Great Authors - Literature of Ancient Greece and Jerusalem - Plato and Poetry 

Aristotle poetics

Aristotle Poetics?

@@JoseSanchez-zo5tb aristotle poetics

Read Marshall McLuhan next

I like you

@@sirliridon.4419 I’ll see you back at the source brother.

No. 😉

Nope

Just yesterday he released a lecture on The Gorgias,its a must watch,enjoy.

This lecture was in a series called "Great Authors" that Dad recorded while he was at Johns Hopkins.

@@tsugrue9013 Please tell your dad that he is the best lecturer ever. //A student from Sweden

@@tsugrue9013 you’ve got a cool dad!

@@tsugrue9013 Your dad is awesome, dude.

This is exactly correct. Plato is great because of the questions he asks not the answers he gives, which are almost always wrong, albeit wrong in very instructive ways. Of course Plato is not completely wrong (we aren't even capable of that dark perfection), as in for example, the Kardashians or Infowars or Russian "news" from Ukraine. Once you have rejected Plato's (or Rousseau's) program for perfection, without knowing your destination, you are halfway to Augustine.

@@dr.michaelsugrue I guess I have to re listen to your augustine video. Thank you for replying it was very unexpected and made my night. I am envious of your deep and intricate knowledge of this field of study. You seem to see how all of these philosophers and their ideas connect and I am just looking at individual puzzle pieces still trying to understand a conversation that has been going on for 2500 years.

My philosophy professor told me to read F.M. Cornford's translation of Republic 3 times through. "Only then", supposedly, would I get a real grasp on the Western Tradition. I went on reading for years in philosophy but have never quite sat the 3 full readings prescribed, back to back. Dr. Sugrue's lectures give great information as well as motivation. If I keep listening I know I'll finally do it.

Jordan Peterson, of course. And Michael here has a ton more on his channel. But if you really want to learn in depth read a few books and start thinking, suspending yourself for long periods of time with hard and complex questions. Otherwise it's not Philosophy you are learning. One is only considered a Philosopher when he has an original though.

Check out Shelly Kagan's course, Philosophy of Death and Ethics, on the YaleCourses channel.

Jay Dyer has great lectures on philosophy.

Same category. An imitation of an imitation is still an imitation.

@@dr.michaelsugrue what I had assumed, thank you sir

I agree with you here… I just finished reading Plato’s apology and crito, next I have lined up is Phaedo

I think it could reveal some truth, but at the end of the day, it is still a tool of Truth, an immanent reflection of the Transcendent.

Thats A Fruedian remark I believe, because Frued called christians children, that believe in a "skydaddy" who will protect and take care of them, instead of growing up and taking care of themselves.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thoma Aquinas. Pascal states that there is no proof for God but we ought to believe because if wrong hell is the outcome to non-believers. There is hubris in your thinking that you a finite mind can reason to belief in God.

The notion of "Judeo Christian" anything is false because the Hebrew Bible is in direct opposition to both Christianity and Greek though. In fact, Judaism is a counter-religion religion, and anti mythology. It uses Fiction instead at times, but fiction is not a lie...For saying that means one cannot understand the nuance between black and white, or literally false/literally true. Very unwise.

@@1995yuda not exactly sure what you’re saying here-really I think referring to them as Abrahamic religions is more inclusive, as it *unites* Islam, Judaism, Christianity under the same banner of monotheistic praxis. I agree 100%-fiction is not a lie, in the form of cultural mythos it functions as one of the deepest interpellative mechanisms in human tradition. As Adrian Rogers, former head of the Southern Baptist Convention put it: “Sometimes people ask, _’Is the Bible to be interpreted literally or figuratively?’_ I answer, _’Yes!’_ It is to be interpreted both figuratively and literally all at the same time. The Bible is full of symbolism. But you must find out what the symbol stands for, and then you literally believe it.” You say Judaism is counter religion/anti-myth.. I’m assuming you mean more “rational” concerning belief/faith. I’d seriously argue that Christianity is even more so, read G.K. Chesterton or Slavoj Zizek’s account of the cross. Christians come into the fold with Jesus in our hearts and heaven on our minds and if we stick with it, we confront a gamut of ethical dilemmas all the way up to the cross where interestingly, salvation comes by way of “death” (very near to Hegel’s necessity of madness in becoming human). The cross is empty in the Protestant tradition because the emphasis is placed on Jesus’ death as signifying a beginning-not some brutal end we must wallow in. It is an apocalypse (greek: “revelation”/“insight”) which shatters the more simplistic reading on the surface of the text and makes operant a new perspective-allowing us, through this symbolic death to be reborn into the _Holy Spirit,_ the community of believers radically free at the “end of history” (Fukuyama) to take full ethical responsibility for this life as individuals united in the struggle for sovereignty; alone together in the kingdom. To be obscenely blunt, yet with absolute respect, the way I experience the Christian story is as a passage way into a more discerning, intellectual dimension of Atheism, something beyond the impotent aggressiveness of new atheist believers like Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens. Protestantism creates the conditions for a literal ego death to occur and it washes this pain of “rebirth” away in its cooling waters of forgiveness, sounding a call for neighbors to look inward and to take it upon oneself to break the chains of historical deadlock despite the seeming impossibility-in the name of love and camaraderie. As Chesterton wrote in _Orthodoxy,_ 1908: “In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.”

@@1995yuda That made no sense.

​@@1995yudaThe Old Testament and the New Testament are both Christian texts. Christ is concealed in the Old, revealed in the New. The Talmud is in opposition to Christianity.