that Dr. Kreeft considers Aristotle as one of the roots of christian moral philosophy, disregarding that he was a greek that grew around Zeus believers, and most likely atheist.
Aristotle did not believe in Zeus or any of the Greek gods. In fact, Aquinas borrowed some of Aristotle's arguments for the existence of God; however, Aristotle did not believe in a personal God, and he could accurately be described as a deist, like many of the founding fathers like Jefferson, Franklin, and Payne.
@markpeterson3063 What I said. Keywords "grew around" and the last word before the last period.
When he says if all triangular things in the universe disappeared, the laws of trigonometry would NOT exist for Aristotle does he mean PHYSICALLY disappeared? Or all triangular things in the abstract (mental universe) AND in the physical universe.
Are the abstract and the physical in the same universe (one universe)?
3:33 ''Common Sense''
th-cam.com/video/SJPX2SpcCqw/w-d-xo.html
You can't live together, you can't live alone
Considering the weather, oh my how you've grown
From the men in the factories to the wild kangaroo
Like those birds of a feather, they're gathering together
And feeling exactly like you
They got mesmerized by lullabies and limbo danced in Pairs
Please lock that door, it don't make much sense
That common sense, don't make no sense no more
Just between you and me, it's like pulling
When you ought to be shoving
Like a nun with her head in the oven
Please don't tell me that this really wasn't nothing
One of these days, one of these nights
You'll take off your hat and they'll read you, your rights
You'll wanna get high every time you feel low
Hey, Queen Isabella stay away from that fella
He'll just get you into trouble, you know?
But they came here by boat and they came here by plane
They blistered their hands and they burned out their brain
All dreaming a dream, that'll never come true
Hey, don't give me no trouble, or I'll call up my double
We'll play piggy-in-the-middle with you
You'll get mesmerized by alibis and limbo dance in Pairs
Please lock that door, it don't make much sense
That common sense, don't make no sense no more
It don't make much sense, that common sense
Don't make no sense no more
~John Prine song album by the same name (1975)
To the age old argument; ''Which came first the chicken or the egg?''
I unapologetically answer...
''Why! He Came First!''
The Creator, He came 1st.
The Creators' Rooster, He came 2nd.
The Creators' Hen, she came 3rd.
For did she not have to be laid - before all 3 entity's eggs ever could ?
Does that not prove then - that creation demands a Creator ?
~Just another one of those many one's of ''We His Believers''
who's patiently awaiting ''His✝ Just⚖ Return🪃''
Blessings be continual upon your every endeavor WoFI.
So till that long ago promised time; When we are overwhelmingly blessed by those things yet to be seen, heard, felt, and smelt; Within those many mansions full of our past kin; Which await all those who've accepted His Sacrifice.
This man is explaining what's wrong with the west.
Totally.
Kreeft interprets Kant a little bit ungenerously when he says that the will offers no absolute guidance for each person. Kant introduces respect (for the dignity of the self and other) precisely to that end. We must always see dignity as the only moral absolute and that is, als for Catholics, a very good basic guiding principle, I believe.
Aristotle deserves his nickname #ThePhilosopher
Wonderful. Thank you for this great lecture 🙏
I like this subjects
Thanks for the interesting discussion. One quibble at the end. The US did not end slavery. The 13th amendment ended privately owned slaves, but created the whole new category of slaves of the state for anyone convicted of any crime.
"For the time being, during his term of service in the penitentiary, he is in a state of penal servitude to the State. ."
Ruffin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 62 Va. 790, 796, (1871).
Kant did make a real big shift in the history of philosophy. It was the Jewish thinker Moses Mendelssohn who called him
"the great destroyer". If you read Kant's works closely, it may really be in some way disillusioning. Kleist created the term "Kantian Crisis" and became his famous victim. His philosophy had thrown the poet in a deep existential crisis.
Kant divorced philosophy from reality, and ultimately created a subjective anything-goes attitude toward both facts and values, According to Kant, even scientific "facts" are merely inter-subjective and bear no connection at all with the real world.
BINGEWATCHING
Chomsky will, AND should, be remembered hundreds of years from now..
Kant's epistemology is not self-contradictory. Kant is not claiming that we cannot know objective reality, he is claiming that we can only know objective reality as our human cognition structures it. Just because we can only see the shadows of what is really there doesn't mean that we can't make objective claims about reality by observing those shadows. The error is in mistaking the shadows for the things-in-themselves.
Kant is claiming that our view of reality is not that of an omniscient being like God, but is particular to us as human beings, which, given your clear preference for a Christian worldview, I would have thought you might appreciate? I've always seen Kant's work as profoundly humbling.
Also, you're citing Socrates as one of history's unsurpassable philosophers and then immediately making appeals to philosophies that seem to you to be based on "common sense"? Socrates would have a field day with you.
1) Kant said that identity, which itself is the essence of existence, invalidates consciousness. He said that any knowledge attained by a process of consciousness is inescapably subjective and therefore cannot match the facts of reality, because it is processed or altered knowledge.
Whereas all consciousness is a relationship between a subject and an object, according to Kant a person would have to go outside of his consciousness in order to acquire knowledge of what is real ... which he cannot do. Kant said that to know what is true a man would have to abandon his own nature, which is an absurd impossibility. Kant said that any attempt to know true reality requires a consciousness that is not limited by any specific means of cognition. This is the criterion or goal of Kant’s argument, and in this idea of his he holds that man may not know anything.
Except him!! Kant hoped that his audience would not notice that Kant required his own perspectives to be invalid.
If we believe Kant's own claims then we must disbelieve Kant's own expressed views and his published conclusions. He prevents his own claims from being valid ... as a consequence of his own stated rules.
2) Kant says that if consciousness possesses its own identity, then it cannot grasp the identity of anything external to it.
This Kantian argument attempts to divorce reason from reality. Reason, according to Kant, is limited, and only deals with appearances, and is unable to perceive reality or “things as they are in themselves.” He says that reason is powerless to deal with the fundamental metaphysical concerns of existence that properly reside in the unknowable world.
Again, Kant is claiming knowledge about things, while simultaneously saying that he (as a fellow human) can never claim knowledge.
3) Kant’s concern is with judgments that can be known with certainty. He says that this disqualifies reason because of a priori limitations on what can be known via reason. He says that because the human mind’s categories are limited to appearances, knowledge of the real world is therefore not possible. He says that the inability to know reality must lead to relativism and skepticism AT ALL TIMES, and this is appropriate to man.
Except when Kant himself wants to make conclusions - we are all asked to accept that his own statements are magically immune from his own doctrine. This is a philosophical fraud.
And with what personal faculty of his did Kant evaluate and conclude this ... his reason. Throughout all of his materials Kant self-defeats his own proposition on-its-face and he prevents his own claims from being valid ... according to his own stated rules. Any student of Kant's materials can see for themselves that on each page whenever he says something similar to ... "and this is why reason cannot reveal or provide knowledge" ... the student can see (quite easily) that Kant is exercising his own faculty of reason in order to obtain & articulate his own asserted knowledge. Kant was consistently hypocritical because he disavowed a human faculty while he was simultaneously relying on that same faculty.
Without much effort, any normal average student of Kant's materials can observe the above contradictions, as well as another several dozen important contradictions which result in his viewpoints being invalid.
So beautiful ❤❤❤❤❤❤.
@Dainis Geidmanis Dr. Marcus Grodi and Dr. Scott Hans might be essential to consult.
Watching it 19:50
43:43 bookmark
Great lecture. Interesting comparison. Thank you.
Dr. Kreeft insight into the Epistemology and Ethics of Aristotle is by design not taught in most American public high schools.
Yes
Thank you sir, something to teach my children.
The moderns are mere kids compared to the ancients, the greatest of our kind
Right view
Dr. Kreeft’s opening statement is profound and I totally agree. But why? Dr. Kreeft goes right to the point and that is Aristotle was
“Reasonable to a fault and had ( what has been lost in humanity) Common Sense. Too very difficult concepts to embrace and accept at face value. It also makes me think rationality is a lost art. Many “ thinkers” today use opinion and conjecture in place or rationality. We question what is rational It is no longer a given.
Aristotle was a (the) original thinker. His ideas and conclusions were based on rational thinking not filled with conjecture or opinion. These two options are not facts and may not be reasonable. I want to believe “ Truth”- ultimate truth is unquestionable. Absolute. When we muddy the waters truth becomes dubious. Suspect. Society and current political arenas plus religious beliefs contribute to the obfuscation to truth thereby rendering it possibly true. Not completely true. Which to is a human failing.
When reality to you is subjective, you will NOT like Aristotle. If you look at Todays society it’s obvious that there is a vocal and radical group of subjectivists.
Champion of the "return to form" - how original
Comment for traction🎉
❤❤❤
Aristotle, upon Plato’s demise, rejected his idea of FORMS which was the entire basis of objectivism.
No wonder people hate him.
What kind of student would do this?
Is it really true that all cultures didn't believe in contraception before the 1930s?
Simply put, No.
The first 'official' contraception to be invented was likely the condom, as there's evidence that condoms were used in the UK as early as 1640, but condom-like items were used as early as 3000 BC.
Maybe he meant widespread cultural acceptance.
Check out the museum of contraception at Case Western Reserve Medical History Center with artifacts in the USA going back to the 1800's.
This is from the Word on Fire Institute, but what does any of this have to do with the Catholic faith, or even faith in general? This has nothing to do with religion.
I think Dr. Peter Kreeft will be remembered for his contributions to philosophy the way Goldberg is revered and remembered for his variations (Bach). I would love to have been one of his students.
Kreeft gives the Catholic apologist description of both Aristotle and Kant and then mentions that Aristotle and Aquinas will be still recognized as great in 100 years, but excludes Kant and other greats. Kreeft shows that Kant did offer a different epistemology and ethics from Aristotle and Aquinas, but Kreeft acknowledges that Kant showed that all people are free. Both Aristotle and Aquinas accepted slavery as natural.
Kreeft does not discuss Kant's transcendental idealism at all and derides Kant's Christianity as misguided Pietism. Kreeft seems more just repeating the talking points of the Reformation than in critiquing the pure reason of Kant's transcendental Protestant reality. Kreeft does make it clear why Catholic apologists embrace Aristotle and Aquinas and reject Kant, but Kant is by far the more popular philosopher than Aristotle and Aquinas combined.
Well said, he strained himself in criticism of Kant and the Christian apologetics was all too apparent. It is very convenient for slave owners believe in the essence of slavery
Sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the only source of authority or knowledge about God, only that it must be the highest. Great point about science though.
Yikes! There's an entire new vocabulary here which I need to learn.
Aristotle is the premier philosopher of all time
He’s all you need to live a happy and productive life.
Yes, since there is no sovereignty that does not reward those who obey it and punish the rebelliou
an eternal sovereignty which is at the degree of absolute dominicality rewarding those who form a relation with it through belief and submit to its decrees,
and its punishing rebellious disbelievers who deny its proud sovereignty
will be in a manner fitting for its mercy and beauty, its dignity and glory. Thus, the Names Sustainer of All the Worlds and Just Monarch reply to our question.
Also, we see as clearly as the sun, as daylight, a general mercy and all-embracing compassion and munificence on the face of the earth.
For example, every spring that mercy adorns all the fruit-bearing trees and plants like houris;
it fills their hands with every sort of fruit and they hold them out to us, saying: "Help yourselves, and eat!"
So does it give us sweet, healing honey to eat from the poisonous bee, and dresses us in the softest silk by means of a handless insect.
It deposits for us in a handful of tiny seeds pounds of food, making those tiny stores into reserve supplies. Such a mercy and compassion
surely would not execute these lovable, grateful, worshipping believers which they nurture so kindly.
They rather dismiss them from their duties in this worldly life to bestow on them still more brilliant instances of mercy, and in so doing the Names of All-Compassionate and Munificent answer our question.
Also, we see before our eyes that a hand of wisdom works in all creatures on the face of the earth and a justice is in force with its measures, nothing superior to which the human mind can conceive of.
For example, a pre-eternal wisdom inscribes in man's faculty of memory, which is one instance of wisdom in his thousands of faculties and physical systems and is as tiny as a miniscule seed, his entire life-story and the numerous events which touch on him,
making it into a small library. He then places it in the pocket of his mind as a note from the register of his actions which will be published for his judgement at the Great Gathering, in order to continuously remind him of this. And an eternal justice places on all creatures their members with the finest balance, and makes all of them -from the microbe to the rhinoceros, and the fly to the simurgh bird,
and from a flowering plant to the flower of the spring, which opens thousands of millions of flowers in the spring- with a beauty of art and balance with no waste within a mutual proportion, equilibrium, order and beauty;
it gives all living creatures their rights of life with perfect balance,
and makes good things produce good results and bad things, bad results;
and since the time of Adam it has made itself felt forcefully through the blows it has dealt to rebellious and tyrannous peoples.
Certainly and without doubt, just as the sun cannot be without the day, so that pre-eternal wisdom and eternal justice cannot be without the hereafter.
The Names of All-Wise and Sapient, Just and Equitable would never permit the awesome injustice, inequity, and unwisdom of oppressed and oppressor being equal in death,
and thus they decisively answer our question.(The Rays,Risale-i Nur)
Truely I only take one meal a day but now changed
Again & again & so on & so forth. I have once again listened to this man' s thoughts &/ or various views on the subject matter of which he is so inclined to do so , but, I didn't hear from the audience in attendance to which he is addressing at the podium. Maybe there isn't folk's, I even don't know where this speech took place, other than to know that there wasn't any &/ or question & answer phase from the audience of which he was addressing, if there was or any audience in attendance. But, I will say, if there was, a question arises to me , why wasn't there,&/ or if there wasn't, why not? I don't know the answer to that question, but I sure would like to know why or why not & I suspect to whom it may concern, to ask the same question? Ps; i' am neither in disagreement nor inclined to agree with him with my lack of accuman in the subject , but would like to have actually hear from the audience of which he is addressing if there is any or all , at the very least. How say YOU folk's? Please feel inclined to do so , for i' am asking the question?