Great video as always. I was wondered though, as to why you don't cover much of analytic philosophy. Do they just not impress you as much as continental thinkers?
First of all thanks for your awesome videos. I am an electrical engineer but I also love to read philosophy because it helps me with my own life. There are so many fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves about and our answer to them can define the way we live. William Irvine in his book " A guide to the good life" tells that a philosophy of life is a very important and beneficial choice for us. At this point in my life I am tempted to think myself as a Stoic but I enjoy reading philosophers like Nietzsche, Epicurus, Kierkegaard, Sartre and thinkers like Jung and Ernest Becker. I have to admit that your videos help me a lot. Do you think that saying to yourself that you are a Stoic or an Epicurean or an Aristotelian can be a bad thing ? Couldn't it be restrictive and sometimes harmful for someone to call himself an X-ist ( X is a philosophic tradition of your choice) ? Perhaps someone can be a Stoic and draw influences by a lot of other thinkers just as Seneca did with Epicureanism, by remaining royal to the core beliefs of Stoic philosophy (virtue is the only good, cosmopolitanism, the dichotomy of control, materialism, cause and effect). Perhaps the answer is " It depends on what works for you". What do you think ? Oh and have a happy Stoic Week
Thank you for the stimulating content! Given that philosophy is a human activity, it seems reasonable to appropriate different elements as you please. I have wrestled with this same question concerning the breadth of understanding that you mentioned and holding a particular allegiance, yet much more so in the field of theology than philosophy. So, I wonder in light of your studies in medieval philosophy, which is integrally linked with theological thinking, would your line of thinking be suitable in application to Sacra Doctrina? Or would you there follow Aquinas's distinction between revelation and reason and simply hold that we should not be eclectics respecting articles of faith? Curious to hear your thoughts, have you the time. Thanks!
I know it's a kind of a pet peeves for a lot of philosophers and teachers of philosophy, but could you give us a synthesis or overview of Max Stirner's descriptive philosophy?
There's eclecticism and then there's eclecticism. You don't want to be the sort that just picks bits of this and that. And most substantive, committed non-eclectic schools and approaches maintain some flexibility
@@GregoryBSadler OH OH, I can be a bit more of the first kind... Appreciate the note that there's flexibility within non-eclectic schools. It can be helpful to know that as I approach the field. Thanks
I like the idea of Eclecticism in Philosophy. It kinda reminds me how the Ancient Egyptians chose from a pantheon of many gods to honor by their principles relative to the volumes of human nature/condition and nature itself and how to apply those principles when needed. VooDoo is much like that too!!!!
Would you ever attempt to write a syntheticized Sadlerian way of thinking and view of the world? A consistenly logical christian stoicism to revitalize American idealism? Maybe even get a Sadlerian school (or cult if preferred :^)) going on
Are there any currently living philosophers that have shaped your views significantly? I know the sadly decreasing prevalence of philosophy as a discipline in itself has limited some of its production of really revolutionary thought, but I think there's some interesting thinkers alive today.
Interesting, my approach is identical to yours. Stoicism was the first philosophy that captivated me, but I realized I couldn't honestly identify as a Stoic because I didn't accept every tenet of Stoicism. I apply that reasoning consistently, so as much as I love Aquinas, I do disagree with him on occasion (siding instead with Scotus for example), so I don't think I can be a Thomist (of course, not all Thomists agree with each other, or even with Aquinas). My eclecticism is simply predicated upon the notion that truth can be found in all places from a diverse group of philosophers. I love finding out that philosophers who had no contact whatsoever with one another, or who had greatly disparate approaches, still often arrive at some of the same truths; I like being able to point that out to people to demonstrate that the particular thing I'm arguing for isn't tied to any ideology. It validates the use of reason to see that it's a faculty common to all and can indeed settle disputes.
Well, when it comes to "Thomists", I always ask anyone who identifies as one, "what sort are you?" There's dozens of "Thomisms" out there in the present, some of them rather detached from Aquinas' actual works! Yes - that different people discovering the same ideas - that's quite interesting to come across isn't it?
I think that it is not very good argument. Shestov don't own menings of ideas that he developed, so if he was wise, he should accept that what he found is not what he want and deal with consecunces, like getting fallowers. This is true of every man, not just Shestov.
Well, I think we're actually in agreement about Shestov and followers. You're right that he didn't claim ownership over ideas. He also - by the very nature of his philosophy - would not have wanted followers. Interestingly, he did have one - Benjamin Fondaine - who unfortunately died in the concentration camps
Writings of one American historian convinced me, that among most important driving force in American live from every day behavior to most elitist thought is pragmatism. Understand as "get job done" without too much "unnecessary" thinking, to make a money and get success. This don't mean that everyone in USA is like that, but this attitude is dominating one and looking at America and American culture from outside I see empirical proofs of that. American philosophical school of pragmatism is one of them? Dr Sadler do you think that American spirit of pragmatism have a influence on you eclectic wave of doing philosophy? This question cannot get of my mind, but you don't need to answer if you thing that is not thing worth considering.
So, a few things to say. 1. "pragmatism" is not something unique to Americans. 2. Classical American pragmatism has long been a minority school in American philosophy, which is dominated by Analytics. 3. While I like some of the American pragmatists, they don't play a major role in my own thinking
I don't mean pragmatism as phylosophical school but as mode of living, something that is constantly present in life, everyday from sunrise to sunset but most often not named. Yes, pragmatism is something not unique to USA, Chines people probably have it very strong also. But this is question of degree of power in particular place, that is not equaly in my opinion among people and countries. In my country one of contant complains about "us" (compleing people rather don't think about subject of complein as us) is that we are not pragmatic enought, that we have wild, romantic spirit without thouch of reality. That we have dreams, but not accomplishments. I don't belive that such complains about USA have 1/3 seans as have here.
This would be very interesting thing to do for me. Sadly I can not give you invitation like this. Walking here isn't thing that someone more need to suffer.
![เปิดใจ "อาจารย์เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม" อดีตเคยสุดทุกทาง ถ้าใช้หนี้หมดไปบวชแน่ l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IxeE0xVhy08/mqdefault.jpg)
thank you very illustrative, I'm 58 yo and learning, your approach is what works for me finding knowledge and truth.
Glad it's useful for you as well!
Great video as always. I was wondered though, as to why you don't cover much of analytic philosophy. Do they just not impress you as much as continental thinkers?
It's partly a factor of time. I actually spend most of it not on analytic or continental thinkers, but thinkers from the history of philosophy.
First of all thanks for your awesome videos. I am an electrical engineer but I also love to read philosophy because it helps me with my own life. There are so many fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves about and our answer to them can define the way we live. William Irvine in his book " A guide to the good life" tells that a philosophy of life is a very important and beneficial choice for us. At this point in my life I am tempted to think myself as a Stoic but I enjoy reading philosophers like Nietzsche, Epicurus, Kierkegaard, Sartre and thinkers like Jung and Ernest Becker. I have to admit that your videos help me a lot. Do you think that saying to yourself that you are a Stoic or an Epicurean or an Aristotelian can be a bad thing ? Couldn't it be restrictive and sometimes harmful for someone to call himself an X-ist ( X is a philosophic tradition of your choice) ? Perhaps someone can be a Stoic and draw influences by a lot of other thinkers just as Seneca did with Epicureanism, by remaining royal to the core beliefs of Stoic philosophy (virtue is the only good, cosmopolitanism, the dichotomy of control, materialism, cause and effect). Perhaps the answer is " It depends on what works for you". What do you think ?
Oh and have a happy Stoic Week
I think there's multiple ways to say to oneself "I am an X".
And, Stoic thinkers did draw on influences from other schools.
Thank you for the stimulating content!
Given that philosophy is a human activity, it seems reasonable to appropriate different elements as you please.
I have wrestled with this same question concerning the breadth of understanding that you mentioned and holding a particular allegiance, yet much more so in the field of theology than philosophy.
So, I wonder in light of your studies in medieval philosophy, which is integrally linked with theological thinking, would your line of thinking be suitable in application to Sacra Doctrina? Or would you there follow Aquinas's distinction between revelation and reason and simply hold that we should not be eclectics respecting articles of faith?
Curious to hear your thoughts, have you the time.
Thanks!
Theology is pretty eclectic. Aquinas is a great example, bringing together all sorts of sources and working through them dialectically.
Dr. Sadler, I've recently found you on TH-cam. I've enjoyed listening to your lectures on my daily long commutes. Are you a religious person?
Yep
@@GregoryBSadler
Have you ever touched on this on any of your videos. Just curious
@@crystalcrystal1829 I have
I know it's a kind of a pet peeves for a lot of philosophers and teachers of philosophy, but could you give us a synthesis or overview of Max Stirner's descriptive philosophy?
Here's my standard response - th-cam.com/video/vkXKtxleGA8/w-d-xo.html
I like the idea of an eclectic philosopher, seems to allow fluidity as one swims through the (vast!) ocean of Thought 😃
There's eclecticism and then there's eclecticism. You don't want to be the sort that just picks bits of this and that.
And most substantive, committed non-eclectic schools and approaches maintain some flexibility
@@GregoryBSadler OH OH, I can be a bit more of the first kind...
Appreciate the note that there's flexibility within non-eclectic schools. It can be helpful to know that as I approach the field. Thanks
I like the idea of Eclecticism in Philosophy. It kinda reminds me how the Ancient Egyptians chose from a pantheon of many gods to honor by their principles relative to the volumes of human nature/condition and nature itself and how to apply those principles when needed. VooDoo is much like that too!!!!
worst thing about Eclecticism: moving with your personal library
Indeed. I've done that several times now. Dozens of boxes of books
You should start the Philosophical Eclecticism tradition.
Then eclecticism would lose its meaning
@@GregoryBSadler you are amazingly right.☺️
Would you ever attempt to write a syntheticized Sadlerian way of thinking and view of the world?
A consistenly logical christian stoicism to revitalize American idealism? Maybe even get a Sadlerian school (or cult if preferred :^)) going on
I'm not sure I have a coherent enough, well-articulated, systematic position that I could write down at this point
Are there any currently living philosophers that have shaped your views significantly? I know the sadly decreasing prevalence of philosophy as a discipline in itself has limited some of its production of really revolutionary thought, but I think there's some interesting thinkers alive today.
Alasdair MacIntyre for one
Do you look upon William James as a philosopher ?
Yes, of course.
Interesting, my approach is identical to yours.
Stoicism was the first philosophy that captivated me, but I realized I couldn't honestly identify as a Stoic because I didn't accept every tenet of Stoicism. I apply that reasoning consistently, so as much as I love Aquinas, I do disagree with him on occasion (siding instead with Scotus for example), so I don't think I can be a Thomist (of course, not all Thomists agree with each other, or even with Aquinas).
My eclecticism is simply predicated upon the notion that truth can be found in all places from a diverse group of philosophers. I love finding out that philosophers who had no contact whatsoever with one another, or who had greatly disparate approaches, still often arrive at some of the same truths; I like being able to point that out to people to demonstrate that the particular thing I'm arguing for isn't tied to any ideology. It validates the use of reason to see that it's a faculty common to all and can indeed settle disputes.
Well, when it comes to "Thomists", I always ask anyone who identifies as one, "what sort are you?" There's dozens of "Thomisms" out there in the present, some of them rather detached from Aquinas' actual works!
Yes - that different people discovering the same ideas - that's quite interesting to come across isn't it?
Dr sadler How An Eclectic is different from a Neutral Monist?
th-cam.com/video/kSnxvnrCHLw/w-d-xo.html
@@GregoryBSadler Thanks Sir I'm Glad That You Replied❤
But you are Lev Shestovian correct?
Shestov would not have wanted followers
I think that it is not very good argument. Shestov don't own menings of ideas that he developed, so if he was wise, he should accept that what he found is not what he want and deal with consecunces, like getting fallowers. This is true of every man, not just Shestov.
I think I didn't make an argument.
So I understand you answer in wrong way. I apologized for this missunderstanding.
Well, I think we're actually in agreement about Shestov and followers. You're right that he didn't claim ownership over ideas. He also - by the very nature of his philosophy - would not have wanted followers.
Interestingly, he did have one - Benjamin Fondaine - who unfortunately died in the concentration camps
Writings of one American historian convinced me, that among most important driving force in American live from every day behavior to most elitist thought is pragmatism. Understand as "get job done" without too much "unnecessary" thinking, to make a money and get success. This don't mean that everyone in USA is like that, but this attitude is dominating one and looking at America and American culture from outside I see empirical proofs of that. American philosophical school of pragmatism is one of them?
Dr Sadler do you think that American spirit of pragmatism have a influence on you eclectic wave of doing philosophy? This question cannot get of my mind, but you don't need to answer if you thing that is not thing worth considering.
So, a few things to say. 1. "pragmatism" is not something unique to Americans. 2. Classical American pragmatism has long been a minority school in American philosophy, which is dominated by Analytics. 3. While I like some of the American pragmatists, they don't play a major role in my own thinking
I don't mean pragmatism as phylosophical school but as mode of living, something that is constantly present in life, everyday from sunrise to sunset but most often not named. Yes, pragmatism is something not unique to USA, Chines people probably have it very strong also. But this is question of degree of power in particular place, that is not equaly in my opinion among people and countries. In my country one of contant complains about "us" (compleing people rather don't think about subject of complein as us) is that we are not pragmatic enought, that we have wild, romantic spirit without thouch of reality. That we have dreams, but not accomplishments. I don't belive that such complains about USA have 1/3 seans as have here.
Well, you'd just have to walk around a few places here, and you'd find both impractical dreamers and people complaining about them!
This would be very interesting thing to do for me. Sadly I can not give you invitation like this. Walking here isn't thing that someone more need to suffer.
Are you a chameleon or a tinkerer? I think it's really important.
I don't