Nope. It just means that those who claim to dispense with or despise metaphysics end up doing it, like it or not, but less consciously, less adequately, in a cruder fashion. You want to be able to distinguish between claiming not to do metaphysics or have metaphysical assumptions -- which is quite possible for them -- and actually doing so -- which isn't. And, btw, Scheler, Heidegger, Von Hildebrand, Marcel, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre -- all phenomenologists who do metaphysics
Hi Dr. Sadler. Your Channel has been a great benefit to me. One of my hobbies is to try to come up with little clerihews about the different philosophers I've studied. I 've got this one for Anselm. Anselm of Cantebury Went on rather merrily Considering the majesty of Heaven above No greater philosopher could be conceived of. Thank you for your channel.
Ontology is, for most practical purposes, the same as metaphysics. Some philosophers -- and a few schools -- like to restrict its meaning to something fairly specific. But, in my view, that's a good reason NOT to use their category -- particularly with beginners -- since doing so will end up trying to cram everyone else's philosophical views in the history of philosophy into the particular categories of that thinker's or movement's position.
Well, first I say "By ontology, you mean metaphysics generally, right? Not some thinker's particular technical use of the term, like Heidegger's or Quine's" And, yes, metaphysics permeates the whole of philosophy, like it or not (even for the "end of metaphysics" people) -- but then again, so does moral theory. It can also be -- and ought to be -- studied thematically as a distinguishable branch of Philosophy. The question of the supernatural order, now, that's a whole other can of worms...
Another of the "Philosophical Development" videos -- this one about a thinker on whose work and writings I never thought I would end up becoming a specialist. . . .
I was never aware of St. Anselm's work until I came across your videos. I very much enjoyed St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa, or rather Peter Kreeft's ' A Summa of the Summa' It seems that if we're discerning enough we can find truth in anyone's teaching, even from untruth. I don't identify as a Christian but Christian scholars (of course not all) seem to resonate with a sense of authenticity (in that what they-the scholars-put forth i.e. Augustine, Aquinas, and I'm betting Anselm). Anyways, I look forward to inquiring further into your videos. Thank you Dr. Sadler.
Admittedly it is a breath of fresh air to listen to you. With a MA with a thesis long ago concerning the problem of universals, I would love to ask you an odd question. Have you ever compared the chiastic method with the type seen in the tetralemma or from the Asian schools - Catuṣkoṭi ?
Do you have a video that explains your personal theological views and how your philosophical studies have influenced that? I’m interested in how the one affects the other and vice versa
like you, for the love St. Anselm, can you share some of good references both primary and secondary regarding St. Anselm? Thanks in advance for your help.
As a specialist, which books on Anselm's works would you recommend? Not biography, but nontrivial books/papers on his works and ideas. For example, in the video you mentioned a longer paper you wrote, where you look at the Anselm scholarship. What's that paper called? Is there a list of your papers anywhere? Any recommendations you might have are much appreciated.
Have you heard of Saint Irenaus of Lyon? He is an early figure just after the time of John the Apostle who wrote a piece called "Adversus Haeresus" (Against the Heresies) where he really debunks Gnosticism of his time. Anselm was probably influenced by him. I am influenced by Irenaeus because I have believe in the One God who needs nothing from his creation. God is so Great he needs nothing from anybody.
