Philosophy, Philosophy, Philosophy w/ Dr Alex Plato 

It would be interesting to hear Plato and Fr. Ripperger in a long form conversation like this.

This is so amazing. It’s inconceivable to me how both of you were able to sustain that degree of intellectual sophistication and precision for 3 hours. So great.

I wonder if being born with the last name Plato altered the trajectory of his life

This guy is a philosophy machine! Perfect title 🙂

Only 22 minutes in so far (I’ll have to listen to the rest later), and Dr. Plato gives an excellent explanation of univocity. This is great. Please have Dr. Plato on more!

I love that the Catholic church is sanity itself and appreciate the insights into our Franciscan heritage. Wonderful.

Dr. Plato - aside from being a very intelligent man - just seems like one of the best dudes ever. I imagine he’s just a solid friend overall and that his group of close friends value him greatly. Loved this episode!

Dr. Plato is a gem.

I could listen to Dr Plato for hours. WHY DOESN’T HE HAVE A PODCAST??

The doubts about Christianity portion was HUGE. Matt’s story and connection to the guy who believes extraterrestrial aliens are real was SO SPOT ON with my experience. I would say that I have been faithfully “devout” in my walk in the faith the past 3-4 years and I lead ministry, but I had the same realization that Matt. What if I somehow just talked my way into believing all of this? What if my prior experiences with Christ were just all in my mind? I’ve sat in Mass and thought what if this is all just crap? I pray that it isn’t so, and that I have been truly led by the Holy Spirit to the point where I’m at now. I pray all doubt to be replaced with confidence in Christ and his promises. Either way, I feel I am truly a greater and more virtuous woman due to Christ’s pursuit after me and my allowing of him to do so. Thank you, Matt.

I love what Matt says at 1:34:19 about the limits of debate and argument. So much apologetics focus on propositions and demonstrations from logic... But "real assent" is not a matter of inference, as St Newman shows. No amount of rational/argumentative evidence will _ever_ get you to that assent. It's a matter of the heart, of the whole person. I wish more apologists pointed this out or realized it. Debates and the whole argumentative road not the greatest tool of evangelization. Like Dr Plato shared, evangelization is the friend who says, "Where's your joy, brother?" Christianity is proved by _Christian witness,_ not propositions. The mind is in service to the soul. That's why so many come to Catholicism through an encounter with saints. Notice also that Jesus never chased people down with arguments. It seems to me that a holy person, genuinely living in Christ, is the strongest "argument" or evidence for faith. So if you want to bring others to God, be as near to God with your whole being as you can...

Super high quality episode-keep up the good work, and please have Dr. Plato on again soon

Your guests are so intellectually brilliant and their faith makes them so much more than that. It's what seems to be missing in the conversations I've watched with people like Jordan Peterson. I'm not sure how to articulate this but Intellect without faith just seems to fall short. It's like having the map that can lead you to the right destination but no vehicle that can make the journey. I really appreciate this content. Thank you all for taking the time to make this video.

Finaaaaallllyyyyy! Dr. Plato!!!!!!!!!!!

Listening here is quite a workout for my brain. Although a cradle Catholic, there's so much to learn - - eg. never heard of divine simplicity before.

Dr. Plato is wonderful to listen to.

Can you invite Dr Matthew Minerd and Dr Plato to have a discussion on the differences of Thomistic and Franciscan intellectual traditions? Especially the neo scholastic treatments of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus…

This was just amazing, so precious and inspirational, such deep and rich content. I cannot believe this has been viewed by 12k and only has 400likes,Christian’s it’s time to fix up.

About two hours in. I always enjoy the discussions with Dr. Plato greatly, and on top of that, I learn a lot!

Love this channel and love Dr. Plato! Great discussion.

This may be the most superb episode of PWA yet. Please do a clip from 6:30 to 9:12 on pursuing knowledge for prideful purposes. Very good work.

I highly respect this man, my favorite professor learn from his wisdom.

St. Augustine has the best explanation on how you can say "God is one because he is three. God is three because he is one." And Mr. Plato jumped right into it :P.

1:37:40 Makes me think of on of my favorite Wittgenstein quotes: "If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. For doubt can exist only where there is a question, a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said. We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and this itself is the answer. The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem." Tractatus 6.5-6.521

Thank you so much. As a novice, this is extremely important. I really like your channel as it is helping me understand more my rediscovered faith.

Approx 1:04:00 when Matt and Alex start talking about how to explain the Trinity to their kids, if anyone is curious on ways to potentially approach this topic. Runs about 2 minutes

I wrote my undergrad thesis on the primacy of Christ. It's a fascinating topic. I argued that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are possible only if you have the Scotistic doctrine.

I really want to know more about the Franciscan school of thought… is there any guide to start studying Franciscan philosophy?

Plato is GOAT

This is the 2nd best episode of Pints with Aquinas, runner up to Dr Peter Kreeft

He's back! Yes!

Sorry to the other guests and conversations but this one was by far, and in my experience, the best!!! Welcome to Catholic Philosophy! What a wonderful faith we have been given simply because it’s smart. Viva Faith & Reason!!

we should have philosophers of this quality in Spanish language

@42:24 Matt just can't stop his "aussie" way of speaking 🤣.

Absolutely fire episode!

Wow this is blowing my simple mind/brain

Yo when they both drank at the same time, I lost it :)

incredible episode

Loved this conversation so great loved about an hour in the discussion amazing ! Have such an excellent frame work for the Trinity and also understanding one’s own self very good !

Oh Holy Night, I knew this would be over my head. I'm trying tho!

I never miss a Dr Plato episode. Are there ways I can take online courses from his lectures? I can't get enough.

Everybody always talks about Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus I would like to see how Suarez fits into the picture.

This is such a great talk! One of my favorites. Very great guest. At 1:25:11 I audibly laughed when Matt said that because I felt the exact same way through the whole talk.

My favorite philosopher!

3 is a magic number - De La Soul..................Dr Plato of the Plato brothers ! brilliant

Philosophy podcasts are the 💣💣💣

Why l believe.. Some years ago l received temptations the lasted for three days. I experience the vining for my soul...l knelt in a church begging for relief...lt came..I heard the Lord say "people believe in Me. They do not believe in the evil lier. " And yes l shared this with a priest

In "Introduction to Christianity," Pope Benedict XVI uses a vivid analogy to describe the experience of faith in the modern world, likening the Christian believer to a person adrift in the ocean, clutching a piece of wood to stay afloat. This imagery powerfully conveys the existential condition of modern believers as they navigate the vast, often overwhelming waters of doubt, secularism, and philosophical challenges that characterize contemporary life. The ocean represents the world in which the modern Christian lives-a world that is vast, deep, and often tumultuous. It symbolizes the myriad challenges and uncertainties that believers face, including the intellectual and moral complexities of modern society, which can often seem as insurmountable and unfathomable as the sea itself. The piece of wood stands for faith. Just as a piece of wood provides buoyancy and support in the water, faith offers support and sustenance to the believer amid the existential challenges of life. It is what keeps the believer from sinking into the depths of despair and doubt, offering a lifeline and a point of stability.

"The only way to save the analogy of being is the univocal concept of being." Nice.

Whow I’m a Franciscan and I have bowel issues, help me st. Bonaventure

Monsters & the Critics. So excellent. But yes On Faerie Stories groundbreaking.

1.38 - England is NOT an island. England is attached to Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is an island.

I wish there would be as much intellectual vigor for this philosophy video as for the topic of Liturgy on Pints with Aquinas. Even a fraction of the amount of vigor for this highly theoretical video, would go above the popular trashing of the Novus Ordo found on this channel and other catholic channels. Lets have someone on Pints with Aquinas who can show appreciation for the Novus Ordo without getting into polemics. I love this philosophy video though and thought the vigor was so good that I want to see it for the Novus Ordo. There is a lot of good content out there. Look at the founders of the Liturgical Movement, Guardini, Cartens (from La Cross, WI), etc.. Keep up the great work Matt and team. I'm praying for you all!

Oh my tiny brain 🤔

The idea of quasi-univocal, I personally call 'parallelism" : the incarnation, on earth as it is in heaven, tabernacle being a representation of a heavenly one, holy/profane, etc.

8:08 i would argue that a dogmatic 'notion IS invented to the degree that it is understood individually. Even how we internally define is a function of family/education/culture/self ie uncertainty

My mind is so small

Ive been able to find a way to be a missologist and be a faithful catholic: Practicing the faith leads to happier life, simple as

42:40 A good illustration of the different approaches typical of Thomists vs. Franciscans: Plato: "They [Thomists] wouldn't say that [i.e., sin] was like the main reason [for the incarnation]..." Fradd: "They actually would, I think Thomas would say it's the main reason." Plato: "Maybe you're right, but... [blah blah blah]..." Then Fradd shifts to Franciscan mode: "So no sin, no mother of God, so there's more you miss out on..." Fradd fails to notice that he has not provided (and that in principle there is no way he could provide) any justification for his (entirely gratuitous) use of the word "more" here. But he does connect here (implicitly) to the idea of "oh happy fault, o necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a redeemer [and his mother!]" Which suggests that sin is indeed the necessary prerequisite for the incarnation, otherwise it would make more sense to say "o unnecessary sin of Adam, without which the Incarnation would have happened regardless, and without which we could have been spared all the futility and despair, the murders, rapes, genocides of human history, all of the imponderable tortures of time and eternity." Or something like that! Plato's subsequent discussion suggests that Scotus believes that God must be the best possible lover of the most lovable set of all possible sets of lovable creatures and the best of all possible redeemers of the maximally sinful of all possible sets of possible creatures, i.e., he believes like Leibniz that God creates the world he does not freely but simply because of the maximal goodness of his will which constrains him to create the best of all possible worlds. But he forgets that the world is not God, it is finite, and talking of "the best of all possible lovers or redeemers of finite creatures (as embodied in a maximally logically possible outpouring of love and redemption)" or "the best of all possible worlds" is like talking of the greatest finite number, i.e., these are intrinsically confused and contradictory concepts.

Fr. Norris Clarke, a Thomist, agrees that anything analogical is necessarily united to be analogical.

The tin soldiers from Lewis is Mere Christianity

My head hurts

I only found out about who CSL and Tolkien were from a dream.

Hugh of St Victor

wow

39:51 let’s explain to the folks at home what Scotus thought about the supremacy of Christ

His name is Plato. Oh my gosh.

Timestamps?

Looks like Matt was over his Head for a bit

Around 50:50 Plato says: "I have never been able to understand Thomas's view of the Trinity, as the persons of the Trinity are subsistent relations, so what that means is that the relation is prior to the things that are related. ... So normally the way we understand relations as a sort of metaphysical idea..., we think there's no such thing as brotherhood if there aren't two brothers. ... For there to be real brotherhood, a real relation here, there has to be the relata, for there to be the relation, so the relata are prior logically to the relation. But what Aquinas is saying with the Trinity is the opposite." Um, straw man? I'd love a reference. Here's a relevant thing Aquinas says (ST I.40.2 ad 4): "Relation presupposes the distinction of the subjects, when it is an accident; but when the relation is subsistent, it does not presuppose, but of itself bears the distinction (secum fert distinctionem). For when it is said that 'the being of the relative is to be constituted towards another,' the word 'another' signifies the correlative, which is not prior, but simultaneous in the order of nature." So Plato seems to be mistaken. The relation and the relata are, as such, simultaneous in the order of nature. So he's right, there's no brotherhood without (at least) two brothers; but he seems to forget that also, vice versa, there are also no brothers without brotherhood. So he says that "a real relation requires real relata"; but that's obviously not an objection to Aquinas, unless he's bizarrely trying to imply that Aquinas thinks that, e.g., the real relation between the Father and the Son does not require the reality of the Father and Son. And put simply, his objection to Aquinas implies that he thinks it should be the opposite: that the reality of the Father and Son are prior to the real relation between them. But that objection is obviously just as contrary to Bonaventure's account as it is to Aquinas's (as well as flat out not making sense).

Does Franciscan School see Human Being as: Body, Soul, and Spirit?

Regarding a minor remark at the end of the talk about eastern and western liturgical music: I disagree about Gregorian (or other western) chant being totally different than Eastern, Byzantine chant. Sources show something else, they have common roots. They were very close, which shows especially in manuscripts and chant from Benevento, with many Greek verses written phonetically with western notes. For me it's very sad that the most common vision of western chant relies on very modern theories that are completely disconnected from roots and tradition. It's another part of our Church heritage that we let degenerate or even lost (what's maybe worse - we think we academically rediscovered it, but it's just a weak shadow of its former glory). Still alive eastern byzantine traditions are the key to discover what the western chant was about - with varied modi, ison and natural rhytm.

I'm back.

This was amazingly and beautifully complex and nonsensical 😂

Dr. Plato sounds a lot like Rob Henderson

😳🤯😳🤯

The part of the concept Scotus believes is univocal is being. Scotus denies a hierarchy of being. For Scotus, being is just a concept, with no form or essence. Something either is or isn’t. There are no degrees of existence.

What would your guys’ response be to a determinist agnostic who claims that every choice comes from the brain and we cannot effect or change how the brain will decide upon a given choice? This seems to be a biological determinism that rests solely on neurological processes. I’m wondering what the libertarian free will proponent would say in response to this

It's funny that Catholics reject Eastern mysticism when there is so much there, just under different names and metaphors.

1:37:22 Three responses to solipsism: 1) "It just seems" -- but ex hypothesi the "seeming" would be no different, so that just begs the question. 2) "Nonsense" -- but it's not nonsense, unless you don't understand it, in which case you don't have a problem to solve, you just have nonsense; but since you did think you had a problem to solve, not just nonsense, then it seems that your claim now that it's nonsense is just a post hoc rationalization to avoid honestly facing the problem (fyi, Plato, "England's not an island" is certainly not crazy nonsense; it's actually true!). 3) "Transcendentals" -- but ex hypothesi transcendentals would/could transcend solipsistic reality too, so they wouldn't serve to differentiate anything. A more reasonable response: So what? Solipsism? Maybe not disprovable. But nihil sequitur.

reckless with that lime green color combo

When ever Matt says text is tone deaf ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-naleynXS7yo.html

Seriously pointless. Oh and really boring too!