Hey, thank you so much for this lecture! It's really unique and helps me a lot with my studies. I also appreciate that you put the summary inside the slides - and all in all I really enjoy the content and the way you organize information

This one should be fun...looking forward to it!

is it my device or the record, making the buzzing sound throughout the video? Sir, your podcasts have helped me a lot in my life. Living in a different corner of the world and being able to learn so much for free. I higly appreciate and thank you.

Really enjoyed this lecture. The recording though has a lot of static noise which makes understanding you a little difficult at times, especially if one wants to increase the speed a little. Might you use a different mic in future videos? Even a 15 dollar plug in one. Thanks for making this great content freely available.

Yes!

Small correction: Peter Lombard wrote the Four Books of Sentences not Peter Abelard. Really enjoyed the lecture!

Hi, Can you site all the sources of this concepts... Thank you, Comment here:

Wow... your sinus and mic makes a little bit difficult to follow. Pls. note that I love your voice, it is really beautiful.

I had to stop the video at 38:15. The Trinity is NOT, repeat NOT, the notion "that God is three persons but actually just one person." All theologians would agree that is absurd. It is the notion that "in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another." Again, it is NOT that three persons are one person but rather three Persons subsist in one essential unity. If you get further into the technical discussions, you'd find that it is even a mistake to say that three persons are (or constitute one) God, as if God were *a* being (i.e., three beings are one being). This is because, as you note, God is unlimited, and that which is unlimited cannot be deemed to be "one" in the sense of defined as one vs another. We can speak of there being "one" God, but that's not to define Him as "a" being. That's a common error that most Christians in the pews even make, but it's one that philosophers ought not make, and as Aquinas will clarify later, this is further because God's essence does not fall within a genus, much less within a species. So the Latin here is not that God is an essence (not an esse) but rather is ipsum esse subsistens--Being Existing Within Itself. But as for this video, please don't say that the Trinity was ever defined as three persons who were actually one person. That is a terribly misrepresentation of what those theologians and philosophers ever said. (It's also worth noting that Augustine and Anselm and all the rest were firm proponents of Divine Simplicity, and that this idea goes all the way back AT LEAST to Irenaeus in the second century and absolutely comes from the Greek tradition; so that's another reason they wouldn't recognize the idea of God being "a" Person in any meaningful sense). Here's an easy reference with the definition provided: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm Okay, resuming video. :) Keep up the good work! I really enjoy watching/listening to your lectures.

@llll-qz9kr

5 жыл бұрын

A: God is three persons but actually just one person. B: in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons same fucking shit

@llll-qz9kr

5 жыл бұрын

fucking prune >.>

@TMATDP

4 жыл бұрын

@@llll-qz9kr This is not the kind of discourse that philosophy welcomes. You should at least articulate yourself constructively.

@WordsOfLife333

3 жыл бұрын

Chris is right about Thorsby's blunder, but the formulation he uses to correct him might not be clear to those who don't know what "Godhead" means (it refers to the divine nature or essence). So, when the Trinity is defined it is said that God has a oneness (unity) as regards to his nature, and a threeness (plurality) as regards to the persons that possess this one nature. They hold this one divine nature in common as three distinct persons (just as one human nature is shared among many people). The first theologians, heirs to Greek philosophy, knew about the law of noncontradiction, which is basic logic, and so would never state what Thorsby asserts they do.

Sorry, can't deal with the buzzing. I find it difficult to separate from your content.

@llll-qz9kr

5 жыл бұрын

put it on 1.25 then he's not stumbling and hesitating all the fucking time, and then you don't have the noise filling the vast majority of ur attention's possible targets .. srsly, worked for me.. ;b

great content... 2/10 audio sadly spoils it

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:18 "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...." Such were the philosophers of the Dark Ages, including Augustine, vainly puffed up in their fleshly, carnal minds.

Your room acoustics make 80% of your words unintelligible. I'm moving on to other videos on the same subject.

By using the term "Medieval" no fixed date can be given for the start of the period to which you refer. The precise term is The Dark Ages, which began with the official ascension of the Roman Catholic Church to secular power, 538 AD. By "Christian" is meant Roman Catholicism. Augustine was NOT a Christian, but a Catholic, two irreconcilable and opposing systems.

@acolytes777

4 жыл бұрын

The term dark ages was made up by a skeptic to smeer the Roman catholic church, nothing to do with moral decadence. Ironic that you are siding with the very people that would just as well criticize you for the very things you believe . Augustine wouldn't have known what in the world Roman catholic meant. Catholic means universal, what in the world does that have to do a geographical descriptor such as Rome? Pick up church history book before you make ignorant assertions in a philosophy video.