@ManForToday yeah it's so funny when materialists accidentally stroll into the philosophy department and embarrass themselves without even knowing it 😂
Dear Heather Hodges, I couldn't agree more, especially if one is called Daniel Dennett or 'Somebody' Churchland. Alas, I believe that true miracles are rare. A happy new year to you.
I really like Hart, but this was a little cringe-inducing given that we all know what Kuhn meant: There's this very commonly-held notion that our minds (that which carries-- or perhaps just is-- the seat of "I") can survive the death of our brains; i.e. that each individual "I" can exist without a physical body in a "non-embodied" or "disembodied" state of (conscious) affairs that is at least relatively continuous with the "I" that we experienced while alive/embodied/being filtered through a brain. This is clearly what Kuhn meant by "soul" and it's what the vast majority of Christians mean by it, even if they're ignorant of Church history. Moreover, what exactly differentiates one unembodied mind from another (different) unembodied mind? Your unembodied "I" is different from my unembodied "I"? Christians typically believe that the "I" is unified within (or just *as*) a "soul," which is vaguely thought to be a sort of non-physical "body." This admittedly sounds confused or at least in need of a conceptual analysis that justifies using the word "body" without anything physical to attach that label to. Nevertheless, the point is that Christians usually believe that individual minds are in some sense unique localizations that can (again, in some sense) "navigate" (or at least have the... "perception" of doing so). It's not just one indivisible blob, but a plurality of distinct self-aware entities.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns We have to remember, though (whatever many Christians may think) that the ultimate form of our future life is bodily resurrection, not disembodied ghostliness. Neither ancient nor medieval Christian teaching thought of the soul in fully Cartesian terms. The real _you_ is necessarily an embodied human being.
Theo, i agree with you and was actually just saying the same thing to my partner in the car ride to get groceries lol. Be that as it may, it’s clear what Kuhn was asking: after the brain dies, is there a continued “I” that persists until the resurrection? If so, what do we call that? Etc
You should upload the video "Does consciousness defeat Materialism (Part 2)". It's incredible - he sums up the problem consciousness poses to materialism incredibly well.
David is quite brilliant, I stumbled upon him as a novice theologian, and Hart literally challenged me to expand my mind, he really did, I also stumbled upon him speaking of Bach, the composer, and since I am a huge fan of Glen Gould, who plays Bach from the piano,as well as it can be done, I became that much more of a fan of Hart, he demands that you put on your thinking cap when you delve into one of his books, ( especially the earlier works) and you are all the better for it as well, his The Beauty of The Infinite could well be the very best aesthetic Christian theology work ever, by an American, brilliant work, the guy just emmerses you in his mind, and it is indeed a fantastic journey.
There was anothet video the name was. Consciousness defeats materialism, again with David Bentley Hart, now it has been deleted i don't know why. Upload it again if it's possible please.
EDIT: FOLLOW UP. In an interview with Robert Wright, Hart agreed that "there IS something it's like to be dead." Obviously, By “soul” Kuhn was asking the following: After the death and dissolution of my brain and body, will I - the person posting this comment- be able to think the following thought? “I WAS embodied. I did type that comment. Now I lack a body.” THAT is clearly the purpose of the question. DBH was being difficult. And btw, in a separate interview (with Skeptiko) DBH said he was “not surprised” by the first-person accounts of NDEs…. No, I didn’t misunderstand Hart. Hart was just being difficult here, even granting he’s technically correct.
All this conversation would not happen if Bently had understood the meaning of time . His is thinking as a human being who cannot imagine something before all started . That is why we need physics and not "ontology" or something like that .
Just when it was getting really interesting with DBH saying that the Cartesian view of the soul was "post-Christian," it cuts out. Though what was said before it was pretty good too.
I approached this question by asking the inverse. If consciousness didn't exist then does anything exist? If consciousness didn't exist everything would be meaningless, time itself would be meaningless. The time from the dawn of the universe until its ultimate heat death would be a blip of nothingness. So as Dr. Hart seems to believe it is God's consciousness that is the basis of reality itself, and we have been invited to participate in that.
The nature of software has puzzled philosophers for thousands of days The only conclusion possible is there must be a higher power. This proves Computer Programmer really does exist.
Surprised he didn't bring up the example of apparitions or Angels. When Moses appeared to Jesus at the Transfiguration; then what exactly type of being was the form of Moses at that point considering he could be seen and heard yet did not have a body? This state Moses was in is what Kuhn was probably asking about and how does it relate to the material reality of the body?
@@uthman2281 We cannot get outside of ourselves to know the noumenal world, and our minds are too small and limited to even attempt to know the mind of God. We can make hypotheses and "educated" guesses, and we can experience "intuitions," but in the end, none of that constitutes Knowledge. Just think of all the things you thought you "knew" once upon a time only to discover subsequently that you did not know at all. You can choose to have "faith," but faith is not knowledge. Still, what does one lose to have faith? Faith engenders hope, and faith and hope may help us to live a better life now.
@@adambirch6466 Wrong, Adam. Look up the definition of churchman. 'Clergymen' is only one of the definition. Another is "member of a church" Yes, Hart is a scholar and philosopher. He also happens to be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and - not only that - but one of that church's most eminent theologians. Perhaps you should a dictionary before offering your comments.
How does this man (Hart) live with himself spouting all this nonsense he has no way of knowing and acting like he's better than others because of it? So cringey to watch.
JW, here’s a comment I wore in this comment section that I haven’t gotten an actual serious reply to. I really like Hart, but this was a little cringe-inducing given that we all know what Kuhn meant: There's this very commonly-held notion that our minds (that which carries-- or perhaps just is-- the seat of "I") can survive the death of our brains; i.e. that each individual "I" can exist without a physical body in a "non-embodied" or "disembodied" state of (conscious) affairs that is at least relatively continuous with the "I" that we experienced while alive/embodied/being filtered through a brain. This is clearly what Kuhn meant by "soul" and it's what the vast majority of Christians mean by it, even if they're ignorant of Church history. Moreover, what exactly differentiates one unembodied mind from another (different) unembodied mind? Your unembodied "I" is different from my unembodied "I"? Christians typically believe that the "I" is unified within (or just *as*) a "soul," which is vaguely thought to be a sort of non-physical "body." This admittedly sounds confused or at least in need of a conceptual analysis that justifies using the word "body" without anything physical to attach that label to. Nevertheless, the point is that Christians usually believe that individual minds are in some sense unique localizations that can (again, in some sense) "navigate" (or at least have the... "perception" of doing so). It's not just one indivisible blob, but a plurality of distinct self-aware entities.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns The Bible has many spiritual beings -- including God -- none of whom have bodies and yet all are perfectly differentiated one from another. I agree with you that Hart was, as is typical for him, pertinaciously opaque in his response yet he did hint in a roundabout way at the answer: the soul and spirit aren't' "in" the body, rather the body is in them, or perhaps better, it is a manifestation of them. The body, at their departure, will speedily deliquesce.
@@aoeulhs Sorry I just had to reply to this because that's just bad theology, my friend. The notion that God doesn't have a body is much more Aristotelian or Neoplatonic than it is Christian. Now if you think what I mean by body is the same thing we think in modern terms of what is a body(i.e. flesh and blood) that's also mistaken. A body is just a nexus of potentiality, or the ability to act in the world. God is able to act in the world and thus has some sort of body. The angels as well as messengers of God can also act in the world so they have body. What Hart is saying is that their essence their essential form exists in heaven as well as well as our essential form. We have a heavenly part which is purely what we are in an unambiguous sense, and an earthly part which manifests our potentiality. Which is what Hart means by the body is in the soul rather than the soul is in the body. The body manifests our potentiality. Also it's not a good idea to look at things as unembodied because there's essentially no such thing. Everything has some sort of body whether it be a strong or weak body.
