Out of topic, good to know that you are happy doing this work. On topic, this issue is of crucial importance in these times of confusion. Crede ut intelligas: believe to understand. The Will moves the Intellect. To me a cherry blossom can serve as a powerful evidence of God's glory, but to someone else it can be nothing, a meaningless thing. Faith is the sufficient evidence for itself, or it is not true Faith (a pure gift from God). Everything that confirms Faith to the believer comes after it is given by God and received by the believer, not before. In other terms: to a believer everything satisfies as evidence about who God is, but to the non-believer, no evidence is ever enough, because of the previous choice for the path of doubt. Doubt is fueled by the endless dialogical power of the human mind. Our only rest is in the Lord as He gives us the gift of Faith. If we search for evidence of His Love without the support of Faith, being that in the things of the world, or into the human mind itself, we are doomed.
Aristotle was on the top of his game, as Plato. The supposed opposition between the two could be just an historical misunderstanding. Aristotle was fully aware of the platonic "non-written doctrines" (v. G. Reale), and built his own metaphysical view totally inspired by his former master.
Could I please ask you to consider something. Is it possible that the Apostles had a different foundation that requires both Trinitarian and Unitarian terms? Bear with me please. Occurring at the same time and after Nicea is a little remembered (if at all) debate about the origin of souls, Traducianism v Creatianism. If you're not familiar with it please review it so I can keep this short. The material should trace Traducionism at least back to Tertullian. Now, here's something that is a bit harder to find, but there were two different types of Traducionism, Stoic and Biblical Hebrew (Tertullian was a Stoic Traducion and this is why he developed his Logos theology of the Trinity, with the Logos as an emanation like a soul). Other Greek philosophers also held to reincarnation and creatianism (that God creates a soul for the body at or after conception). Creatianism is now the dominant Christian and Muslim view, and it's the necessary for the Trinity of persons, on the one hand, but logically denies the Divine Person of the Son and that logic actually agrees with the Qaran (which I will show). Biblical Hebrew Traducionism is explicitly stated in HEBREWS (imagine that) chapter 7. LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK WHILE IN ABRAHAM, therefore Jesus is, like Melchizedek, a greater high priest than Levi. Why does Paul use the phrase "so to speak"? Is this statement about Levi analogy? Obviously not, because Paul is using it as a factual basis for his argument and he presents it as if the hebrews he is writing already understand this. The "so to speak" indicates that Levi's will while in Abraham's loins was Abraham's will. We can restate this, LEVI WAS WITH ABRAHAM AND WAS ABRAHAM PAYING TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (sounds familiar). This is also where the doctrine of original sin comes from, WE WERE WITH ADAM AND WERE ADAM IN EDEN. This logical consequence of Traducionism was a big problem for creatianism because sin then had to be imputed to a new soul otherwise the baby would not be subject to death. SO, there's the "analogy" the Apostles were drawing from, the Traducion origin of souls, not shamrocks and triangles, for understanding the consequences of the virgin birth and Jesus as the son of God. He was in the beginning God and with God in the same way we were Adam and with Adam and Levi was Abraham and with Abraham. A second consequence is that THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. A son's right to the name and inheritance of the Father in based on his having his Father's blood (in law it's called CONSANGUINITY). Jesus is born from a virgin, but his life, soul, and blood are from his Father, God, because he was "conceived of the Holy Spirit". 1 John 5 THESE THREE TESTIFY ON EARTH THE SPIRIT THE WATER AND THE BLOOD AND AGREE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. This must be referring to the virgin birth (although recapitulated in the baptism and crucifixion) because there's no way that the blood can testify except in the sense of a blood (paternity) test. Notice that he didn't come by water only (which would have been the case IF he was only the product of Mary, the concept of blood from male seed/sperm was univocally attested throughout Scripture), but he CAME by water AND blood. This is why John 3:16 calls him MONOGENAES, the only generated. Traducionism is also called the "genetic" origin of souls. Trinitarians and Unitarians will usually say God the Father has no blood, he is a Spirit, and Jesus had Mary's blood. Ok, then he is not the son of God, and they agree with the Qaran, which is at least consistent with the logic of creatianism, and say Jesus is the son of Mary and Allah has no son. Adoption doesn't square with MONOGENAES, but is also based on creatianism and consistent with the Qaran calling Jesus the Messiah of the Jews. I'm entirely satisfied with DIVINE TRADUCIONISM. Just making you aware if you want to explore it further.
Augustine was kind of a tough guy to bend, both because of his deep desires, and for his intellectual pride, but God's Love is invincible. To this day, we can still use Augustine's clarity on spiritual matters to block most of gnostic thinking, although I must confess that to me he is not 100% safe in this regard. Still, to me his philosophy is much better then lots of the later medieval christian thinking, like in Aquinas etc. I hope you get well soon, but the video was just fine.
@@wagraham Augustine just seems a more wide and open spirit. He learns with any philosopher, but keeps the Christian perspective stronger and totally free, at least to my taste. Aquinas goes too deep into natural theology, following what appears to be, from his part, an unrestricted trust in Aristotle's guidance. Lots of critics pointed out the problems in doing that through history, because of the limitations of any natural law before the real freedom of the Christian spirit regarding God's Creation. To me the Franciscans like Bonaventure, Duns Scot, and Ockham are far superior. Curiously, and not by accident, they all remained loyal to Augustine's wisdom in some way, despite the immense growth of the aristotelian influence in medieval Europe. In short: of course I can be wrong, but in my reading of Augustine I see Nature as a mere sign of God's Glory, and as the background scenario to the moral experience of the human soul; but in Aquinas, I see Nature becoming an emiment source of Truth and Law in itself, what would be forever excusable to any ancient mind, like in Aristotle's case, but never to a Christian Philosopher that received the true freedom of the Gospel. To any pagan cosmology, to see Nature as somehow divine is kind of fair, but Christians should know better. Sorry for the lenght, but I love this subject and couldn't help myself.
Could I please ask you to consider something. Is it possible that the Apostles had a different foundation that requires both Trinitarian and Unitarian terms? Bear with me please. Occurring at the same time and after Nicea is a little remembered (if at all) debate about the origin of souls, Traducianism v Creatianism. If you're not familiar with it please review it so I can keep this short. The material should trace Traducionism at least back to Tertullian. Now, here's something that is a bit harder to find, but there were two different types of Traducionism, Stoic and Biblical Hebrew (Tertullian was a Stoic Traducion and this is why he developed his Logos theology of the Trinity, with the Logos as an emanation like a soul). Other Greek philosophers also held to reincarnation and creatianism (that God creates a soul for the body at or after conception). Creatianism is now the dominant Christian and Muslim view, and it's the necessary for the Trinity of persons, on the one hand, but logically denies the Divine Person of the Son and that logic actually agrees with the Qaran (which I will show). Biblical Hebrew Traducionism is explicitly stated in HEBREWS (imagine that) chapter 7. LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK WHILE IN ABRAHAM, therefore Jesus is, like Melchizedek, a greater high priest than Levi. Why does Paul use the phrase "so to speak"? Is this statement about Levi analogy? Obviously not, because Paul is using it as a factual basis for his argument and he presents it as if the hebrews he is writing already understand this. The "so to speak" indicates that Levi's will while in Abraham's loins was Abraham's will. We can restate this, LEVI WAS WITH ABRAHAM AND WAS ABRAHAM PAYING TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (sounds familiar). This is also where the doctrine of original sin comes from, WE WERE WITH ADAM AND WERE ADAM IN EDEN. This logical consequence of Traducionism was a big problem for creatianism because sin then had to be imputed to a new soul otherwise the baby would not be subject to death. SO, there's the "analogy" the Apostles were drawing from, the Traducion origin of souls, not shamrocks and triangles, for understanding the consequences of the virgin birth and Jesus as the son of God. He was in the beginning God and with God in the same way we were Adam and with Adam and Levi was Abraham and with Abraham. A second consequence is that THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. A son's right to the name and inheritance of the Father in based on his having his Father's blood (in law it's called CONSANGUINITY). Jesus is born from a virgin, but his life, soul, and blood are from his Father, God, because he was "conceived of the Holy Spirit". 1 John 5 THESE THREE TESTIFY ON EARTH THE SPIRIT THE WATER AND THE BLOOD AND AGREE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. This must be referring to the virgin birth (although recapitulated in the baptism and crucifixion) because there's no way that the blood can testify except in the sense of a blood (paternity) test. Notice that he didn't come by water only (which would have been the case IF he was only the product of Mary, the concept of blood from male seed/sperm was univocally attested throughout Scripture), but he CAME by water AND blood. This is why John 3:16 calls him MONOGENAES, the only generated. Traducionism is also called the "genetic" origin of souls. Trinitarians and Unitarians will usually say God the Father has no blood, he is a Spirit, and Jesus had Mary's blood. Ok, then he is not the son of God, and they agree with the Qaran, which is at least consistent with the logic of creatianism, and say Jesus is the son of Mary and Allah has no son. Adoption doesn't square with MONOGENAES, but is also based on creatianism and consistent with the Qaran calling Jesus the Messiah of the Jews. I'm entirely satisfied with DIVINE TRADUCIONISM. Just making you aware if you want to explore it further.
It's easy to see that you are happy working with Augustine, keep going, you are in your element. On the matter, being such a great spirit, Augustine eventually traded ambition for the things of the world for ambition for the things of God, and worked with tremendous industry and dilligence to produce a great testimony in favor of God's glory. Seems that this early part of his disappointment with wordly things was necessary to him to use his immense energy in a more beneficial path. On the particular issue of the emptiness of mundane ambition, I particularly like and recommend Chesterton's essay "The Fallacy of Success". Greetings from Brazil!
No philosophy can go as far and as deep into the meaning of things as Christian Philosophy, and few christian philosophers can go farthest and deepest into the essence of things then Augustine. His idea of the Soul is very inspiring to me. I think your proposal of working with the Confessions here is great, keep going!
C.S. Lewis's critique of "applied science" in The Abolition of Man is misleading. Technology, prayer, and Christian theology all aim to manipulate reality. Christianity itself, with its focus on resurrection and dominion over nature, contradicts ancient pagan acceptance of natural order, paralleling modern technological control.
Plato always gives good food for thought. I guess the right formula is that the soul is the form of the body, or even the form of the life of the body. This form must be unperishable as any other form, being simple and not composed of parts, like the body. The problem is the identity of this soul, since individuals are classically separated by matter and not by form, at least until we found Duns Scot and his idea of formal graduation of the principium individuationis. That finnaly would mean, philosophically and theologically, the everlastingness of the individual soul. But that came only in the 13th Century. A long journey.
Mind as a concept looks dubious, as it can be related to meaning (spiritual), the source of life, as well as to knowledge (gnosis), the manifestation of life. Will the author recognize teleological implications to the immateriality of the mind? So far it feels like this is a struggle against crude materialism, just a defensive stance, but with no crucial positive affirmation. I am curious to know if he can find some metaphysical ground. Just absorbing matter into mind to me seems kind of pointless in the end.
his metaphsyical ground is God, which he argues is just universal mind which then gives rise to matter bc one can deny matters being ultimatley but one cannot ultimatley deny the base level of mind
@@colingallagher1648 Against materialism, yes, that always work, but mind in itself can be dialogical (gnosis, as knowledge of multiplicity), as well as noological (intuition of unity), and this further differenciation to me is crucial, because when the mind keep regarding the Multiple, it can be disperse and away from God just the same way as materialism does. In this aspect, materialism can be seen just as one more construction of the mind.
Interesting discussion, but I wonder if it doesn't beg the question. Because the qualitative is elevated and treasured doesn't mean it will not be or could not be quantified. The qualititative aspect of consciousness can not presently, and may not ever be by any means humanly attainable, be quantitifed. It doesn't mean it could not. From what you have summarized I would hypothesize that Mr Hart thinks it likely that the physicalist measurement would cast aspersions on the quality of experience of consciousness. It reminds me of the discussion in the Pilgrim's Regress : why do nourish ourselves from some cow secretions and not others? Value derives not from substance but from design and purpose. The incarnate Son did not lose value in the incarnation. When the Unseen became Seen? When the glorious took up flesh? We too are made of flesh. We derive no value from the meat that ressembles that that can be found in supermarkets and fridges. We derive value from the image of our Creator. The fleshy parts of us being exposed does not disqualify the quality of the experience. It may enrich it as says Reason to John in the Pilgrim's Regress: "It will do you no harm to remember from time to time the ugly sights inside. You come of a race that cannot afford to be proud."
Yes, it looks like gnosticism so far. The simple substance should be totally transcendent to all the predicables of its representations, as matter or mind, etc. Let us know if in future chapters he explores some neoplatonic ideas, or Leibniz's Monadology, which looks to me as a much more simpler and elegant solution. Thanks for the video
It’s wild that consciousness is so overlooked. Especially here in the west we really took the “science will explain it one day” way too seriously. It’s unfortunate bc most theology conversations skip past the fundementals of existence, consciousness, bliss and go right to the gods fighting for our souls bit
I agree that consciousness is the sort of wonder before all wonders. That we don't reflect on it betrays something about our way of thinking, something that not good.
This is a good talk you just did right here, peace and happiness are everything!! When you put these things into faith, it comes a great conscious to your mind! Nobody talks about this so often… Don’t take life too seriously, we need to forgive, love, respect each others…. That’s the way the world works
By "chest" Lewis seems to have meant what in previous times theologians and philosophers meant by "heart." See Dietrich von Hilderbrand, "The Heart: An Analysis of Human and Divine Affectivity."
The aristotelian definition is good enough I guess, what makes us multiply the distincions seems to be the habit of idolatry from our minds, the unnecessary complexity of counting beings instead of seeing God's simplicity in all things, so maybe the solution is to see all the particular cases of genuine love as love to God , as seeing something of beauty means to admire God's Beauty through it
Men without chests are currently destroying this world. More specifically, men without Christ have no chests. Men with intellect and no wisdom act as animals and are easier to pin up / against each other. I am just recently realizing this through therapy, prayer & Holy Spirit guidance. The decay of emotional control previously taught to kids is no accident and by design. We must fight this evil before it destroys our families, our countries & humanity as a whole. We know how this ends but we must not be passive, we must actively resist & even fight evil, until that end. Evil is never passive
The best writers aren’t beholden to political correctness. C.S. Lewis was shunned by the chattering classes of his day yet is more influential in 2024 than his squishy Christian and militant atheist critics. Bravery ages well.
Love this! The concept of the “moral imagination” is lost on our generation just as Lewis explained. This video from Jordan Peterson illustrates this point as it pertains to childhood education to a degree: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rlItMr2L-N4.htmlsi=lD0Vp21Y84gGd1Tm
To provide an operational, rather than conceptual, definition of what Lewis meant by the phrase under consideration ... just look around ... they run all the institutions of society in the USA, and all western nations today. Or, if you prefer, think of Tolkein's Gollom. How are such people created? See Lewis' other description in the same book (The Abolition of Man) that says of their educational institutions: "We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful." Today's leaders of western nations are not capable of fruitful governance. They've been castrated by the removal--not of their nuts (would that it were so)--but of the Christian component in the overriding process of enculturation, which is broader and more inclusive than just formal education.
Scott Swain’s book is great! Not only does he really show the biblical sources but he brings the study of the Trinity always back to praise and worship of God. I was a little alarmed by Fred Sanders book. Perhaps I am wrong but he seems to regard Trinitarian theology as a background for the more important emphases of evangelicalism, such as biblical authority, the cross, salvation, and heaven. I think that is exactly backwards.
Here because of the O’Donovan thumb. Reading O’Donovan is difficult at first, but richly rewarding for his thought and endearing personality once you can just tread some water in his prose. O’Donovan is a master communicator and his description of the phenomenons of the moral life are so trenchantly apt. His employment of the term “pigheadedness” in a passage of Disappearance was like a tasting note in a fine wine that made me put the book down and just smile for a full minute, even if I don’t yet grasp half of everything else he is saying …
Ah man, this world would get so boring, and it's already hellish enough. Imagine never dying, and having to witness war after war, siege after siege, disease after disease, see people grow corrupt, destroy an entire civilization, and then rebuild it, and once it got things just right, it gets corrupt again and falls apart. Or then someone gets the idea to put you into prison, because you're in the wrong country at the wrong time. I mean, even if the woman you loved were immortal too---and you two had the most passionate romance ever---it'd grow dim. Unless we ourselves were empowered by Christ's Holy Mind, we'd never be able to accomplish it. Which is another reason we need Christ to go to heaven. As eternity in our flesh minds and living in this world would be the utmost worst possible thing we could ever have done to us. It'd be even worse than perdition. I wrote a poem on that, called Hayden and Jaylah.
In a universe with the rule of entropy (which is of course not the only one in the physical world), eternal life is neither possible nor wishable. If never ending, it would mean the endless process of energy transformation in every kind without any real rest, it would mean that Heraclitus' view on the state of all things and beings ("You never enter the same torrent twice ...") turned into a neverending nightmare ...
I'm reminded of something I once heard that "the hardest part about being a superhero is that you have to win every time, but the supervillain only has to win once." If one were to live forever they'd undoubtedly become jaded in the sense that it can either be used as cynical or exhausted due to work. If you lived forever then you'd eventually end up in one of those two categories simply due to the nature of this world
@@RJ47420 Well, rarely do I talk to someone who can make a connection like that. So, you are a smart cookie. It's very generative--which is a new word God taught me recently, just popped in my head like so many others.
