Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2014
- Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Website: www.gordonconwell.edu/academic...
This is Lecture 4 in the course 'Church History: Early and Medieval'. All material is copyrighted.
For the entire course, see the playlist: • Early & Medieval History
As a layman, I find it somewhat startling to learn these things for the first time, and to see in them concepts which I have, at least partially, come to understand myself, sort of inherently. This triggers in me one of my very first motivations for self learning which is the thought that there are a great many concepts and ideas spread across this world which LOOK like different things but if examined closely seem to come from a singular source. What is that source?
I'm babbling. Long story short. I love to learn things from people who love to teach.
Thank you for loving to teach.
PastorVor
We look but cannot see the clarity
I love your videos. They are concise and shed light on many interesting aspects of Christian history. I appreciate how they offer clarity to the sometimes murky waters of generalised Christian worldviews. They are perfect for sparking interest to further study. Thank you very much.
I disagree with the notion that not seeking improvement or advantage leads to the conclusion that one should stay in his rank or place in terms of stoicism. Rather, I think stoicism does not give any real value(at least worthy of provoking emotions) to the very concept of one's place or rank, therefore promoting indifference to one's position. In other words, I think it does not favor stability over change but favor being indifferent to those two things.
+) And thanks for the videos, I think this is by far the most content-rich video on history and philosophy that was made by a youtube creator.
Incredible to see philosophic, nonreligious connections to God in the pre-christian world. Very informative. Thank you.
Thanks Dr. Reeves for making church history accessible to the average person like me. You are have done for history and theology what Salman Khan has done for math and science. I appreciate your efforts.
Way too kind to me! But Khan was certainly a huge inspiration for me, so thanks for the encouragement! :)
You do amazing videos, Thank you
Brilliant lectures...thank you for sharing them.
I'm not into philosophy nor studied it but I have read "The Republic", "Timeaus and Criteus" but Aristotle and Socrates always made more sense to me.
great channel Dr. Thank you for your time and effort posting these. It is appreciated.
Really enjoyed this one
l am downloading this playlist - thank you so much- l have not videos like yours on CZcams - l like Bruce Gore, but l do appreciate your videos.
Very concise and easily grasped lecture on the Greek philosophers. I wish I had had you as a professor during my undergraduate days. I completely rejected history as a worthwhile subject until after I had finished my formal education.
And don't you think that the Stoics not only influenced the Romans, but also the Christian church, which propagated that same attitude into the hierarchy found in early-middle age general culture? It seems to me that the church imitated the structure of Roman administration passed it down to the relationships between the majority of the people and their rulers.
Hey Sandy. Thanks!
And yes the Stoic movement certainly influenced at least several of the primary thinkers of the early church. I wouldn't say that is the root of Christianity borrowing from the Roman administration itself, but it certainly is a contributor to some aspects of the theology in those cases where it's not Platonic.
In my lecture on Constantine I talk about how he drove much of the adoption of Roman-style administration (e.g. diocesan structures) and that the wedding of church and state under his rule is at least the major catalyst for this hierarchical takeover in key areas. The early church was big on the role of the bishop, of course, and they combat heresy by appealing to the authority of church leaders, but the ever ascending hierarchy certainly becomes more a feature after Constantine.
I can almost see the connection of the Plato,s Demiurge (concept of perfection) and C.s. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
"Demiurge" means Creator in Greek.
excellent
It took me over 15 years to admit that in many ways, this is simple Hermetics. Þy 'rabbit hole' doþ run deepeþ.
I wonder what Aristotle and Plato would have said if they new like we do now that, that same stone is mostly empty space. Not so solid as man's reason would assume.
It's amazing to me that philosophy is so unpopular in today's age, while pop stars cause Moses to smash his tablets. Any thought's on why the love of knowledge/study is so unpopular and how it could be returned to its proper place of focus?
+Kraven Moorehead I'm a Platonist and I want to make CZcams videos, so along with Roman Paganism and mythology, video games, let's plays, Classical Antiquity of Greece and Rome, Goth-related videos, and vlogs, I want to discuss Platonist and other ancient philosophies. Hopefully, people will appreciate it. Because what I want to do is just share my knowledge with the world, as I don't have many people to share it with.
+Kraven Moorehead Because, and this is the sad truth, Capitalism holds no truck with knowledge or learning. I'm sure you've noticed the post WWII trend toward eliminating the Classics, the Arts & critical thinking from our primary education system. This coincides with the onslaught (I believe the word is justified) of the Military/Industrial Complex, which, coupled with nightmare of Speculative Capitalism, has had a devastating effect on our society.
***** Conjecture is indeed an enemy of critical thought.
***** We should not abandon the Classics, nor shall we become ignorant of critical thinking, classical polytheistic religions, or philosophy. I hope in the future, we will open open our eyes.
Moonspell Bloodlines (The Virtuous Pagan) I agree wholeheartedly. If I had school aged children today, they would never set foot in a public school.
i dont understand how it can be that one might discuss plato in relation to christianity and not mention that he invented the "omnibenevolent". Especially since we can see that his ideas have deeply influenced christian discussion from st paul to aquinas
I wonder if you would go as far as NT Wright in his condemnation of penal substitution and the goal of going to heaven as Palotnized Christianity? I'm just finishing his book The Day the Revolution Began and it's pretty heavy stuff.
I've not read The Day the Revolution Began but from reading articles by NT Wright and watching a video by him I got the impression that he does not condemn penal substitution but rather does not consider it the be all and end all of Christ's work on the cross. He has many times affirmed his belief in penal substitution but sees much more at work in the atonement.
After these philosophers, everyone afterwards was just saying the same things over and over for centuries, imitating each others and painting the same portraits with different colours, until you have Nietzsche.
Where does Epicurean fit into the scheme
Bill Douglas
The Art of Living. Epictetus.
LOGOS
I love 'play-dough'.
Why not Socrates? He's way more relevant to western philosophy than Plato.
Great question. Mostly for the sake of time. This part of the course was mostly to get students caught up on some of what they'll hear more in medieval history. I am working on a history of philosophy course now, though, which would cover Socrates!
"Christianity is Platonism for the Masses" - I think this needs to be wrestled with at a level of greater intellectual honesty and appreciation. Its no wonder that a large part of the intellectually inspired church thinkers, whether Aquinas, Augustine, Duns Scotus, Anselm, etc. are all fascinating precisely for their philosophical framing and orientation, an orientation they all explicitly find in Plato and Aristotle. Now take this and think of these figures in the context of the eclipse of scholasticism with Descartes, the rise of scientism (empiricism/rationalism) and we get a better understanding of the slow death of the historical phenomenon of Christianity - a phenomenon whose debt to Plato and Aristotle is second to none - and which I fear you downplay here to a dangerous extent. With this said, the quote from Nietzsche I just mentioned begins to take on a more profound sense than its original glib form (if we take into account that the masses get the watered down understanding, while the major church figures are all philosophically inspired) Either way the lecture series is great!
I thought Plato invented the plate?
Just joking,these videos are very good.Thanks for putting them up.
it's interesting to me how much the philosophers actually got right. They were lost and you can see that, but those broken clocks were right twice a day
thanks for this, really excellent! but I do so disagree with your labels of "pagan"; the stretch of history has and probably always will be a discussion of , basically, Athens or Jerusalem? so your ending was disappointing to me, it does not incorporate actual historical events, such as the scientific revolution in concert with the rediscovery of Aristotle's works, & the role of Jewish, Muslim, & Christians in debating & translating these works. To underestimate the value of Athens in congruence with the ethics of a Hebrew religion, is to undermine the very value & successes of Western science & technology, to not see the forest for the trees. BOTH the Bible AND the ancient Greek philosophers, both EQUALLY have added much greatness & much sorrow to our humanity.....
also, you did not mention the stoic concepts of BROTHERLY LOVE, a pre-but important part of Christian developments...
I thoroughly enjoy his lectures, but one must always consider the source. After all, you cannot expect someone with a doctorate who teaches at a seminary to be completely objective in regards to his or her own religious bias. I'm an atheist, and therefore outside the box looking in on religious thought.
I find these lectures informative on the ways religious people, particularly Christians, think & separate the claims of ascension and signs in the heavens made of Roman rulers and the same claims made for everyone's favorite Jewish carpenter. Hopefully, I can use what I learn to find points of commonality with my family & neighbors who see me as somehow flawed for not holding their traditional beliefs.
John Harrison, of course he has a bias that is strongly affected by his Christian beliefs. But wouldn't you agree that we are all biased as a result of our worldviews, atheist or not? Imagine if you posted a video on the worldview of "naturalism", and I posted a comment that said, "You must consider the source here. After all, you cannot expect someone with a doctorate from a secular-minded university to be completely objective in regards to his naturalistic bias. I'm a Christian and therefore outside the box looking in on atheistic thought." Maybe I misunderstood you.
Looking forward to your thoughts))
So with your warning on" taking philosophy too far"you clearly indicate your preference for dogma over truth. Christian theology has a history of conflict and compromise .From the Gnostics and Arius to the Cathars and the Reformation.Much of it is therefore Worldly or Interpretive and does not give us a direct experience of the truth of the Redeemer. Call me a heretic but I've got more out of reading (in terms of my love and understanding of Christ)Marcus Aurelius or Plato than I ever have reading any theologian,even Aquinas.The gospels are beautiful because of their simplicity and their Truth remains unaffected by any subsequent investigation
I haven't clearly said anything of the sort. I am talking about historical trends and not my own position. As always claiming to know the bias in a person you don't know doesn't help the conversation.
Ryan Reeves If you were speaking about historical trends then i apologise for jumping to conclusions. It seemed you were saying that the Stoics and Plato somehow contradict Christianity if taken too far. And I just cant see that .
Veedon7
Good video, but please don't call it "Pagan Greek Philosophy"...Philosophy in Greece was INDEPENDENT OF RELIGION/MYTHOLOGY...It was a pure science of understanding what is "real" & "truth"...Greetings from Greece.
Good point to raise. Historians (at least in North America and Britain) tend to use the word 'pagan' or 'paganism' in ways that are neutral. This is a problem as the word often sounds like people are superstitious or into mythology. But historians do not mean it this way (and I don't). I use it to refer to the wide array of beliefs that are not affiliated with a traditional religion. Not everyone is a Greek philosopher--very few are--but it's not helpful to treat Greek philosophy as its own worldview or system.
But this is the fun of history! Making sure our words make sense when we explain things :)
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't feel you can do justice to the western worlds foundational philosophies and philosophical thinkers in a half hour video, let alone call them problematic when there are several thousands of pages written into their apologetics which would take 100s of hours to really understand. Further you seem to be less interested in thinkers of antiquity than Christian theology so I don't really fault you for the somewhat inaccurate portrayal of these philosophies that was either unintentional or just not possible in the time allowed.
+Austin Battalia // Hey Austin. Mostly it's time allowed. This is only 30 minutes in a survey course, so more giving impressions of things. Also I'm mostly going after a nuanced understanding that these philosophies are simply pieces to the foundation and don't evolve over time. They rise and fall and some are popular and then unpopular--and with Rome philosophy in general does not dominate as much as with the Greeks. But like you said, this is just a survey. :)
+Ryan Reeves You're a very classy guy and I just subscribed to your videos, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're not a Catholic. Im my opinion the thinkers of antiquity especially Socrates and Aristotle, who influenced church scholars like Augustine are to Catholics almost as important as prophets and martyrs- of which Socrates was one. Plato's (or Socrates's not really sure who is more to credit) theories on republicanism and philosophy being greater than a sort of Nihilistic power struggle which was prevalent at the time gave rise to the ideas in De Civitate Dei claiming a christian's first allegiance was to their religion and philosophy. One of the main reasons why western culture really reveres Plato and Aristotle so much as founding fathers of western thought rather than other thinkers around their time was because of how well they coincided with the philosophies of Christendom. Socrates's gnostic and likely monotheistic philosophy was far more Christian or Jewish than the theories of the pagans like Glaucen who he debates in Plato's book. Cato and Aurelius's austerity was far more monkish and reverent than the materialistic and prideful men of ancient rome. The entirety of this argument could be misguided if I am mistaken, but to me it sounds as if you are making an argument for what has made these great thinkers of the past lose their relevance, which seems a really unnecessary light to portray the early intellectual greats- in fact these men seem to become more and more interesting as time goes on. Einstein has claimed that Aristotle's elemental aether was a viable possibility to the universe, and still today the debates rages whether numbers are purely platonic and theoretic/metaphysical or if they signify something material.
I apologize for the long post, I've just always enjoyed antiquities and its thinkers.
+Austin Battalia It's interesting that you said Socrates and Plato had theories on republicanism. Socrates saw first had the dangers of democratic processes and Plato really was the father of communism. Is there a specific essay or work you could refer me to which contains these theories?
+Kraven Moorehead Thank you. ;)
I don't think communism is an effective, nor moral system, however, when living in a pure democracy I can see how a philosophers dictatorship would be appealing.