Michel Henry By Steven Delay

Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimelin...

[@robweatherill8575]

Great introduction to Henry. I first came across Henry in my psychoanalytic work as he stressed affectivity (Life) over language against the structuralism of Jacques Lacan. Psychoanalysis releases the drive for Absolute Life which Henry writes about in "The Genealogy of Psychoanalysis". Only later did he link Life with Creation and our experience of joy and suffering in Christ.

[@TheWolfgangfritz]

Definitely will buy Henry's book "The Words of Christ". Nice to see God saving Academics and Secular Philosophers. Did the same with Mortimer Adler in his 86th year.

[@stevendelay5398]

I should note two minor misstatements I made.
1. Eckhart and Kierkegaard are indeed two thinkers whom Henry believes posed the problem of subjectivity properly-but there is also Novalis, who is worthy of mention.
2. There are three verses from John noted to be of interest to Henry: one from John 14 and a second from John 15. The third, however, is from John 3, not John 15.

[@gotterdammerung6088]

Did Henry have any thoughts on Foucault?

[@stevendelay5398]

@@gotterdammerung6088 I can't recall off the top of my head a place in which Henry mentions Foucault specifically by name (which isn't to say that Henry doesn't; perhaps he does somewhere). But Henry frequently does discuss structuralism, post-structuralism, and deconstruction in many contexts. I would assume some of the time Henry would have had Foucault in mind. As it happens, this is an interesting quirk of much French philosophy: a writer will refuse to mention by name those with whom he most disagrees.

[@oioio6223]

Maine de Biran also

[@stevendelay5398]

@@oioio6223 Yes, thank you. Biran deserves mention as well.

[@MJWynn]

Amazing, as always, Mr. DeLay 😋

[@leonardsmalls2758]

Thank you

[@PKAnon]

Great lecture. Unfortunate audio quality.

[@stevendelay5398]

Many thanks for listening, Mr Keenan! The audio quality was my bad. I'll make sure to wear a clipmic for the next one.

[@Brunofromaraguari]

Life is just one for all of us, it is, itself, intersubjectivity. That's why its view is not a solipsism.

[@jonathanthompson4734]

Please fix audio on Radical Orthodoxy part 2

[@camelia12]

1 Corinthians 13:12
12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.

[@patrickholt2270]

It's good to be reminded that I'm not as clever as I like to imagine. Much of this went over my head. I stick with a perhaps simplistic practicality in which the self, like most things, is a functional belief, sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes, which we de facto assume by faith. It so happens that I am also a Christian, so even if I can't follow Henry's logic from the problem of the self to Jesus as Logos, I share the conclusion. I think perhaps CS Lewis was on some of this ground with his argument in Miracles for the reasonability of faith in the supernatural, or ultimately natural Creator from the unprovability of consciousness and the inobservability of cognition. Of course faith as a tool in itself is indispensable at the level of the working assumption of such things as the self, consciousness, the reality of existence, future time, love, hope, truth and meaning which cannot be proven to exist in themselves but which in practice everyone allows as their assumptions, consciously or unconsciously. The rejection of faith as such, regardless of specific content or application, is as self-negating and impractical as the denial of the existence of truth in principle.

[@the-secretartist]

Michel Henry's insights are increible and extremely profund for our times, but unfortunatly he got stuck in the religious terminogy of God and the infinite to express his ideas, he didnt go beyond the traditional way of thinking or at least try to search for another poetic way to create meaning to our lives that save us from the old hangover of religion terms that so much confusion and pain bring to the world. In this sense, Heidegger walked the right path from being and time untill his latest period by navegating new ways to bring the "unseen" into our daily life. I like both thinkers in their own way, but I'd replace the God of Henry for "that", just a "that'" that refers to what he quicky name by that concept of God, just because of his inclination for Theology, and the bible.