A very interesting lecture. I now see more clearly the great changes brought about by Romanticism. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and views about relevant issues of our day.
Great lecture. I once was fascinated by A.N.Whitehead and this 'panentheism' in the process philosophy. He was citing Wordsworth as one of the sources of his thought. I didn't understand it well but something was wrong about it. Now I see it more clearly. Thank you !
Yes, very good. And Whitehead has a significant influence on the idea of emergent evolution. In addition to the process philosophy, he also influences process theology.
He lost me and I’m turning it off he hust kind of shrugs and says that pantheism and panenthism are approximately the same thing. Way off base; a fatal misunderstanding on the speaker’s part. Disappointing.
@@LitProf with all due respect, the term “heresy” is a term used, and over used, to shut up people who disagree with the speaker’s position; saying in effect, “we don’t need to think about this because its taboo, and heresy, so there’s nothing to see here, we’ll just move on.” Formally, only positions condemned in the first seven ecumenical councils are heresy. Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, the thought of Evangelical Protestants determining amongst themselves what is or is not heresy is ironic beyond words.
@@LitProf Orthodox theology is neither panentheistic, per se, nor “classicaly theistic” either; the term “panentheism” was first used in the 19th century. But St Thomas Aquinas was a “panentheist,” so was St Anselm of Canterbury, to judge by the language he used in the Proslogion. My opinion is that all the late antique and medeival theological writers were “panentheistic,” and that what is now considered “classic theism” only developed in the Reformation and early modern periods. That, in my opinion, fits in well with Owen Barfield’s thoughts on the evolution of consciousness. Note: i just googled “St Thomas, panentheist” and found that apparently there are people online who believe strongly that he wasn’t panentheist. Hard to get my mind wrapped around that, seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe they ( and you?) define the term differently than what I take to be its obvious meaning. Anyway, here is one of the links I downloaded; its short and to the point so I’m sending it along. Take care: www.pantheism.net/paul/history/aquinas.htm
A very interesting lecture. I now see more clearly the great changes brought about by Romanticism. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and views about relevant issues of our day.
More on this please.
Great lecture. I once was fascinated by A.N.Whitehead and this 'panentheism' in the process philosophy. He was citing Wordsworth as one of the sources of his thought. I didn't understand it well but something was wrong about it. Now I see it more clearly. Thank you !
Yes, very good. And Whitehead has a significant influence on the idea of emergent evolution.
In addition to the process philosophy, he also influences process theology.
Jacob Bohme's "god in nature, in bible, in language" goes further with Emerson, Nietzsche, Wordsworth to Transcendental movement.
Yes, that’s right
He lost me and I’m turning it off he hust kind of shrugs and says that pantheism and panenthism are approximately the same thing. Way off base; a fatal misunderstanding on the speaker’s part. Disappointing.
I am not saying there is no difference. I am saying that it is still a Christian heresy.
@@LitProf with all due respect, the term “heresy” is a term used, and over used, to shut up people who disagree with the speaker’s position; saying in effect, “we don’t need to think about this because its taboo, and heresy, so there’s nothing to see here, we’ll just move on.” Formally, only positions condemned in the first seven ecumenical councils are heresy. Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, the thought of Evangelical Protestants determining amongst themselves what is or is not heresy is ironic beyond words.
I was not fully este that Orthodox theology could be described as panentheistic. I don’t think that that is strictly true but ai could be corrected.
@@LitProf Orthodox theology is neither panentheistic, per se, nor “classicaly theistic” either; the term “panentheism” was first used in the 19th century. But St Thomas Aquinas was a “panentheist,” so was St Anselm of Canterbury, to judge by the language he used in the Proslogion. My opinion is that all the late antique and medeival theological writers were “panentheistic,” and that what is now considered “classic theism” only developed in the Reformation and early modern periods. That, in my opinion, fits in well with Owen Barfield’s thoughts on the evolution of consciousness.
Note: i just googled “St Thomas, panentheist” and found that apparently there are people online who believe strongly that he wasn’t panentheist. Hard to get my mind wrapped around that, seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe they ( and you?) define the term differently than what I take to be its obvious meaning. Anyway, here is one of the links I downloaded; its short and to the point so I’m sending it along. Take care: www.pantheism.net/paul/history/aquinas.htm