Podcasts about Aristotelianism

Saint Francis was born into a world in a panic. The stabilities of the feudal world had collapsed with the rise of mercantilism. The gap between rich and poor was unsustainable and a new underclass was tearing apart the fabric of society. Then, there were the looming presence of the Mongols to the east and the transformative impact of the Islamic empire to the south - both conquerors plunging Christian Europe into an existential crisis.Doomster prophets, ferocious disputes, wild hopes and messianic saviours were commonplace.So what did the man from Assisi constellate in the extremities of his way of life? Who was this figure, beyond the sentimental portrayal that can so easily eclipse his intense radicalism? This talk explores the discoveries made by his followers - the scientia experimentalist of Roger Bacon, William of Ockham and Duns Scotus whose Franciscanism embraced Aristotelianism. It asks how the contraries embraced by Francis and the impossible path he traced might much matter now.For more on Mark see - www.markvernon.comHis new book is Awake! William Blake and the Power of the Imagination

Full Text of ReadingsMemorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Church Lectionary: 318The Saint of the day is Saint Thomas AquinasSaint Thomas Aquinas' Story By universal consent, Thomas Aquinas is the preeminent spokesman of the Catholic tradition of reason and of divine revelation. He is one of the great teachers of the medieval Catholic Church, honored with the titles Doctor of the Church and Angelic Doctor. At five he was given to the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino in his parents' hopes that he would choose that way of life and eventually became abbot. In 1239, he was sent to Naples to complete his studies. It was here that he was first attracted to Aristotle's philosophy. By 1243, Thomas abandoned his family's plans for him and joined the Dominicans, much to his mother's dismay. On her order, Thomas was captured by his brother and kept at home for over a year. Once free, he went to Paris and then to Cologne, where he finished his studies with Albert the Great. He held two professorships at Paris, lived at the court of Pope Urban IV, directed the Dominican schools at Rome and Viterbo, combated adversaries of the mendicants, as well as the Averroists, and argued with some Franciscans about Aristotelianism. His greatest contribution to the Catholic Church is his writings. The unity, harmony, and continuity of faith and reason, of revealed and natural human knowledge, pervades his writings. One might expect Thomas, as a man of the gospel, to be an ardent defender of revealed truth. But he was broad enough, deep enough, to see the whole natural order as coming from God the Creator, and to see reason as a divine gift to be highly cherished. The Summa Theologiae, his last and, unfortunately, uncompleted work, deals with the whole of Catholic theology. He stopped work on it after celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273. When asked why he stopped writing, he replied, “I cannot go on…. All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” He died March 7, 1274. Reflection We can look to Thomas Aquinas as a towering example of Catholicism in the sense of broadness, universality, and inclusiveness. We should be determined anew to exercise the divine gift of reason in us, our power to know, learn, and understand. At the same time we should thank God for the gift of his revelation, especially in Jesus Christ. Saint Thomas Aquinas is a Patron Saint of: Catholic Colleges and UniversitiesEducators/TeachersPhilosophers/TheologiansStudents Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

Episode: 1320 Today, we wonder where to look for our new widget.  Intellectual misdirection: looking inside and outside our heads for knowledge.

On episode 228, we welcome Lorraine Besser to discuss the philosophy of the interesting, why the obsessive pursuit of success tends to backfire, Aristotelianism and Epicureanism, psychological richness as an alternative to happiness, the arrival fallacy, the importance of experiences, cultivating a mindset of open-mindedness, Lorraine's own story of being unfulfilled by professional success, why we resort to cultivating envy, the problems arising from long-term happiness, and how ‘interesting' differs from ‘flow' and ‘awe.' Lorraine Besser, PhD, is a professor of philosophy at Middlebury College, who specializes in the philosophy and psychology of the good life and teaches popular courses for undergraduates on happiness, well-being, and ethics. An internationally recognized scholar, she was a founding investigator on the research team studying psychological richness.  She is the author of two academic books (The Philosophy of Happiness: An Interdisciplinary Introduction and Eudaimonic Ethics: The Philosophy and Psychology of Living Well) and dozens of professional journal articles on moral psychology. Her newest book is called The Art of the Interesting: What We Miss in Our Pursuit of the Good Life and How to Cultivate It. | Lorraine Besser, PhD | ► Website | https://lorrainebesser.com/ ► Twitter | https://x.com/LorraineBesser ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/lorbesser ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558839725587 ► Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/lorraine-besser-0a980212b ► The Art of the Interesting Book | https://bit.ly/3Eob8U4 Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast  

A discussion of a Reformed Two Kingdoms view, and the possibility of a distinctively Christian view of the believer's cultural activity according to an orthodox Neo-Calvinism, in contrast with a Scholastic view. Key points from episodes 4 and 19 are summarized, and the Two Kingdoms view being addressed is described. The use of the term Scholasticism is explained against an objection. And a key difference between Neo-Calvinism and a Scholasticized view is variously illustrated.https://reformedlibertarians.com/021Main Points of Discussion00:00 Introduction00:32 Episode description02:08 Key points from episode 4 on Christian cultural activity07:09 Key points from episode 19 on religious non-neutrality09:23 Reformed Two Kingdoms distinctions13:41 The views of David VanDrunen18:43 The term Scholasticism as modified Aristotelianism 24:04 Reiteration of key difference between Neo-Calvinist and Scholastic views25:58 More about VanDrunen's views27:52 Religious views of a saltshaker32:43 The question of logical norms34:54 Similar to interpreting Scripture36:20 Religious views of limited civil governance40:35 Conclusion  *Usually we catch these things, but Gregory didn't catch his mispronunciation of philological til later.Additional ResourcesEpisode 4: How Should Christians View Culture and What Are Some Mistaken Views?https://reformedlibertarians.com/004 Episode 19: The Myth Of Religious Neutralityhttps://reformedlibertarians.com/019 See David VanDrunen's more scholarly book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (2009)https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802864430/ and his more popular-level book Living in God's Two Kingdoms (2010)https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433514044/ “Five Versions Of Two Kingdoms and Foundations For Christian Cultural Activity” by Gregory Baushttps://reformedlibertarians.com/five-versions-of-two-kingdoms-and-foundations-for-christian-cultural-activity/ Info on Meredith G. Klinehttps://meredithkline.com/ Especially see Kline's book Kingdom Prologue (1993)https://www.amazon.com/dp/1597525642/ Michael Beck's book Covenant Lord and Cultic Boundary (2023)https://www.amazon.com/dp/1666737577/ The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) entry on “Scholasticism”https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm See the first two chapters (93 pages) of Herman Dooyeweerd's Reformation And Scholasticism In Philosophy, Volume 2 (1950) for historical background on the development of Neo-Calvinism and its criticism of Scholastic views.https://vcho.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Reformation-and-Scholasticism-in-Philosophy-A-Vol-5-2.pdf#page=25 For example of a non-Christian's view of limited civil governance from creational revelation, see Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty (1973)https://mises.org/library/book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifestoand Ethics Of Liberty (1982) audio: https://mises.org/library/book/ethics-liberty text: https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf  The Reformed Libertarians Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute: https://libertarianchristians.com and a member of the Christians for Liberty Network: https://christiansforliberty.net Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com

Art of Manliness Although they may call it different things and approach its attainment in different ways, many of the world's religions and philosophies have a similar goal: achieving a life of virtue, peace, and flourishing.In his new book, Seriously Happy, Ben Aldrige explains how anyone can use the wisdom of ancient traditions to improve themselves and live the Good life. Today on the show, Ben offers a thumbnail sketch of Buddhism, Cynicism, Taoism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Aristotelianism, along with practices and challenges inspired by these philosophies, including walking a banana, listening to a music performance without music, and taking a Wu Wei adventure, that you can use to put ancient wisdom into action and become a better and happier man.Resources Related to the PodcastBen's previous appearance on the AoM podcast: Episode #640 — Weird and Wonderful Ways to Get Comfortable Being UncomfortableAoM Podcast #148: Trying Not to TryWhy Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment by Robert WrightJohn Cage's 4'33”Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Behavior TherapyConnect With Ben AldridgeBen's website

Although they may call it different things and approach its attainment in different ways, many of the world's religions and philosophies have a similar goal: achieving a life of virtue, peace, and flourishing.In his new book, Seriously Happy, Ben Aldrige explains how anyone can use the wisdom of ancient traditions to improve themselves and live the Good life. Today on the show, Ben offers a thumbnail sketch of Buddhism, Cynicism, Taoism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Aristotelianism, along with practices and challenges inspired by these philosophies, including walking a banana, listening to a music performance without music, and taking a Wu Wei adventure, that you can use to put ancient wisdom into action and become a better and happier man.Resources Related to the PodcastBen's previous appearance on the AoM podcast: Episode #640 — Weird and Wonderful Ways to Get Comfortable Being UncomfortableAoM Podcast #148: Trying Not to TryWhy Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment by Robert WrightJohn Cage's 4'33”Albert Ellis' Rational Emotive Behavior TherapyConnect With Ben AldridgeBen's website

Mark and Wes read through and discuss the first couple of pages of ch. 19, "Fathoming Life," following up on ep. 341. How does Daoism compare to Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Existentialism? How can being a Daoist sage keep one from harm? How is a really effective cicada catcher such a sage? Get more on Zhuangzi at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Sign up for the new Closereads public feed at evergreen.com/closereadsphilosophy, and check out Evergreen's other cool shows. For an ad-free experience with many extra episodes, sign up to support Closereads at patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy, or combine your support for PEL and Closereads at patreon.com/partiallyexaminedlife. Learn about our new book at partiallyexaminedlife.com/book.

Subscribe here to receive my new church history podcast every week.https://thehistoryofthechristianchurch.buzzsprout.comHelp me continue making great biblical content for listeners everywhere, everyday at patreon.com/JeremyMcCandlessSeason 1 :Episode 1: Plato and Greek Philosophy"A History of the Christian Church - 2000 Years of Christian Thought"IntroductionWelcome to the inaugural episode of "A History of the Christian Church - 2000 Years of Christian Thought." I'm Jeremy McCandless, your host, and together we embark on a amazing journey through the annals of time, exploring the transformative evolution of the Christian Church from A.D. 1 to A.D. 500. In Season 1, we will unravel this rich tapestry through the lives and thoughts of some of Christianity's earliest greatest thinkers.Episode OverviewIn this episode, titled "Plato and Greek Philosophy," we'll look into the intellectual landscape that shaped early Christian thought. The journey begins with the influence of Greek philosophy on the early Christian Fathers, unravelling the nuances of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism. We'll witness the emergence of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century and its impact on early Christian thinkers.The Early Christian Fathers and Greek PhilosophyThe early Christian Fathers, primarily Gentile Greeks or Romans, grappled with the task of aligning their Christian beliefs with the prevailing thought patterns of their society. Three main philosophical schools—Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism—left an indelible mark on their intellectual endeavours.Pivotal Moments in Greek PhilosophyBy the 2nd century, a fusion of Platonism, Aristotle, and Stoicism dominated Greek thought, with Platonism emerging as the leading influence. The 3rd century witnessed the rise of Neoplatonism, offering a Pagan alternative to Christianity and leaving a lasting impact on Christian thinkers from the 4th century onward.Central to both Plato and Aristotle was the concept of being and becoming. Plato posited an eternal, unchanging realm of being in contrast to our ever-changing world. This duality of realms became influential in early Christian thought.Greek Monotheism and Christian ApologistsAs Greek philosophical monotheism gained prominence, early Christian apologists found points of connection. However, contradictions between the Greek and biblical concepts of God emerged, leading to theological challenges for the early Christian thinkers.Logos: The MediatorGreek thought introduced the concept of "logos" as a mediating power between the immutable God and the changing world. This concept, echoing John chapter one, provided a point of connection between Greek philosophy and Christian thought. However, challenges arose regarding the nature and status of the Logos.Greek Aesthetics and Christian DistinctionsGreek philosophy held a negative view of the temporal world, considering it the creation of an inferior deity. While some aspects resonated with New Testament thought, fundamental differences persisted, especially concerning the resurrection of the body.The Challenge for Early Christian FathersThe early Christian FatherSupport the showMy Amazon Author Pageamazon.com/author/jeremymccandlessJeremy McCandless is creating podcasts and devotional resources | PatreonHelp us continue making great content for listeners everywhere.https://thebibleproject.buzzsprout.com

Full Text of ReadingsFourth Sunday in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 71The Saint of the day is Saint Thomas AquinasSaint Thomas Aquinas' Story By universal consent, Thomas Aquinas is the preeminent spokesman of the Catholic tradition of reason and of divine revelation. He is one of the great teachers of the medieval Catholic Church, honored with the titles Doctor of the Church and Angelic Doctor. At five he was given to the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino in his parents' hopes that he would choose that way of life and eventually became abbot. In 1239, he was sent to Naples to complete his studies. It was here that he was first attracted to Aristotle's philosophy. By 1243, Thomas abandoned his family's plans for him and joined the Dominicans, much to his mother's dismay. On her order, Thomas was captured by his brother and kept at home for over a year. Once free, he went to Paris and then to Cologne, where he finished his studies with Albert the Great. He held two professorships at Paris, lived at the court of Pope Urban IV, directed the Dominican schools at Rome and Viterbo, combated adversaries of the mendicants, as well as the Averroists, and argued with some Franciscans about Aristotelianism. His greatest contribution to the Catholic Church is his writings. The unity, harmony, and continuity of faith and reason, of revealed and natural human knowledge, pervades his writings. One might expect Thomas, as a man of the gospel, to be an ardent defender of revealed truth. But he was broad enough, deep enough, to see the whole natural order as coming from God the Creator, and to see reason as a divine gift to be highly cherished. The Summa Theologiae, his last and, unfortunately, uncompleted work, deals with the whole of Catholic theology. He stopped work on it after celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273. When asked why he stopped writing, he replied, “I cannot go on…. All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” He died March 7, 1274. Reflection We can look to Thomas Aquinas as a towering example of Catholicism in the sense of broadness, universality, and inclusiveness. We should be determined anew to exercise the divine gift of reason in us, our power to know, learn, and understand. At the same time we should thank God for the gift of his revelation, especially in Jesus Christ. Saint Thomas Aquinas is a Patron Saint of: Catholic Colleges and UniversitiesEducators/TeachersPhilosophers/TheologiansStudents Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

"I believe that Zubiri's work has aptly demonstrated that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics are no longer a sustainable backbone for theology to rest upon. Essentially, it's time for the Church to move on from a sola-Thomistic approach. Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics make too many assumptions about how the world functions; they fail to account for a dynamic universe and their overemphasis on the soul threatens to upend the body-soul unity that Christians profess exists. Just as Platonism needed to be replaced by Aristotelianism at the beginning of the second millennium, I believe that Aristotelian-Thomism is no longer sufficient to account for what science tells us about biology, physics, chemistry, and mathematics. We need to shift to a new paradigm or else the divide between philosophy and the hard sciences will continue to bleed into a divide between theology and the hard sciences."

Do you share Plato's orientation or Aristotle's? Find out! 

Philosophy Podcast Spotify / The Best Philosophy Podcast On Spotify THIS PODCAST UPLOADS PHILOSOPHY LECTURES AND TEXTS WE STUMBLE UPON. WE TRY TO MAKE PHILOSOPHY AVAILABLE AS A PODCAST ON SPOTIFY, AND MAKE IT ALL DOWNLOADABLE FOR FREE. WE TRY TO BECOME THE BEST PHILOSOPHY PODCAST ON SPOTIFY WITH THE MOST PHILOSOPHY EPISODES EVER. BUY A BOOK BELOW TO KEEP US ON AIR. ------------------------------- IMPORTANT! AMAZON DELETED THE LAST INEXPENSIVE BINDING. IT WAS TOO CHEAP! HERE IS ANOTHER VERSION FOR STUDENTS WITH HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU AND THE US CONST. IN ONE BOOK: ||| MACHIAVELLI https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/niccolo-machiavelli-and-john-locke-and-thomas-hobbes-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-and-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-69m6we.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716844508&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr || ROUSSEAU https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jean-jacques-rousseau-and-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke-and-peter-kanzler/the-leviathan-1651-the-two-treatises-of-government-1689-the-social-contract-1762-the-constitution-of-pennsylvania-1776/paperback/product-782nvr.html XXX https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=peter%2Bkanzler&title=pennsylvania%2Bconstitution%2Bleviathan&lang=en&isbn=9781716893407&new_used=N&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr | Thank You Dearly For ANY Support! And God Bless You.

In this episode, Colin Redemer and I discuss the life and work of pastor, poet, and theologian Thomas Traherne (1637-1675). To start, we talk about why Colin feels that Traherne's work is so necessary today and challenges faced in bringing “Christian Ethics” to publication today. We explore the topics of virtue ethics, love, Aristotelianism. Bio - Colin Redemer is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Saint Mary's College of California and the Vice President of the Davenant Institute. He loves teaching on the intersection between History, Philosophy, Literature, and Christianity.Excerpt: “THE GOAL of this work is not to entertain you, but to elevate your soul, to refine your soul's understanding, inform its judgment, and polish it for conversation. To purify and enflame the heart, to enrich the mind, and to guide men (that stand in need of help) in the way of virtue. And it will do this not by fasting with a long face but by exciting men's desire, encouraging them to travel, comforting them in the journey, and so at last to lead them to true happiness, both here and after death.”Support the show!! - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisChristian Ethics - https://amzn.to/3yszjebAristotle - https://amzn.to/3ZQERecDavenant Institute - https://davenantinstitute.org/Support the showSign up for the Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisFollow Full Proof Theology on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/fullprooftheology/Follow Full Proof Theology on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fullprooftheology/

Niels Jorgensen discusses his new book Aristotelian Bairn and why he believes that the reliance on naturalism is harming humanity. He also discusses how he came to adopt an Aristotelian worldview, his thoughts on animals and their rightful place in society, and how reverence for life can help us flourish.

In this episode, I'm bringing you an interview with Dr. James Madden, professor of philosophy at Benedictine University. He is a martial artist, fitness coach, and philosopher with particular interest in the philosophy of mind, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, Aristotelianism, and phenomenology.If you'll recall from the last episode, Diana mentioned Dr. Madden as someone who shared her “spooky” interpretation of the Cave. I first met Jim when he was a speaker in one of Diana's classes over the summer on this subject, and I really enjoyed learning from him. He has a really coherent way of placing the Cave within its proper context both within Plato's Republic and within its historical context that opens up these ideas in inspiring and challenging ways.So that's where we'll start, with an hour-long deep dive into Plato's Cave, and what it implies for the nature of both reality and the UFO phenomenon. And then in the second half of the interview, we'll turn to Dr. Madden's latest philosophical work with regard to the phenomenon including what Heidegger reveals to us about the life and work of Godfather of Modern Ufology, Jaques Vallee, what Aristotle's natural theology suggests about the potential nature of non-human intelligence, and how that work is being continued in the modern day by Dr. Jeffrey Kripal of Rice University. And finally, we'll explore Dr. Madden's fascinating hypothesis for the origins of the UFO phenomenon through the concept of the “umwelt”.I hope you all enjoy this conversation as much as I enjoyed having it. This is my longest episode to date because we were having such a blast that I completely lost track of time. And when I went back to listen again, there wasn't anything that I wanted to cut out. If you enjoy wading out into the deep end of the UFO phenomenon, this episode is for you. LISTEN TO THESE EPISODES FIRSTIf these ideas are new to you, you might find it helpful to go back and listen to the previous two episodes to get greater context.Ep 16: The Sky Calls To Us: The Occult Origins Of The Space RaceEp 17: An Interview with Dr. Diana Walsh PasulkaGO TO EPISODE BRIEF FOR ALL RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE EPISODEFIND MORE OF DR. JAMES MADDEN'S WORKDr. James Madden's WebsiteDr. James Madden's SubstackOnline Course: Heidegger's The Question Concerning TechnologyUFO Realism and the Uber-UmweltAristotle, Myth, and Extraterrestrial IntelligencesBECOME A PATRONGET THE BOOKFOLLOWWebsiteTwitterFacebookMUSICTheme: Cabinet of Curiosities by Shaun FrearsonMusic Break: Golden Hour by Jonas Kolberg

Full Text of ReadingsMemorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Church Lectionary: 322The Saint of the day is Saint Thomas AquinasSaint Thomas Aquinas' Story By universal consent, Thomas Aquinas is the preeminent spokesman of the Catholic tradition of reason and of divine revelation. He is one of the great teachers of the medieval Catholic Church, honored with the titles Doctor of the Church and Angelic Doctor. At five he was given to the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino in his parents' hopes that he would choose that way of life and eventually became abbot. In 1239, he was sent to Naples to complete his studies. It was here that he was first attracted to Aristotle's philosophy. By 1243, Thomas abandoned his family's plans for him and joined the Dominicans, much to his mother's dismay. On her order, Thomas was captured by his brother and kept at home for over a year. Once free, he went to Paris and then to Cologne, where he finished his studies with Albert the Great. He held two professorships at Paris, lived at the court of Pope Urban IV, directed the Dominican schools at Rome and Viterbo, combated adversaries of the mendicants, as well as the Averroists, and argued with some Franciscans about Aristotelianism. His greatest contribution to the Catholic Church is his writings. The unity, harmony, and continuity of faith and reason, of revealed and natural human knowledge, pervades his writings. One might expect Thomas, as a man of the gospel, to be an ardent defender of revealed truth. But he was broad enough, deep enough, to see the whole natural order as coming from God the Creator, and to see reason as a divine gift to be highly cherished. The Summa Theologiae, his last and, unfortunately, uncompleted work, deals with the whole of Catholic theology. He stopped work on it after celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273. When asked why he stopped writing, he replied, “I cannot go on…. All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” He died March 7, 1274. Reflection We can look to Thomas Aquinas as a towering example of Catholicism in the sense of broadness, universality, and inclusiveness. We should be determined anew to exercise the divine gift of reason in us, our power to know, learn, and understand. At the same time we should thank God for the gift of his revelation, especially in Jesus Christ. Saint Thomas Aquinas is a Patron Saint of: Catholic Colleges and UniversitiesEducators/TeachersPhilosophers/TheologiansStudents Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media

Professor Phoebe Koundouri (Athens University of Economics and Business- Greece; Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark (DTU)) speaks to the Global Greek Influence podcast on "Systems thinking of decision making for sustainable development". We discuss: · keys to sustainably financing climate change mitigation & adaptation across the economy and society, · how solving the climate crisis can deliver and secure peace, · transforming capitalism for “Greater Profits, Sustainability and Security”, · combining the Green Recovery with the European Green Deal (EGD) to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), · Aristotelianism helping us meet current and future challenges, · monetising the non-marketable capital to make correct investment decisions and more. Phoebe is a distinguished environmental economics professor, a global leader in sustainable development, and an innovator, listed in the 1% of most-cited women economists in the world & the official Stanford University list of the Top 2 % of world scientists. Also, she is a member of the Nominating Committee for the Prize in Economics Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Music: "Fortitude" by Humans Win Source: Storyblocks --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/panagiota-pimenidou/message

With the Greek language comes the concepts it was historically used to convey. The Apostle Paul, while no Aristotelian philosopher, certainly assumed an Aristotelian philosophy of being as all educated persons largely did in the 1st century.

With the Greek language comes the concepts it was historically used to convey. The Apostle Paul, while no Aristotelian philosopher, certainly assumed an Aristotelian philosophy of being as all educated persons largely did in the 1st century. thebaptistbroadcast.com victorybaptistkc.org https://twitter.com/1689Broadcast https://www.facebook.com/jsommer1689

Elijah Del Medigo (1458-1493) was a Jewish Aristotelian philosopher living in Padua, whose work influenced many of the leading philosophers of the early Renaissance. His Two Investigations on the Nature of the Human Soul uses Aristotle's De anima to theorize on two of the most discussed and most controversial philosophical debates of the Renaissance: the nature of human intellect and the obtaining of immortality through intellectual perfection. In this book, Michael Engel places Del Medigo's philosophical work and his ideas about the human intellect within the context of the wider Aristotelian tradition. Providing a detailed account of the unique blend of Hebrew, Islamic, Latin and Greek traditions that influenced the Two Investigations, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism: Investigating the Human Intellect (Bloomsbury, 2016) provides an important contribution to our understanding of Renaissance Aristotelianisms and scholasticisms. In particular, through his defense of the Muslim philosopher Averroes' hotly debated interpretation of the De anima and his rejection of the moderate Latin Aristotelianism championed by the Christian Thomas Aquinas, Engel traces how Del Medigo's work on the human intellect contributed to the development of a major Aristotelian controversy. Investigating the ways in which multicultural Aristotelian sources contributed to his own theory of a united human intellect, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism demonstrates the significant impact made by this Jewish philosopher on the history of the Aristotelian tradition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Elijah Del Medigo (1458-1493) was a Jewish Aristotelian philosopher living in Padua, whose work influenced many of the leading philosophers of the early Renaissance. His Two Investigations on the Nature of the Human Soul uses Aristotle's De anima to theorize on two of the most discussed and most controversial philosophical debates of the Renaissance: the nature of human intellect and the obtaining of immortality through intellectual perfection. In this book, Michael Engel places Del Medigo's philosophical work and his ideas about the human intellect within the context of the wider Aristotelian tradition. Providing a detailed account of the unique blend of Hebrew, Islamic, Latin and Greek traditions that influenced the Two Investigations, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism: Investigating the Human Intellect (Bloomsbury, 2016) provides an important contribution to our understanding of Renaissance Aristotelianisms and scholasticisms. In particular, through his defense of the Muslim philosopher Averroes' hotly debated interpretation of the De anima and his rejection of the moderate Latin Aristotelianism championed by the Christian Thomas Aquinas, Engel traces how Del Medigo's work on the human intellect contributed to the development of a major Aristotelian controversy. Investigating the ways in which multicultural Aristotelian sources contributed to his own theory of a united human intellect, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism demonstrates the significant impact made by this Jewish philosopher on the history of the Aristotelian tradition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

Elijah Del Medigo (1458-1493) was a Jewish Aristotelian philosopher living in Padua, whose work influenced many of the leading philosophers of the early Renaissance. His Two Investigations on the Nature of the Human Soul uses Aristotle's De anima to theorize on two of the most discussed and most controversial philosophical debates of the Renaissance: the nature of human intellect and the obtaining of immortality through intellectual perfection. In this book, Michael Engel places Del Medigo's philosophical work and his ideas about the human intellect within the context of the wider Aristotelian tradition. Providing a detailed account of the unique blend of Hebrew, Islamic, Latin and Greek traditions that influenced the Two Investigations, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism: Investigating the Human Intellect (Bloomsbury, 2016) provides an important contribution to our understanding of Renaissance Aristotelianisms and scholasticisms. In particular, through his defense of the Muslim philosopher Averroes' hotly debated interpretation of the De anima and his rejection of the moderate Latin Aristotelianism championed by the Christian Thomas Aquinas, Engel traces how Del Medigo's work on the human intellect contributed to the development of a major Aristotelian controversy. Investigating the ways in which multicultural Aristotelian sources contributed to his own theory of a united human intellect, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism demonstrates the significant impact made by this Jewish philosopher on the history of the Aristotelian tradition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Elijah Del Medigo (1458-1493) was a Jewish Aristotelian philosopher living in Padua, whose work influenced many of the leading philosophers of the early Renaissance. His Two Investigations on the Nature of the Human Soul uses Aristotle's De anima to theorize on two of the most discussed and most controversial philosophical debates of the Renaissance: the nature of human intellect and the obtaining of immortality through intellectual perfection. In this book, Michael Engel places Del Medigo's philosophical work and his ideas about the human intellect within the context of the wider Aristotelian tradition. Providing a detailed account of the unique blend of Hebrew, Islamic, Latin and Greek traditions that influenced the Two Investigations, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism: Investigating the Human Intellect (Bloomsbury, 2016) provides an important contribution to our understanding of Renaissance Aristotelianisms and scholasticisms. In particular, through his defense of the Muslim philosopher Averroes' hotly debated interpretation of the De anima and his rejection of the moderate Latin Aristotelianism championed by the Christian Thomas Aquinas, Engel traces how Del Medigo's work on the human intellect contributed to the development of a major Aristotelian controversy. Investigating the ways in which multicultural Aristotelian sources contributed to his own theory of a united human intellect, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism demonstrates the significant impact made by this Jewish philosopher on the history of the Aristotelian tradition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elijah Del Medigo (1458-1493) was a Jewish Aristotelian philosopher living in Padua, whose work influenced many of the leading philosophers of the early Renaissance. His Two Investigations on the Nature of the Human Soul uses Aristotle's De anima to theorize on two of the most discussed and most controversial philosophical debates of the Renaissance: the nature of human intellect and the obtaining of immortality through intellectual perfection. In this book, Michael Engel places Del Medigo's philosophical work and his ideas about the human intellect within the context of the wider Aristotelian tradition. Providing a detailed account of the unique blend of Hebrew, Islamic, Latin and Greek traditions that influenced the Two Investigations, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism: Investigating the Human Intellect (Bloomsbury, 2016) provides an important contribution to our understanding of Renaissance Aristotelianisms and scholasticisms. In particular, through his defense of the Muslim philosopher Averroes' hotly debated interpretation of the De anima and his rejection of the moderate Latin Aristotelianism championed by the Christian Thomas Aquinas, Engel traces how Del Medigo's work on the human intellect contributed to the development of a major Aristotelian controversy. Investigating the ways in which multicultural Aristotelian sources contributed to his own theory of a united human intellect, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism demonstrates the significant impact made by this Jewish philosopher on the history of the Aristotelian tradition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Elijah Del Medigo (1458-1493) was a Jewish Aristotelian philosopher living in Padua, whose work influenced many of the leading philosophers of the early Renaissance. His Two Investigations on the Nature of the Human Soul uses Aristotle's De anima to theorize on two of the most discussed and most controversial philosophical debates of the Renaissance: the nature of human intellect and the obtaining of immortality through intellectual perfection. In this book, Michael Engel places Del Medigo's philosophical work and his ideas about the human intellect within the context of the wider Aristotelian tradition. Providing a detailed account of the unique blend of Hebrew, Islamic, Latin and Greek traditions that influenced the Two Investigations, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism: Investigating the Human Intellect (Bloomsbury, 2016) provides an important contribution to our understanding of Renaissance Aristotelianisms and scholasticisms. In particular, through his defense of the Muslim philosopher Averroes' hotly debated interpretation of the De anima and his rejection of the moderate Latin Aristotelianism championed by the Christian Thomas Aquinas, Engel traces how Del Medigo's work on the human intellect contributed to the development of a major Aristotelian controversy. Investigating the ways in which multicultural Aristotelian sources contributed to his own theory of a united human intellect, Elijah Del Medigo and Paduan Aristotelianism demonstrates the significant impact made by this Jewish philosopher on the history of the Aristotelian tradition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/italian-studies

Jordan and Brandon talk with Dru Johnson about biblical philosophy. They cover topics like what counts as philosophy, what is biblical philosophy, if the Bible has its own philosophy, if the Bible utilizes philosophical schools like Platonism and Aristotelianism, and much more.Resources:1) Biblical Knowing, Dru Johnson2) Human Rites, Dru Johnson3) Biblical Philosophy, Dru Johnson4) Joshua Cockayne London Lyceum InterviewSupport the show

Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples and Julius Caesar Scaliger fuse Aristotelianism with humanism to address problems in logic and literary aesthetics.

Colin recently wrote a provocative piece on the future of the university as an institution, and so he and Onsi have gone public with their longstanding personal debate about the topic. What is the university meant to be? What has it been seen as historically? Is it really in crisis, or just parts of it? Do we still need it today? And where does Davenant fit in?NOTE: most books below are linked via Bookshop.org. Any purchases you make via these links give The Davenant Institute a 10% commission, and support local bookshops against chainstores/Amazon.Currently ReadingOnsi: Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople Colin: Thomism and Aristotelianism by Harry JaffaTexts Discussed"Creeds and Credentials: On Education and the Future" by Colin RedemerSpotlight"How Davenant Can Redeem the DMV" with William VegaDavenant DC Dinner Fundraiser

In this episode I interview Thomist philosopher, Christopher Tomaszewski. Christopher is a professor of philosophy at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina. Here we talk about elements of Aristotelianism, Thomism, and Catholicism and how they bleed over into considerations between church and state in the present age.Christopher's writings can be found below,https://firstphilosophy.weebly.com/https://twitter.com/adorientem

What is Aristotelianism? What is a biblical view of Aristotle's philosophy?

Can the Christian ethic of selfless, self-sacrificial Agape be reconciled with the classical eudaemonism of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle? Thomas Aquinas attempted such a reconciliation, agreeing with the Greeks that one's own happiness (eudaemonia/beatitude) is the ultimate end of all human action, and that self-love (eros) is the foundation of all other loves, while insisting (with the Christian tradition) that we are called to love God above self, and even to love oneself only for God's sake. I will defend Aquinas's harmonization against the charge of inconsistency, by distinguishing two ways in which something can be an “ultimate end." About our Scholar: Professor Robert Koons, University of Texas at Austin Professor Robert Koons specializes in philosophical logic and in the application of logic to long-standing philosophical problems, including metaphysics, philosophy of mind and intentionality, semantics, political philosophy and metaethics, and philosophy of religion. His book Paradoxes of Belief and Strategic Rationality (Cambridge, 1992) received the Aarlt Prize from the Council of Graduate Schools in 1994. He is the author of Realism Regained (OUP, 2000) and the co-editor (with George Bealer) of The Waning of Materialism (OUP, 2010). He is at work with Tim Pickavance on a textbook on metaphysics. He is working on analytic Aristotelianism and social ontology.

Full Text of ReadingsMemorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Church Lectionary: 321All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Saint Thomas AquinasBy universal consent, Thomas Aquinas is the preeminent spokesman of the Catholic tradition of reason and of divine revelation. He is one of the great teachers of the medieval Catholic Church, honored with the titles Doctor of the Church and Angelic Doctor. At five he was given to the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino in his parents' hopes that he would choose that way of life and eventually became abbot. In 1239, he was sent to Naples to complete his studies. It was here that he was first attracted to Aristotle's philosophy. By 1243, Thomas abandoned his family's plans for him and joined the Dominicans, much to his mother's dismay. On her order, Thomas was captured by his brother and kept at home for over a year. Once free, he went to Paris and then to Cologne, where he finished his studies with Albert the Great. He held two professorships at Paris, lived at the court of Pope Urban IV, directed the Dominican schools at Rome and Viterbo, combated adversaries of the mendicants, as well as the Averroists, and argued with some Franciscans about Aristotelianism. His greatest contribution to the Catholic Church is his writings. The unity, harmony, and continuity of faith and reason, of revealed and natural human knowledge, pervades his writings. One might expect Thomas, as a man of the gospel, to be an ardent defender of revealed truth. But he was broad enough, deep enough, to see the whole natural order as coming from God the Creator, and to see reason as a divine gift to be highly cherished. The Summa Theologiae, his last and, unfortunately, uncompleted work, deals with the whole of Catholic theology. He stopped work on it after celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273. When asked why he stopped writing, he replied, “I cannot go on…. All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.” He died March 7, 1274. Reflection We can look to Thomas Aquinas as a towering example of Catholicism in the sense of broadness, universality, and inclusiveness. We should be determined anew to exercise the divine gift of reason in us, our power to know, learn, and understand. At the same time we should thank God for the gift of his revelation, especially in Jesus Christ. Saint Thomas Aquinas is a Patron Saint of: Catholic Colleges and Universities Educators/Teachers Philosophers/Theologians Students Saint of the DayCopyright Franciscan Media

Dr. Michael Egnor and Dr. Bruce Gordon discuss quantum mechanics, the nature of reality, idealism and how to interpret the finding of modern neuroscience. Prepare to cover a lot of ground on this Mind Matter News Bingecast. Show Notes 00:00:43 | Introducing Dr. Bruce Gordon 00:02:00 | Idealism 00:03:37 | Plato’s theory of forms 00:05:08 | Kantian idealism 00:09:17 |… Source

Episode 142 – Truth and Proof – Part 2 – The Starting Point Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Second Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, New International Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue with our recently started series on Anchored by Truth that we’re calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned last time this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class and a few years ago. As just about everyone knows, the Christian faith in America has been subjected to more challenges in the last decade than probably in the first two centuries of the country’s existence. So, we wanted to follow Dr. Alexander’s lead and do a series on what is often called “apologetics” – in essence the defense of the Christian faith. Apologetics helps us demonstrate that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. To help us explore this very important topic today in the studio we have RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, in the studio today. RD, would you like to remind everyone why you felt that it was so important for us to do this series? RD: Well, as we mentioned last time on Anchored by Truth, we live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. Some commentators have said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” world. For people who are not believers this means that they live in a world that has gone “beyond” the constraints and “narrowness” of Christianity. Mainline churches are experiencing declines not only in membership, but in influence on society, government, education, family, and the culture as a whole. And as we look around us we see that young people are far more consumed by what’s happening with popular celebrities than what happened with Jesus when He ministered on this earth. We also see that more people are more concerned about temporary pleasures than their eternal destiny. It seems that everywhere our societies are all about money, entertainment, free expression, anything goes – everywhere it’s Babylon: the city of Satan, where it’s “all about me.” This is obviously is dangerous to individual destinies but it is also dangerous to the destiny of our communities and nation. That’s why it’s so important for the church to remind everyone around us that this kind of cultural calculus is not only dangerous, it’s unsustainable. But we in the church need to remember that our primary mission is one of reconciliation – reconciliation between men and God. So we don’t want to lose sight of the need to marry our intellectual defense of Christianity with our intentional concern for the welfare of our neighbors. VK: That’s a great point. At the close of our last episode we mentioned that we cannot help people understand the basis for our faith without reminding ourselves of the importance of both head knowledge and heart concerns. There’s an old saying that “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Or, as Dr. Alexander put it in one of his lessons, knowing what is in our heads is not as important as the One Who is in our hearts. We will never assist the Holy Spirit in drawing anyone to Christ if we rely only on the objective and academic facts of Christianity. Christians called to the ministry of reconciliation, i.e., bridging the gap between Christ and those in need of knowing Him, and pulling the one who is unwilling toward the One who is always willing. And we must do these things as the apostles taught us – with patience, diligence, and love. RD: I think that’s always an important reminder. The primary reason apologetics is an important area of study is because of its relevance to salvation. And, unfortunately, that’s never been truer than in this day and time. We live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. In this “post-Christian” world many people who are not believers don’t see the relevance of Christianity to their daily lives. They think that they make whatever choices they make and their will never be a day of reckoning. Unfortunately, they are completely unaware of Jesus’ warning in Matthew, chapter 7, verses 13 and 14 which says we need to “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” VK: But it doesn’t have to be this way, does it? The power of the gospel is to change the destiny of individuals and the trajectory of societies. Now, I know that Dr. Alexander is quite of a fan of Norman Geisler who was one of the premier apologists of the last 50 years and you share much of his admiration for Geisler don’t you? And both of you particularly like Geisler’s views on why apologetics is important to the church. Why don’t you share a little of that with our audience? RD: According to Geisler we study apologetics for three reasons: First, God commands it in the Bible. 1st Peter 3:15 is probably the most frequently cited verse on why we need to arm ourselves with why, as the verse puts it, “we have a hope that lies within us.” But another verse is 2nd Corinthians 10:5 – “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” There’s also Philippians 1:16 – “. . . I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” And Jude 3 – “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” And these are just a sample of verses that command us to be prepared to give reasons our faith in the gospel. VK: And not only does God command us to be able to defend our faith – because that’s the basic purpose of apologetics – but Geisler says our human ability to reason also make apologetics necessary. RD: That’s correct. Geisler says, that the second purpose for apologetics is that reason demands that we do it and this is demonstrated in scripture. Isaiah 1:18 – “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord.” We must discern right from wrong, as we see in 1st John 4:6 – “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” Again from Geisler: “Socrates said, ‘The unexamined life is not worth living.’ He surely would have been willing to add that the unexamined belief is not worth believing. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Christians to give a reason for their hope. This is part of the great command to love God with all our mind, as well as our heart and soul (Matt. 22:36–37).” VK: So, the first reason we pursue apologetics is because the Bible commands it. And the second reason is because reason, really nothing more than good common sense, compels us to do so. It’s hard for human beings to place their trust in something that goes against that common sense. The human facility for logic and reason means that if something doesn’t make good sense most people are far more likely to reject it than accept it. RD: That’s also correct. And, that feeds directly into the third reason Geisler says we do apologetics: “the world needs it.” People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark. VK: And we often point out on Anchored by Truth that the belief that there is a “great divide” between faith and reason is a myth. And you agree with that don’t you? RD: Absolutely. As Dr. Alexander noted, reason can be defined as “all the subjective and personal acts of our mind by which we discover, understand, or seek to demonstrate truth.” If faith is in that which is true, and if reason is the product of the human mind to discover truth, shouldn’t they agree? Aren’t they both ending at the same place? The answer is “Yes,” even for things that the human mind cannot discover, e.g., the Trinity. In that case, faith is not contradictory to reason, but is over and above reason. And in many cases it is reason that precedes faith, for Christianity is based on the actual historic Christ being the actual Christ of the Bible, and, therefore, we do not have “blind faith,” but faith which is supported by reasoning and reasons. We study the Bible in order to understand (reason) what we believe (faith). Reason doesn’t necessarily cause faith, but faith is not opposed to reason. VK: I think that’s such an important point. The world, meaning the secular world, does not have a monopoly on reason. In fact some of the greatest thinkers and scientists of all time were devout Christians. So where do you want to start for today? RD: Well, with a seemingly simple point: truth is knowable. Now, I know that seems simplistic but in our time not only is Christianity frequently under attack but so is the basic concept that truth is absolute and knowable. But, if our ultimate goal is to establish the truth of Christianity, we better start by talking about what truth is, and what we can know about it. VK: And the fact that truth is absolute and knowable is not just exclusive to Christianity, is it? Even non-Christian philosophers have recognized the importance of truth in securing knowledge, haven’t they? RD: Absolutely. One of those philosophers was Aristotle who was born in that Intertestamental Period in the year 384 BC. I mention him because he taught us how to think properly about reality, and, therefore, about the question of God’s existence. Aristotle discovered principles that are the undeniable principles of reality – principles that are referred to as the first principles of knowledge. Using these principles he formalized a system of correct thinking that we call logic. Logic is an instrument of human knowledge; it is a skillful use of the principles that govern how the mind works – and how God’s mind works. Logic imitates God’s mind, and from it we can not only learn about what we are, but what we should be. Aristotle tells us “Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes,” and “Truth is what is, and is not what is not.” This is the starting point for the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., truth is absolute and corresponds to what is real. VK: And you have said that Aristotle’s influence on Christian apologetics is immensely important. He entered Plato’s academy in about 367 BC and stayed there until Plato’s death in 347 BC. He was the personal teacher of Alexander the Great beginning in about 342 BC. And because Aristotle was so influential on Alexander the Great as Alexander’s influence spread so did Aristotle’s, Aristotle’s teaching on the physical sciences, psychology, philosophy, and logic spread along with the Greek language and culture throughout the known world. In Anchored by Truth’s series on the Intertestamental period we pointed out how God used the spread of the Greek language and culture as part of His preparation for Jesus’ arrival into the world. RD: I agree. And one way in which Aristotle’s influence was felt on apologetics was Aristotle’s influence on Thomas Aquinas. But let’s back up for just a second. Aristotle’s view of God came from his view of the nature of reality, called metaphysics, but his view of “god(s)” certainly was not that of the Creator as understood by the Jews. Aristotle didn’t have at his disposal the personal revelation of God as it had been given to the Jews. Therefore, he understood God in the Romans 1:19-20 sense as being a logical necessity in order to explain the cosmos. Aristotle did not understand the God of love and concern for creation – he simply saw “God” as necessary, and he felt very comfortable proving it. And, for Aristotle, “god” was Pure Thought, Pure Intelligence. VK: So, how does Aristotle tie into Aquinas? RD: Because Aristotle’s work – much of which was lost for centuries – ended up being the launching pad for the philosophy – not the theology – of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas (1225-1274) considered himself indebted to Aristotle for the principles of his philosophy, but Aquinas was not a “Christianized Aristotle.” He did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when the revealed Truth of Christianity required it. Aristotle was concerned with what the world is and how it functions. Aquinas was more concerned to explain why it exists. And one advantage Aquinas had that Aristotle did not was access to the Old Testament. Aquinas undoubtedly refuted Aristotelianism for at least one reason: the proclamation by God of His Name in Exodus 3:14 – “I AM WHO I AM.” VK: As a reminder to our audience, God’s proclamation “I am who I am” was a direct response to Moses asking God for His name. Moses was concerned that if went down into Egypt to say to the Israelites that God had told him to bring freedom to them they would want to know who exactly had sent him to them. So, God answered Moses with what is one of the most famous verses in the Bible: “I am who I am.” In Hebrew this conveyed by the word “Yahweh” and in Greek it’s “Jehovah.” But in addition to Yahweh being God’s name, the term actually tells us something very important. “I am who I am” is a way of God identifying Himself by His unique quality of self-existence. God is the only Being anywhere who is self-existent. All other Beings are dependent on God for their lives and existence including the angels, Satan and his minions, and mankind. But God is not dependent on anyone or anything for His existence. God made that point forcefully to Moses and the Israelites by His declaration at the burning bush. And what you’re saying is that Aquinas knew about that declaration and it’s quite likely that Aristotle did not? RD: Exactly. Aristotle was not in any way influenced by the writings of some old dead Jew, and he died 322 years before Christ was born. But that didn’t stop Aristotle from being able to arrive at a correct understanding of the nature of truth. Just by using logic and reason Aristotle was able to develop an understanding of truth – that truth is that it is what really is, and it isn’t what really is not. Or said differently, truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is not defined by individual opinion – it is what is even if we can’t accept it, or understand it, or don’t have enough evidence to prove it. VK: But we can know truth can’t we? And a simple way know that we can know the truth is to begin by following the line of reasoning developed by the French mathematician, Rene’ Descartes [DAY-CART]. Descartes wanted an absolutely rock-solid starting place to begin his understanding of the universe around him. So, simply put Descartes said that he could be sure that he at least existed because if he didn’t he couldn’t be asking the question or answering it. Now, someone might ask, “But what if this thing we call ‘existence’ is just an illusion?” We could reply in the same way that Ravi Zacharias did when he was asked that question. Ravi answered the question with his own question. “And just who is it that is experiencing this illusion?” Descartes put it this way, “I am thinking, therefore I am.” Descartes’ reasoning was that there must be something in existence before that something can do anything. Thinking is doing something. So, Descartes said if I can think then I can be sure that I exist. And that was his starting point to begin establishing a wider understanding of the universe, creation, and existence. RD: Yes. Descartes was able to find an irrefutable truth to being his reasoning process. And so, like Descartes, by knowing that at least one thing is true we can begin our search for other truths. Geisler puts it this way. “The nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith. Not only does Christianity claim there is absolute truth (truth for everyone, everywhere, at all times), but it insists that truth about the world (reality) is that which corresponds to the way things really are. For example, the statement “God exists” means that there really is a God . . . Likewise, the claim that “God raised Christ from the dead” means that the dead corpse of Jesus of Nazareth supernaturally vacated its tomb alive a few days after its burial. . . Christian truth claims really correspond to the state of affairs about which they claim . . . Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not. VK: So, we can know that truth exists but that’s not enough, is it. Geisler also noted that there are many inadequate views of the nature of truth. For instance, truth is not ‘what works.’ That was a popular theory advocated by a well-known pragmatist, William James. James and his followers said that truth is what works. According to James, “Truth is the expedient in the way of knowing. A statement is known to be true if it brings the right results. It is the expedient as confirmed by future experience and effect.” Of course, this doesn’t seem to be how truth is understood in court where an expedient testimony may be perjury. It’s possible to still wonder whether a statement corresponded to the facts. In a court, if a statement does not correspond to the facts, it was not true regardless of whether it’s expedient. RD: Exactly right. Geisler noted that truth is also not ‘that which coheres.’ Some scholars have suggested that truth is what is internally consistent, i.e., it is coherent. But this is also an inadequate definition. Empty statements hang together, even though they are devoid of truth content. ‘All wives are married women’ is internally consistent, but it is empty. It tells us nothing about reality. The statement would be true, even if there were no wives. It really means, ‘If there is a wife, then she must be married.’ But it does not inform us that there is a wife anywhere in the universe. A set of false statements also can be internally consistent. If several witnesses conspire to misrepresent the facts, their story may cohere better than if they were honestly trying to reconstruct the truth. But it still is a lie. At best, coherence is a negative test of truth. Statements are wrong if they are inconsistent, but not necessarily true if they are. VK: So, to sum up, “Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are: ‘telling it like it is.’ This correspondence applies to abstract realities as well as actual ones. There are mathematical truths. There are also truths about ideas. In each case there is a reality, and truth accurately expresses it. Falsehood, then, is what does not correspond to the way things really are.” This means that if it lacks proper correspondence, it is false.” RD: Yes. And another important point about this correspondence view of truth is that it cannot be denied without using it. In other words, as we put it in our “Lord of Logic” series the correspondence view of truth is affirmed in dissent. In other words the premise must be true because an argument that attempts to rebut the premise must presume the truth of the premise in the attempted rebuttal. VK: I think we’re going to need an example of what you’re thinking about. RD: Here’s an example of a statement that cannot be rationally denied. “Human beings use language to communicate.” If someone were to try to deny that statement they would have to use some kind of language to present their denial. As soon as they did so they are proving the statement is true. So, there is literally no way the statement can be reasonably or rationally denied. The same thing is true of the correspondence view of truth. Anyone who tried to deny it assumes their view corresponds to reality, i.e., those who deny it in theory, use it in practice. One may say, “but that’s just your view of truth.” Your response could be, “does that statement correspond to reality?” VK: So, absolute truth means it is true for all people, all places, all the time. The term “relative truth” isn’t truth at all, for it claims that something is true for some people, but not all people; or true in some places, but not all places; or some time, but not all the time. Truth is not “what works;” what is cohesive, consistent, or coherent Truth must have these qualities, but these things do not make something true. Truth is not what is comprehensive; not what feels good; not what the majority think or want. Truth is not what is sincere, for it is possible to be sincerely wrong. RD: Yes. And one final important point is that there are biblical arguments for the correspondence view of truth. The ninth commandment is, “you shall not give false testimony about your neighbor” (Exodus 2:16), i.e., tell it like it is. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 – “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.” So, the Bible clearly affirms that truth is not only corresponds to reality but that it is possible to know the truth. VK: Not only that but we rely on the fact that truth is what corresponds to reality every day of our lives. In our daily conversation, we might say “check out the facts.” And in courtrooms all over the country the existence and knowability of truth is affirmed every time someone swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We use correspondence as the rule for truth in our daily lives and we use it all the time. RD: Right. Now at this point I’d like to note that anyone who would like to investigate this topic of truth and its role in apologetics might want to check out The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics which was written by Norman Geisler. I have a copy in my library and I know Dr. Alexander does as well. And before we close I’d like to recognize that some of the material we’re discussing in this series can sound pretty esoteric but today Christians who want to have an impact on their families, much less the culture, need to be able to provide intelligent answers to skeptics because they’re all about us. VK: So, in essence, our goal is to help listeners understand how to contend for their faith with certainty and confidence. We’re making no assumptions whatsoever of what anyone may, or may not, already know. We want to show that any thinking person can prove the existence of God. This is the central truth of Romans, chapter 1, verse 18-20. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer of praise of Adoration for the Creator God who set the cosmos into motion and established a home on the earth for His people as He prepares them for an eternity with Him in heaven. ---- PRAYER FOR THE SPIRITUALLY LOST VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New International Version) Second Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, New International Version

Episode one hundred and thirty-nine of A History of Rock Music in Five Hundred Songs looks at “Eight Miles High” by the Byrds, and the influence of jazz and Indian music on psychedelic rock. This is a long one... Click the full post to read liner notes, links to more information, and a transcript of the episode. Patreon backers also have a ten-minute bonus episode available, on "Winchester Cathedral" by the New Vaudeville Band. Tilt Araiza has assisted invaluably by doing a first-pass edit, and will hopefully be doing so from now on. Check out Tilt's irregular podcasts at http://www.podnose.com/jaffa-cakes-for-proust and http://sitcomclub.com/ Resources No Mixcloud this time, as there were multiple artists with too many songs. Information on John Coltrane came from Coltrane by Ben Ratliffe, while information on Ravi Shankar came from Indian Sun: The Life and Music of Ravi Shankar by Oliver Craske. For information on the Byrds, I relied mostly on Timeless Flight Revisited by Johnny Rogan, with some information from Chris Hillman's autobiography. This dissertation looks at the influence of Slonimsky on Coltrane. All Coltrane's music is worth getting, but this 5-CD set containing Impressions is the most relevant cheap selection of his material for these purposes. This collection has the Shankar material released in the West up to 1962. And this three-CD set is a reasonable way of getting most of the Byrds' important recordings. Patreon This podcast is brought to you by the generosity of my backers on Patreon. Why not join them? Transcript This episode is the second part of a loose trilogy of episodes set in LA in 1966. We're going to be spending a *lot* of time around LA and Hollywood for the next few months -- seven of the next thirteen episodes are based there, and there'll be more after that. But it's going to take a while to get there. This is going to be an absurdly long episode, because in order to get to LA in 1966 again, we're going to have to start off in the 1940s in New York, and take a brief detour to India. Because in order to explain this: [Excerpt: The Byrds, "Eight Miles High"] We're first going to have to explain this: [Excerpt: John Coltrane, "India (#3)"] Before we begin this, I just want to say something. This episode runs long, and covers a *lot* of musical ground, and as part of that it covers several of the most important musicians of the twentieth century -- but musicians in the fields of jazz, which is a music I know something about, but am not an expert in, and Hindustani classical music, which is very much not even close to my area of expertise. It also contains a chunk of music theory, which again, I know a little about -- but only really enough to know how much I don't know. I am going to try to get the information about these musicians right, but I want to emphasise that at times I will be straying *vastly* out of my lane, in ways that may well seem like they're minimising these musicians. I am trying to give just enough information about them to tell the story, and I would urge anyone who becomes interested in the music I talk about in the early parts of this episode to go out and find more expert sources to fill in the gap. And conversely, if you know more about these musics than I do, please forgive any inaccuracies. I am going to do my best to get all of this right, because accuracy is important, but I suspect that every single sentence in the first hour or so of this episode could be footnoted with something pointing out all the places where what I've said is only somewhat true. Also, I apologise if I mispronounce any names or words in this episode, though I've tried my best to get it right -- I've been unable to find recordings of some words and names being spoken, while with others I've heard multiple versions. To tell today's story, we're going to have to go right back to some things we looked at in the first episode, on "Flying Home". For those of you who don't remember -- which is fair enough, since that episode was more than three years ago -- in that episode we looked at a jazz record by the Benny Goodman Sextet, which was one of the earliest popular recordings to feature electric guitar: [Excerpt: The Benny Goodman Sextet, "Flying Home"] Now, we talked about quite a lot of things in that episode which have played out in later episodes, but one thing we only mentioned in passing, there or later, was a style of music called bebop. We did talk about how Charlie Christian, the guitarist on that record, was one of the innovators of that style, but we didn't really go into what it was properly. Indeed, I deliberately did not mention in that episode something that I was saving until now, because we actually heard *two* hugely influential bebop musicians in that episode,  and I was leaving the other one to talk about here. In that episode we saw how Lionel Hampton, the Benny Goodman band's vibraphone player, went on to form his own band, and how that band became one of the foundational influences for the genres that became known as jump blues and R&B. And we especially noted the saxophone solo on Hampton's remake of "Flying Home", played by Illinois Jacquet: [Excerpt: Lionel Hampton, "Flying Home"] We mentioned in that episode how Illinois Jacquet's saxophone solo there set the template for all tenor sax playing in R&B and rock and roll music for decades to come -- his honking style became quite simply how you play rock and roll or R&B saxophone, and without that solo you don't have any of the records by Fats Domino, Little Richard, the Coasters, or a dozen other acts that we discussed. But what we didn't look at in that episode is that that is a big band record, so of course there is more than just one saxophone player on it. And one of the other saxophone players on that recording is Dexter Gordon, a musician who was originally from LA. Those of you with long memories will remember that back in the first year or so of the podcast we talked a lot about the music programme at Jefferson High School in LA, and about Samuel Browne, the music teacher whose music programme gave the world the Coasters, the Penguins, the Platters, Etta James, Art Farmer, Richard Berry, Big Jay McNeely, Barry White, and more other important musicians than I can possibly name here. Gordon was yet another of Browne's students -- one who Browne regularly gave detention to, just to make him practice his scales. Gordon didn't get much chance to shine in the Lionel Hampton band, because he was only second tenor, with Jacquet taking many of the solos. But he was learning from playing in a band with Jacquet, and while Gordon didn't ever develop a honk like Jacquet's, he did adopt some of Jacquet's full tone in his own sound. There aren't many recordings of Gordon playing solos in his early years, because they coincided with the American Federation of Musicians' recording strike that we talked about in those early episodes, but he did record a few sessions in 1943 for a label small enough not to be covered by the ban, and you can hear something of Jacquet's tone in those recordings, along with the influence of Lester Young, who influenced all tenor sax players at this time: [Excerpt: Nat "King" Cole with Dexter Gordon, "I've Found a New Baby"] The piano player on that session, incidentally, is Nat "King" Cole, when he was still one of the most respected jazz pianists on the scene, before he switched primarily to vocals. And Gordon took this Jacquet-influenced tone, and used it to become the second great saxophone hero of bebop music, after Charlie Parker -- and the first great tenor sax hero of the music. I've mentioned bebop before on several occasions, but never really got into it in detail. It was a style that developed in New York in the mid to late forties, and a lot of the earliest examples of it went unrecorded thanks to that musicians' strike, but the style emphasised small groups improvising together, and expanding their sense of melody and harmony. The music prized virtuosity and musical intelligence over everything else, and was fast and jittery-sounding. The musicians would go on long, extended, improvisations, incorporating ideas both from the blues and from the modern classical music of people like Bartok and Stravinsky, which challenged conventional tonality. In particular, one aspect which became prominent in bebop music was a type of scale known as the bebop scale. In most of the music we've looked at in this podcast to this point, the scales used have been seven-note scales -- do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti- which make an octave with a second, higher, do tone. So in the scale of C major we have C, D, E, F, G, A, B, and then another C: [demonstrates] Bebop scales, on the other hand, would generally have an extra note in, making an eight-note scale, by adding in what is called a chromatic passing note. For example, a typical bebop C major scale might add in the note G#, so the scale would go C,D,E,F,G,G#, A, B, C: [demonstrates] You'd play this extra note for the most part, when moving between the two notes it's between, so in that scale you'd mostly use it when moving from G to A, or from A to G. Now I'm far from a bebop player, so this won't sound like bebop, but I can demonstrate the kind of thing if I first noodle a little scalar melody in the key of C major: [demonstrates] And then play the same thing, but adding in a G# every time I go between the G and the A in either direction: [demonstrates] That is not bebop music, but I hope you can see what a difference that chromatic passing tone makes to the melody. But again, that's not bebop, because I'm not a bebop player. Dexter Gordon, though, *was* a bebop player. He moved to New York while playing with Louis Armstrong's band, and soon became part of the bebop scene, which at the time centred around Charlie Christian, the trumpet player Dizzy Gillespie, and the alto sax player Charlie Parker, sometimes nicknamed "bird" or "Yardbird", who is often regarded as the greatest of them all. Gillespie, Parker, and Gordon also played in Billy Eckstine's big band, which gave many of the leading bebop musicians the opportunity to play in what was still the most popular idiom at the time -- you can hear Gordon have a saxophone battle with Gene Ammons on "Blowing the Blues Away" in a lineup of the band that also included Art Blakey on drums and Dizzy Gillespie on trumpet: [Excerpt: Billy Eckstine, "Blowing the Blues Away"] But Gordon was soon leading his own small band sessions, and making records for labels like Savoy, on which you can definitely hear the influence of Illinois Jacquet on his tone, even as he's playing music that's more melodically experimental by far than the jump band music of the Hampton band: [Excerpt: Dexter Gordon, "Dexter Digs In"] Basically, in the late 1940s, if you were wanting to play bebop on the saxophone, you had two models to follow -- Charlie Parker, the great alto saxophonist with his angular, atonal, melodic sense and fast, virtuosic, playing, or Dexter Gordon, the tenor saxophonist, whose style had more R&B grease and wit to it, who would quote popular melodies in his own improvisations. And John Coltrane followed both. Coltrane's first instrument was the alto sax, and when he was primarily an alto player he would copy Charlie Parker's style. When he switched to being primarily a tenor player -- though he would always continue playing both instruments, and later in his career would also play soprano sax -- he took up much of Gordon's mellower tone, though he was also influenced by other tenor players, like Lester Young, the great player with Count Basie's band, and Johnny Hodges, who played with Duke Ellington. Now, it is important to note here that John Coltrane is a very, very, big deal. Depending on your opinion of Ornette Coleman's playing, Coltrane is by most accounts either the last or penultimate truly great innovator in jazz saxophone, and arguably the single foremost figure in the music in the last half of the twentieth century. In this podcast I'm only able to tell you enough about him to give you the information you need to understand the material about the Byrds, but were I to do a similar history of jazz in five hundred songs, Coltrane would have a similar position to someone like the Beatles -- he's such a major figure that he is literally venerated as a saint by the African Orthodox Church, and a couple of other Episcopal churches have at least made the case for his sainthood. So anything I say here about him is not even beginning to scratch the surface of his towering importance to jazz music, but it will, I hope, give some idea of his importance to the development of the Byrds -- a group of whom he was almost certainly totally unaware. Coltrane started out playing as a teenager, and his earliest recordings were when he was nineteen and in the armed forces, just after the end of World War II. At that time, he was very much a beginner, although a talented one, and on his early amateur recordings you can hear him trying to imitate Parker without really knowing what it was that Parker was doing that made him so great. But as well as having some natural talent, he had one big attribute that made him stand out -- his utter devotion to his music. He was so uninterested in anything other than mastering his instrument that one day a friend was telling him about a baseball game he'd watched, and all Coltrane could do was ask in confusion "Who's Willie Mays?" Coltrane would regularly practice his saxophone until his reed was red with blood, but he would also study other musicians. And not just in jazz. He knew that Charlie Parker had intensely studied Stravinsky's Firebird Suite, and so Coltrane would study that too: [Excerpt: Stravinsky, "Firebird Suite"] Coltrane joined the band of Eddie "Cleanhead" Vinson, who was one of those figures like Johnny Otis, with whom Vinson would later perform for many years, who straddled the worlds of jazz and R&B. Vinson was a blues shouter in the style of Big Joe Turner, but he was also a bebop sax player, and what he wanted was a tenor sax player who could play tenor the way Charlie Parker played alto, but do it in an R&B setting. Coltrane switched from alto to tenor, and spent a year or so playing with Vinson's band. No recordings exist of Coltrane with Vinson that I'm aware of, but you can get an idea of what he sounded like from his next band. By this point, Dizzy Gillespie had graduated from small bebop groups to leading a big band, and he got Coltrane in as one of his alto players, though Coltrane would often also play tenor with Gillespie, as on this recording from 1951, which has Coltrane on tenor, Gillespie on trumpet, with Kenny Burrell and two of the future Modern Jazz Quartet, Milt Jackson and Percy Heath, showing that the roots of modern jazz were not very far at all from the roots of rock and roll: [Excerpt: Dizzy Gillespie, "We Love to Boogie"] After leaving Gillespie's band, Coltrane played with a lot of important musicians over the next four or five years, like Johnny Hodges, Earl Bostic, and Jimmy Smith, and occasionally sat in with Miles Davis, but at this point he was still not a major musician in the genre. He was a competent, working, sideman, but he was also struggling with alcohol and heroin, and hadn't really found his own voice. But then Miles Davis asked Coltrane to join his band full-time. Coltrane was actually Davis' second choice -- he really wanted Sonny Rollins, who was widely considered the best new tenor player around, but he was eventually persuaded to take Coltrane. During his first period with Davis, Coltrane grew rapidly as a musician, and also played on a *lot* of other people's sessions. In a three year period Coltrane went from Davis to Thelonius Monk's group then back to Davis' group, and also recorded as both a sideman and a band leader on a ton of sessions. You can get a box set of his recordings from May 1956 through December 1958 that comes to nineteen CDs -- and that's not counting the recordings with Miles Davis, which aren't included on that set. Unsurprisingly, just through playing this much, Coltrane had grown enormously as a player, and he was particularly fascinated by harmonics, playing with the notes of a chord, in arpeggios, and pushing music to its harmonic limits, as you can hear in his solo on Davis' "Straight, No Chaser", which pushes the limits of the jazz solo as far as they'd gone to that point: [Excerpt: Miles Davis, "Straight, No Chaser"] But on the same album as that, "Milestones", we also have the first appearance of a new style, modal jazz. Now, to explain this, we have to go back to the scales again. We looked at the normal Western scale, do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do, but you can start a scale on any of those notes, and which note you start on creates what is called a different mode. The modes are given Greek names, and each mode has a different feel to it. If you start on do, we call this the major scale or the Ionian mode. This is the normal scale we heard before -- C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C: [demonstrates] Most music – about seventy percent of the melodies you're likely to have heard, uses that mode. If you start on re, it would go re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do-re, or D,E,F,G,A,B,C,D, the Dorian mode: [demonstrates] Melodies with this mode tend to have a sort of wistful feel, like "Scarborough Fair": [Excerpt: Simon and Garfunkel, "Scarborough Fair"] or many of George Harrison's songs: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "I Me Mine"] Starting on mi, you have the Phrygian mode, mi-fa-so-la-ti-do-re-mi: [demonstrates] The Phrygian mode is not especially widely used, but does turn up in some popular works like Barber's Adagio for Strings: [Excerpt: Barber, "Adagio for Strings"] Then there's the Lydian mode, fa-so-la-ti-do-re-mi-fa: [demonstrates] This mode isn't used much at all in pop music -- the most prominent example I can think of is "Pretty Ballerina" by the Left Banke: [Excerpt: The Left Banke, "Pretty Ballerina"] Starting on so, we have so-la-ti-do-re-mi-fa-so -- the Mixolydian mode: [demonstrates] That mode has a sort of bluesy or folky tone to it, and you also find it in a lot of traditional tunes, like "She Moves Through the Fair": [Excerpt: Davey Graham, "She Moved Thru' The Bizarre/Blue Raga"] And in things like "Norwegian Wood" by the Beatles: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Norwegian Wood"] Though that goes into Dorian for the middle section. Starting on la, we have the Aeolian mode, which is also known as the natural minor scale, and is often just talked about as “the minor scale”: [demonstrates] That's obviously used in innumerable songs, for example "Losing My Religion" by REM: [Excerpt: REM, "Losing My Religion"] And finally you have the Locrian mode ti-do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti: [demonstrates] That basically doesn't get used, unless someone wants to show off that they know the Locrian mode. The only vaguely familiar example I can think of is "Army of Me" by Bjork: [Excerpt: Bjork, "Army of Me"] I hope that brief excursion through the seven most common modes in Western diatonic music gives you some idea of the difference that musical modes can make to a piece. Anyway, as I was saying, on the "Milestones" album, we get some of the first examples of a form that became known as modal jazz. Now, the ideas of modal jazz had been around for a few years at that point -- oddly, it seems to be one of the first types of popular music to have existed in theory before existing in practice. George Russell, an acquaintance of Davis who was a self-taught music theorist, had written a book in 1953 titled The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization. That book argues that rather than looking at the diatonic scale as the basis for music, one should instead look at a chord progression called the circle of fifths. The circle of fifths is exactly what it sounds like -- you change chords to one a fifth away from it, and then do that again and again, either going up, so you'd have chords with the roots C-G-D-A-E-B-F# and so on: [demonstrates] Or, more commonly, going down, though usually when going downwards you tend to cheat a bit and sharpen one of the notes so you can stay in one key, so you'd get chords with roots C-F-B-E-A-D-G, usually the chords C, F, B diminished, Em, Am, Dm, G: [demonstrates] That descending cycle of fifths is used in all sorts of music, everything from "You Never Give Me Your Money" by the Beatles: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "You Never Give Me Your Money"] to "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor: [Excerpt: Gloria Gaynor, "I Will Survive"] But what Russell pointed out is that if you do the upwards cycle of fifths, and you *don't* change any of the notes, the first seven root notes you get are the same seven notes you'd find in the Lydian mode, just reordered -- C-D-E-F#-G-A-B . Russell then argued that much of the way harmony and melody work in jazz could be thought of as people experimenting with the way the Lydian mode works, and the way the cycle of fifths leads you further and further away from the tonal centre. Now, you could probably do an entire podcast series as long as this one on the implications of this, and I am honestly just trying to summarise enough information here that you can get a vague gist, but Russell's book had a profound effect on how jazz musicians started to think about harmony and melody. Instead of improvising around the chord changes to songs, they were now basing improvisations and compositions around modes and the notes in them. Rather than having a lot of chord changes, you might just play a single root note that stays the same throughout, or only changes a couple of times in the whole piece, and just imply changes with the clash between the root note and whatever modal note the solo instrument is playing. The track "Milestones" on the Milestones album shows this kind of thinking in full effect -- the song consists of a section in G Dorian, followed by a section in A Aeolian (or E Phrygian depending on how you look at it). Each section has only one implied chord -- a Gm7 for the G Dorian section, and an Am7(b13) for the A Aeolian section -- over which Davis, Cannonball Adderley on alto sax, and Coltrane on tenor, all solo: [Excerpt: Miles Davis, "Milestones"] (For the pedants among you, that track was originally titled "Miles" on the first pressings of the album, but it was retitled "Milestones" on subsequent pressings). The modal form would be taken even further on Davis' next album to be recorded, Porgy and Bess, which featured much fuller orchestrations and didn't have Coltrane on it. Davis later said that when the arranger Gil Evans wrote the arrangements for that album, he didn't write any chords at all, just a scale, which Davis could improvise around. But it was on the album after that, Kind of Blue, which again featured Coltrane on saxophone, that modal jazz made its big breakthrough to becoming the dominant form of jazz music. As with what Evans had done on Porgy and Bess, Davis gave the other instrumentalists modes to play, rather than a chord sequence to improvise over or a melody line to play with. He explained his thinking behind this in an interview with Nat Hentoff, saying "When you're based on chords, you know at the end of 32 bars that the chords have run out and there's nothing to do but repeat what you've just done—with variations. I think a movement in jazz is beginning away from the conventional string of chords ... there will be fewer chords but infinite possibilities as to what to do with them." This style shows up in "So What", the opening track on the album, which is in some ways a very conventional song structure -- it's a thirty-two bar AABA structure. But instead of a chord sequence, it's based on modes in two keys -- the A section is in D Dorian, while the B section is in E-flat Dorian: [Excerpt: Miles Davis, "So What"] Kind of Blue would become one of the contenders for greatest jazz album of all time, and one of the most influential records ever made in any genre -- and it could be argued that that track we just heard, "So What", inspired a whole other genre we'll be looking at in a future episode -- but Coltrane still felt the need to explore more ideas, and to branch out on his own. In particular, while he was interested in modal music, he was also interested in exploring more kinds of scales than just modes, and to do this he had to, at least for the moment, reintroduce chord changes into what he was doing. He was inspired in particular by reading Nicolas Slonimsky's classic Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns. Coltrane had recently signed a new contract as a solo artist with Atlantic Records, and recorded what is generally considered his first true masterpiece album as a solo artist, Giant Steps, with several members of the Davis band, just two weeks after recording Kind of Blue. The title track to Giant Steps is the most prominent example of what are known in jazz as the Coltrane changes -- a cycle of thirds, similar to the cycle of fifths we talked about earlier. The track itself seems to have two sources. The first is the bridge of the old standard "Have You Met Miss Jones?", as famously played by Coleman Hawkins: [Excerpt: Coleman Hawkins, "Have You Met Miss Jones?" And the second is an exercise from Slonimsky's book: [Excerpt: Pattern #286 from Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns] Coltrane combined these ideas to come up with "Giant Steps", which is based entirely around these cycles of thirds, and Slonimsky's example: [Excerpt: John Coltrane, "Giant Steps"] Now, I realise that this is meant to be a history of rock music, not jazz musicology theory time, so I promise you I am just hitting the high points here. And only the points that affect Coltrane's development as far as it influenced the music we're looking at in this episode. And so we're actually going to skip over Coltrane's commercial high-point, My Favourite Things, and most of the rest of his work for Atlantic, even though that music is some of the most important jazz music ever recorded. Instead, I'm going to summarise a whole lot of very important music by simply saying that while Coltrane was very interested in this musical idea of the cycle of thirds, he did not like being tied to precise chord changes, and liked the freedom that modal jazz gave to him. By 1960, when his contract with Atlantic was ending and his contract with Impulse was beginning, and he recorded the two albums Olé and Africa/Brass pretty much back to back, he had hit on a new style with the help of Eric Dolphy, a flute, clarinet, and alto sax player who would become an important figure in Coltrane's life. Dolphy died far too young -- he went into a diabetic coma and doctors assumed that because he was a Black jazz musician he must have overdosed, even though he was actually a teetotal abstainer, so he didn't get the treatment he needed -- but he made such a profound influence on Coltrane's life that Coltrane would carry Dolphy's picture with him after his death. Dolphy was even more of a theorist than Coltrane, and another devotee of Slonimsky's book, and he was someone who had studied a great deal of twentieth-century classical music, particularly people like Bartok, Messiaen, Stravinsky, Charles Ives, and Edgard Varese. Dolphy even performed Varese's piece Density 21.5 in concert, an extremely demanding piece for solo flute. I don't know of a recording of Dolphy performing it, sadly, but this version should give some idea: [Excerpt: Edgard Varese, "Density 21.5"] Encouraged by Dolphy, Coltrane started making music based around no changes at all, with any changes being implied by the melody. The title song of Africa/Brass, "Africa", takes up an entire side of one album, and doesn't have a single actual chord change on it, with Dolphy and pianist McCoy Tyner coming up with a brass-heavy arrangement for Coltrane to improvise over a single chord: [Excerpt: The John Coltrane Quartet: "Africa"] This was a return to the idea of modal jazz, based on scales rather than chord changes, but by implying chord changes, often changes based on thirds, Coltrane was often using different scales than the modes that had been used in modal jazz. And while, as the title suggested, "Africa" was inspired by the music of Africa, the use of a single drone chord underneath solos based on a scale was inspired by the music of another continent altogether. Since at least the mid-1950s, both Coltrane and Dolphy had been interested in Indian music. They appear to have first become interested in a record released by Folkways, Music Of India, Morning And Evening Ragas by Ali Akbar Khan: [Excerpt: Ali Akbar Khan, "Rag Sindhi Bhairavi"] But the musician they ended up being most inspired by was a friend of Khan's, Ravi Shankar, who like Khan had been taught by the great sarod player Alauddin Khan, Ali Akbar Khan's father. The elder Khan, who was generally known as "Baba", meaning "father", was possibly *the* most influential Indian musician of the first half of the twentieth century, and was a big part of the revitalisation of Indian music that went hand in hand with the growth of Indian nationalism. He was an ascetic who lived for music and nothing else, and would write five to ten new compositions every day, telling Shankar "Do one thing well and you can achieve everything. Do everything and you achieve nothing". Alauddin Khan was a very religious Muslim, but one who saw music as the ultimate way to God and could find truths in other faiths. When Shankar first got to know him, they were both touring as musicians in a dance troupe run by Shankar's elder brother, which was promoting Indian arts in the West, and he talked about taking Khan to hear the organ playing at Notre Dame cathedral, and Khan bursting into tears and saying "here is God". Khan was not alone in this view. The classical music of Northern India, the music that Khan played and taught, had been very influenced by Sufism, which was for most of Muslim history the dominant intellectual and theological tradition in Islam. Now, I am going to sum up a thousand years of theology and practice, of a religion I don't belong to, in a couple of sentences here, so just assume that what I'm saying is wrong, and *please* don't take offence if you are Sufi yourself and believe I am misrepresenting you. But my understanding of Sufism is that Sufis are extremely devoted to attaining knowledge and understanding of God, and believe that strict adherence to Muslim law is the best way to attain that knowledge -- that it is the way that God himself has prescribed for humans to know him -- but that such knowledge can be reached by people of other faiths if they approach their own traditions with enough devotion. Sufi ideas infuse much of Northern Indian classical music, and so for example it has been considered acceptable for Muslims to sing Hindu religious music and Hindus to sing songs of praise to Allah. So while Ravi Shankar was Hindu and Alauddin Khan was Muslim, Khan was able to become Shankar's guru in what both men regarded as a religious observance, and even to marry Khan's daughter. Khan was a famously cruel disciplinarian -- once hospitalising a student after hitting him with a tuning hammer -- but he earned the devotion of his students by enforcing the same discipline on himself. He abstained from sex so he could put all his energies into music, and was known to tie his hair to the ceiling while he practiced, so he could not fall asleep no matter how long he kept playing. Both Khan and his son Ali Akhbar Khan played the sarod, while Shankar played the sitar, but they all played the same kind of music, which is based on the concept of the raga. Now, in some ways, a raga can be considered equivalent to a mode in Western music: [Excerpt: Ali Akbar Khan, "Rag Sindhi Bhairavi"] But a raga is not *just* a mode -- it sits somewhere between Western conceptions of a mode and a melody. It has a scale, like a mode, but it can have different scales going up or down, and rules about which notes can be moved to from which other notes. So for example (and using Western tones so as not to confuse things further), a raga might say that it's possible to move up from the note G to D, but not down from D to G. Ragas are essentially a very restrictive set of rules which allow the musician playing them to improvise freely within those rules. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the violinist Yehudi Mehuin, at the time the most well-known classical musician in the world, had become fascinated by Indian music as part of a wider programme of his to learn more music outside what he regarded as the overly-constricting scope of the Western classical tradition in which he had been trained. He had become a particular fan of Shankar, and had invited him over to the US to perform. Shankar had refused to come at that point, sending his brother-in-law Ali Akbar Khan over, as he was in the middle of a difficult divorce, and that had been when Khan had recorded that album which had fascinated Coltrane and Dolphy. But Shankar soon followed himself, and made his own records: [Excerpt: Ravi Shankar, "Raga Hamsadhwani"] The music that both Khan and Shankar played was a particular style of Hindustani classical music, which has three elements -- there's a melody instrument, in Shankar's case the sitar and in Khan's the sarod, both of them fretted stringed instruments which have additional strings that resonate along with the main melody string, giving their unique sound. These are the most distinctive Indian instruments, but the melody can be played on all sorts of other instruments, whether Indian instruments like the bansuri and shehnai, which are very similar to the flute and oboe respectively, or Western instruments like the violin. Historically, the melody has also often been sung rather than played, but Indian instrumental music has had much more influence on Western popular music than Indian vocal music has, so we're mostly looking at that here. Along with the melody instrument there's a percussion instrument, usually the tabla, which is a pair of hand drums. Rather than keep a steady, simple, beat like the drum kit in rock music, the percussion has its own patterns and cycles, called talas, which like ragas are heavily formalised but leave a great amount of room for improvisation. The percussion and the melody are in a sort of dialogue with each other, and play off each other in a variety of ways. And finally there's the drone instrument, usually a stringed instrument called a tamboura. The drone is what it sounds like -- a single note, sustained and repeated throughout the piece, providing a harmonic grounding for the improvisations of the melody instrument. Sometimes, rather than just a single root note, it will be a root and fifth, providing a single chord to improvise over, but as often it will be just one note. Often that note will be doubled at the octave, so you might have a drone on both low E and high E. The result provides a very strict, precise, formal, structure for an infinitely varied form of expression, and Shankar was a master of it: [Excerpt: Ravi Shankar, "Raga Hamsadhwani"] Dolphy and, especially, Coltrane became fascinated by Indian music, and Coltrane desperately wanted to record with Shankar -- he even later named his son Ravi in honour of the great musician. It wasn't just the music as music, but music as spiritual practice, that Coltrane was engaged with. He was a deeply religious man but one who was open to multiple faith traditions -- he had been brought up as a Methodist, and both his grandfathers were ministers in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, but his first wife, Naima, who inspired his personal favourite of his own compositions, was a Muslim, while his second wife, Swamini Turiyasangitananda (who he married after leaving Naima in 1963 and who continued to perform as Alice Coltrane even after she took that name, and was herself an extraordinarily accomplished jazz musician on both piano and harp), was a Hindu, and both of them profoundly influenced Coltrane's own spirituality. Some have even suggested that Coltrane's fascination with a cycle of thirds came from the idea that the third could represent both the Christian Trinity and the Hindu trimurti -- the three major forms of Brahman in Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. So a music which was a religious discipline for more than one religion, and which worked well with the harmonic and melodic ideas that Coltrane had been exploring in jazz and learning about through his studies of modern classical music, was bound to appeal to Coltrane, and he started using the idea of having two basses provide an octave drone similar to that of the tamboura, leading to tracks like "Africa" and "Olé": [Excerpt: John Coltrane, "Olé"] Several sources have stated that that song was an influence on "Light My Fire" by the Doors, and I can sort of see that, though most of the interviews I've seen with Ray Manzarek have him talking about Coltrane's earlier version of "My Favourite Things" as the main influence there. Coltrane finally managed to meet with Shankar in December 1961, and spent a lot of time with him -- the two discussed recording an album together with McCoy Tyner, though nothing came of it. Shankar said of their several meetings that month: "The music was fantastic. I was much impressed, but one thing distressed me. There was turbulence in the music that gave me a negative feeling at times, but I could not quite put my finger on the trouble … Here was a creative person who had become a vegetarian, who was studying yoga, and reading the Bhagavad-Gita, yet in whose music I still heard much turmoil. I could not understand it." Coltrane said in turn "I like Ravi Shankar very much. When I hear his music, I want to copy it – not note for note of course, but in his spirit. What brings me closest to Ravi is the modal aspect of his art. Currently, at the particular stage I find myself in, I seem to be going through a modal phase … There's a lot of modal music that is played every day throughout the world. It is particularly evident in Africa, but if you look at Spain or Scotland, India or China, you'll discover this again in each case … It's this universal aspect of music that interests me and attracts me; that's what I'm aiming for." And the month before Coltrane met Shankar, Coltrane had had a now-legendary residency at the Village Vanguard in New York with his band, including Dolphy, which had resulted not only in the famous Live at the Village Vanguard album, but in two tracks on Coltrane's studio album Impressions. Those shows were among the most controversial in the history of jazz, though the Village Vanguard album is now often included in lists of the most important records in jazz. Downbeat magazine, the leading magazine for jazz fans at the time, described those shows as "musical nonsense" and "a horrifying demonstration of what appears to be a growing anti-jazz trend" -- though by the time Impressions came out in 1963, that opinion had been revised somewhat. Harvey Pekar, the comic writer and jazz critic, also writing in DownBeat, gave Impressions five stars, saying "Not all the music on this album is excellent (which is what a five-star rating signifies,) but some is more than excellent". And while among Coltrane fans the piece from these Village Vanguard shows that is of most interest is the extended blues masterpiece "Chasin' the Trane" which takes up a whole side of the Village Vanguard LP, for our purposes we're most interested in one of the two tracks that was held over for Impressions. This was another of Coltrane's experiments in using the drones he'd found in Indian musical forms, like "Africa" and "Olé". This time it was also inspired by a specific piece of music, though not an instrumental one. Rather it was a vocal performance -- a recording on a Folkways album of Pandita Ramji Shastri Dravida chanting one of the Vedas, the religious texts which are among the oldest texts sacred to any surviving religion: [Excerpt: Pandita Ramji Shastri Dravida, "Vedic Chanting"] Coltrane took that basic melodic idea, and combined it with his own modal approach to jazz, and the inspiration he was taking from Shankar's music, and came up with a piece called "India": [Excerpt: John Coltrane, "India"] Which is where we came in, isn't it? [Excerpt: The Byrds, "Eight Miles High"] So now, finally, we get to the Byrds. Even before "Mr. Tambourine Man" went to number one in the charts, the Byrds were facing problems with their sound being co-opted as the latest hip thing. Their location in LA, at the centre of the entertainment world, was obviously a huge advantage to them in many ways, but it also made them incredibly visible to people who wanted to hop onto a bandwagon. The group built up much of their fanbase playing at Ciro's -- the nightclub on the Sunset Strip that we mentioned in the previous episode which later reopened as It's Boss -- and among those in the crowd were Sonny and Cher. And Sonny brought along his tape recorder. The Byrds' follow-up single to "Mr. Tambourine Man", released while that song was still going up the charts, was another Dylan song, "All I Really Want to Do". But it had to contend with this: [Excerpt: Cher, "All I Really Want to Do"] Cher's single, produced by Sonny, was her first solo single since the duo had become successful, and came out before the Byrds' version, and the Byrds were convinced that elements of the arrangement, especially the guitar part, came from the version they'd been performing live – though of course Sonny was no stranger to jangly guitars himself, having co-written “Needles and Pins”, the song that pretty much invented the jangle. Cher made number fifteen on the charts, while the Byrds only made number forty. Their version did beat Cher's in the UK charts, though. The record company was so worried about the competition that for a while they started promoting the B-side as the A-side. That B-side was an original by Gene Clark, though one that very clearly showed the group's debt to the Searchers: [Excerpt: The Byrds, "I'll Feel a Whole Lot Better"] While it was very obviously derived from the Searchers' version of "Needles and Pins", especially the riff, it was still a very strong, original, piece of work in its own right. It was the song that convinced the group's producer, Terry Melcher, that they were a serious proposition as artists in their own right, rather than just as performers of Dylan's material, and it was also a favourite of the group's co-manager, Jim Dickson, who picked out Clark's use of the word "probably" in the chorus as particularly telling -- the singer thinks he will feel better when the subject of the song is gone, but only probably. He's not certain. "I'll Feel a Whole Lot Better", after being promoted as the A-side for a short time, reached number one hundred and two on the charts, but the label quickly decided to re-flip it and concentrate on promoting the Dylan song as the single. The group themselves weren't too bothered about their thunder having been stolen by Sonny and Cher, but their new publicist was incandescent. Derek Taylor had been a journalist for the Daily Express, which at that time was a respectable enough newspaper (though that is very much no longer the case). He'd become involved in the music industry after writing an early profile on the Beatles, at which point he had been taken on by the Beatles' organisation first to ghostwrite George Harrison's newspaper column and Brian Epstein's autobiography, and then as their full-time publicist and liner-note writer. He'd left the organisation at the end of 1964, and had moved to the US, where he had set up as an independent music publicist, working for the Byrds, the Beach Boys, and various other acts in their overlapping social circles, such as Paul Revere and the Raiders. Taylor was absolutely furious on the group's behalf, saying "I was not only disappointed, I was disgusted. Sonny and Cher went to Ciro's and ripped off the Byrds and, being obsessive, I could not get this out of my mind that Sonny and Cher had done this terrible thing. I didn't know that much about the record business and, in my experience with the Beatles, cover versions didn't make any difference. But by covering the Byrds, it seemed that you could knock them off the perch. And Sonny and Cher, in my opinion, stole that song at Ciro's and interfered with the Byrds' career and very nearly blew them out of the game." But while the single was a comparative flop, the Mr. Tambourine Man album, which came out shortly after, was much more successful. It contained the A and B sides of both the group's first two singles, although a different vocal take of "All I Really Want to Do" was used from the single release, along with two more Dylan covers, and a couple more originals -- five of the twelve songs on the album were original in total, three of them Gene Clark solo compositions and the other two co-written by Clark and Roger McGuinn. To round it out there was a version of the 1939 song "We'll Meet Again", made famous by Vera Lynn, which you may remember us discussing in episode ninety as an example of early synthesiser use, but which had recently become popular in a rerecorded version from the 1950s, thanks to its use at the end of Dr. Strangelove; there was a song written by Jackie DeShannon; and "The Bells of Rhymney", a song in which Pete Seeger set a poem about a mining disaster in Wales to music. So a fairly standard repertoire for early folk-rock, though slightly heavier on Dylan than most. While the group's Hollywood notoriety caused them problems like the Sonny and Cher one, it did also give them advantages. For example, they got to play at the fourth of July party hosted by Jane Fonda, to guests including her father Henry and brother Peter, Louis Jordan, Steve McQueen, Warren Beatty, and Sidney Poitier. Derek Taylor, who was used to the Beatles' formal dress and politeness at important events, imposed on them by Brian Epstein, was shocked when the Byrds turned up informally dressed, and even more shocked when Vito Paulekas and Carl Franzoni showed up. Vito (who was always known by his first name) and Franzoni are both important but marginal figures in the LA scene. Neither were musicians, though Vito did make one record, produced by Kim Fowley: [Excerpt: Vito and the Hands, "Vito and the Hands"] Rather Vito was a sculptor in his fifties, who had become part of the rock and roll scene and had gathered around him a dance troupe consisting largely of much younger women, and also of himself and Franzoni. Their circle, which also included Arthur Lee and Bryan MacLean, who weren't part of their dance troupe but were definitely part of their crowd, will be talked about much more in future episodes, but for now we'll just say that they are often considered proto-hippies, though they would have disputed that characterisation themselves quite vigorously; that they were regular dancers at Ciro's and became regular parts of the act of both the Byrds and the Mothers of Invention; and we'll give this rather explicit description of their performances from Frank Zappa: "The high point of the performance was Carl Franzoni, our 'go-go boy.' He was wearing ballet tights, frugging violently. Carl has testicles which are bigger than a breadbox. Much bigger than a breadbox. The looks on the faces of the Baptist teens experiencing their grandeur is a treasured memory." Paints a vivid picture, doesn't it? So you can possibly imagine why Derek Taylor later said "When Carl Franzoni and Vito came, I got into a terrible panic". But Jim Dickson explained to him that it was Hollywood and people were used to that kind of thing, and even though Taylor described seeing Henry Fonda and his wife pinned against the wall by the writhing Franzoni and the other dancers, apparently everyone had a good time. And then the next month, the group went on their first UK tour. On which nobody had a good time: [Excerpt: The Byrds, "Eight Miles High"] Even before the tour, Derek Taylor had reservations. Obviously the Byrds should tour the UK -- London, in particular, was the centre of the cultural world at that time, and Taylor wanted the group to meet his old friends the Beatles and visit Carnaby Street. But at the same time, there seemed to be something a little... off... about the promoters they were dealing with, Joe Collins, the father of Joan and Jackie Collins, and a man named Mervyn Conn. As Taylor said later "All I did know was that the correspondence from Mervyn Conn didn't assure me. I kept expressing doubts about the contents of the letters. There was something about the grammar. You know, 'I'll give you a deal', and 'We'll get you some good gigs'. The whole thing was very much showbusiness. Almost pantomime showbusiness." But still, it seemed like it was worth making the trip, even when Musicians Union problems nearly derailed the whole thing. We've talked previously about how disagreements between the unions in the US and UK meant that musicians from one country couldn't tour the other for decades, and about how that slightly changed in the late fifties. But the new system required a one-in, one-out system where tours had to be set up as exchanges so nobody was taking anyone's job, and nobody had bothered to find a five-piece group of equivalent popularity to the Byrds to tour America in return. Luckily, the Dave Clark Five stepped into the breach, and were able to do a US tour on short notice, so that problem was solved. And then, as soon as they landed, the group were confronted with a lawsuit. From the Birds: [Excerpt: The Birds, "No Good Without You Baby"] These Birds, spelled with an "i", not a "y", were a Mod group from London, who had started out as the Thunderbirds, but had had to shorten their name when the London R&B singer Chris Farlowe and his band the Thunderbirds had started to have some success. They'd become the Birds, and released a couple of unsuccessful singles, but had slowly built up a reasonable following and had a couple of TV appearances. Then they'd started to receive complaints from their fans that when they went into the record shops to ask for the new record by the Birds, they were being sold some jangly folky stuff about tambourines, rather than Bo Diddley inspired R&B. So the first thing the American Byrds saw in England, after a long and difficult flight which had left them very tired and depressed, especially Gene Clark, who hated flying, was someone suing them for loss of earnings. The lawsuit never progressed any further, and the British group changed their name to Birds Birds, and quickly disappeared from music history -- apart from their guitarist, Ronnie Wood, who we'll be hearing from again. But the experience was not exactly the welcome the group had been hoping for, and is reflected in one of the lines that Gene Clark wrote in the song he later came up with about the trip -- "Nowhere is there love to be found among those afraid of losing their ground". And the rest of the tour was not much of an improvement. Chris Hillman came down with bronchitis on the first night, David Crosby kept turning his amp up too high, resulting in the other members copying him and the sound in the venues they were playing seeming distorted, and most of all they just seemed, to the British crowds, to be unprofessional. British audiences were used to groups running on, seeming excited, talking to the crowd between songs, and generally putting on a show. The Byrds, on the other hand, sauntered on stage, and didn't even look at the audience, much less talk to them. What seemed to the LA audience as studied cool seemed to the UK audience like the group were rude, unprofessional, and big-headed. At one show, towards the end of the set, one girl in the audience cried out "Aren't you even going to say anything?", to which Crosby responded "Goodbye" and the group walked off, without any of them having said another word. When they played the Flamingo Club, the biggest cheer of the night came when their short set ended and the manager said that the club was now going to play records for dancing until the support act, Geno Washington and the Ramjam Band, were ready to do another set. Michael Clarke and Roger McGuinn also came down with bronchitis, the group were miserable and sick, and they were getting absolutely panned in the reviews. The closest thing they got to a positive review was when Paul Jones of Manfred Mann was asked about them, and he praised some of their act -- perceptively pointing to their version of "We'll Meet Again" as being in the Pop Art tradition of recontextualising something familiar so it could be looked at freshly -- but even he ended up also criticising several aspects of the show and ended by saying "I think they're going to be a lot better in the future". And then, just to rub salt in the wound, Sonny and Cher turned up in the UK. The Byrds' version of "All I Really Want to Do" massively outsold theirs in the UK, but their big hit became omnipresent: [Excerpt: Sonny and Cher, "I Got You Babe"] And the press seemed to think that Sonny and Cher, rather than the Byrds, were the true representatives of the American youth culture. The Byrds were already yesterday's news. The tour wasn't all bad -- it did boost sales of the group's records, and they became friendly with the Beatles, Stones, and Donovan. So much so that when later in the month the Beatles returned to the US, the Byrds were invited to join them at a party they were holding in Benedict Canyon, and it was thanks to the Byrds attending that party that two things happened to influence the Beatles' songwriting. The first was that Crosby brought his Hollywood friend Peter Fonda along. Fonda kept insisting on telling people that he knew what it was like to actually be dead, in a misguided attempt to reassure George Harrison, who he wrongly believed was scared of dying, and insisted on showing them his self-inflicted bullet wounds. This did not go down well with John Lennon and George Harrison, both of whom were on acid at the time. As Lennon later said, "We didn't want to hear about that! We were on an acid trip and the sun was shining and the girls were dancing and the whole thing was beautiful and Sixties, and this guy – who I really didn't know; he hadn't made Easy Rider or anything – kept coming over, wearing shades, saying, "I know what it's like to be dead," and we kept leaving him because he was so boring! ... It was scary. You know ... when you're flying high and [whispers] "I know what it's like to be dead, man" Eventually they asked Fonda to get out, and the experience later inspired Lennon to write this: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "She Said, She Said"] Incidentally, like all the Beatles songs of that period, that was adapted for the cartoon TV series based on the group, in this case as a follow-the-bouncing-ball animation. There are few things which sum up the oddness of mid-sixties culture more vividly than the fact that there was a massively popular kids' cartoon with a cheery singalong version of a song about a bad acid trip and knowing what it's like to be dead. But there was another, more positive, influence on the Beatles to come out of them having invited the Byrds to the party. Once Fonda had been kicked out, Crosby and Harrison became chatty, and started talking about the sitar, an instrument that Harrison had recently become interested in. Crosby showed Harrison some ragas on the guitar, and suggested he start listening to Ravi Shankar, who Crosby had recently become a fan of. And we'll be tracking Shankar's influence on Harrison, and through him the Beatles, and through them the whole course of twentieth century culture, in future episodes. Crosby's admiration both of Ravi Shankar and of John Coltrane was soon to show in the Byrds' records, but first they needed a new single. They'd made attempts at a version of "The Times They Are A-Changin'", and had even tried to get both George Harrison and Paul McCartney to add harmonica to that track, but that didn't work out. Then just before the UK tour, Terry Melcher had got Jack Nitzsche to come up with an arrangement of Dylan's "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue": [Excerpt: The Byrds, "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue (version 1)"] Nitzsche's arrangement was designed to sound as much like a Sonny and Cher record as possible, and at first the intention was just to overdub McGuinn's guitar and vocals onto a track by the Wrecking Crew. The group weren't happy at this, and even McGuinn, who was the friendliest of the group with Melcher and who the record was meant to spotlight, disliked it. The eventual track was cut by the group, with Jim Dickson producing, to show they could do a good job of the song by themselves, with the intention that Melcher would then polish it and finish it in the studio, but Melcher dropped the idea of doing the song at all. There was a growing factionalism in the group by this point, with McGuinn and to a lesser extent Michael Clarke being friendly with Melcher. Crosby disliked Melcher and was pushing for Jim Dickson to replace him as producer, largely because he thought that Melcher was vetoing Crosby's songs and giving Gene Clark and Roger McGuinn free run of the songwriting. Dickson on the other hand was friendliest with Crosby, but wasn't much keener on Crosby's songwriting than Melcher was, thinking Gene Clark was the real writing talent in the group. It didn't help that Crosby's songs tended to be things like harmonically complex pieces based on science fiction novels -- Crosby was a big fan of the writer Robert Heinlein, and in particular of the novel Stranger in a Strange Land, and brought in at least two songs inspired by that novel, which were left off albums -- his song "Stranger in a Strange Land" was eventually recorded by the San Francisco group Blackburn & Snow: [Excerpt: Blackburn & Snow, "Stranger in a Strange Land"] Oddly, Jim Dickson objected to what became the Byrds' next single for reasons that come from the same roots as the Heinlein novel. A short while earlier, McGuinn had worked as a guitarist and arranger on an album by the folk singer Judy Collins, and one of the songs she had recorded on that album was a song written by Pete Seeger, setting the first eight verses of chapter three of the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes to music: [Excerpt: Judy Collins, "Turn Turn Turn (To Everything There is a Season"] McGuinn wanted to do an electric version of that song as the Byrds' next single, and Melcher sided with him, but Dickson was against the idea, citing the philosopher Alfred Korzybski, who was a big influence both on the counterculture and on Heinlein. Korzybski, in his book Science and Sanity, argued that many of the problems with the world are caused by the practice in Aristotelean logic of excluding the middle and only talking about things and their opposites, saying that things could be either A or Not-A, which in his view excluded most of actual reality. Dickson's argument was that the lyrics to “Turn! Turn! Turn!” with their inflexible Aristotelianism, were hopelessly outmoded and would make the group a laughing stock among anyone who had paid attention to the intellectual revolutions of the previous few decades. "A time of love, a time of hate"? What about all the times that are neither for loving or hating, and all the emotions that are complex mixtures of love and hate? In his eyes, this was going to make the group look like lightweights. Terry Melcher disagreed, and forced the group through take after take, until they got what became the group's second number one hit: [Excerpt: The Byrds, "Turn! Turn! Turn!"] After the single was released and became a hit, the battle lines in the group hardened. It was McGuinn and Melcher on one side, Crosby and Dickson on the other, with Chris Hillman, Michael Clarke, and Gene Clark more or less neutral in the middle, but tending to side more and more with the two Ms largely because of Crosby's ability to rub everyone up the wrong way. At one point during the sessions for the next album, tempers flared so much that Michael Clarke actually got up, went over to Crosby, and punched Crosby so hard that he fell off his seat. Crosby, being Hollywood to the bone, yelled at Clarke "You'll never work in this town again!", but the others tended to agree that on that occasion Crosby had it coming. Clarke, when asked about it later, said "I slapped him because he was being an asshole. He wasn't productive. It was necessary." Things came to a head in the filming for a video for the next single, Gene Clark's "Set You Free This Time". Michael Clarke was taller than the other Byrds, and to get the shot right, so the angles would line up, he had to stand further from the camera than the rest of them. David Crosby -- the member with most knowledge of the film industry, whose father was an Academy Award-winning cinematographer, so who definitely understood the reasoning for this -- was sulking that once again a Gene Clark song had been chosen for promotion rather than one of his songs, and started manipulating Michael Clarke, telling him that he was being moved backwards because the others were jealous of his good looks, and that he needed to move forward to be with the rest of them. Multiple takes were ruined because Clarke listened to Crosby, and eventually Jim Dickson got furious at Clarke and went over and slapped him on the face. All hell broke loose. Michael Clarke wasn't particularly bothered by being slapped by Dickson, but Crosby took that as an excuse to leave, walking off before the first shot of the day had been completed. Dickson ran after Crosby, who turned round and punched Dickson in the mouth. Dickson grabbed hold of Crosby and held him in a chokehold. Gene Clark came up and pulled Dickson off Crosby, trying to break up the fight, and then Crosby yelled "Yeah, that's right, Gene! Hold him so I can hit him again!" At this point if Clark let Dickson go, Dickson would have attacked Crosby again. If he held Dickson, Crosby would have taken it as an invitation to hit him more. Clark's dilemma was eventually relieved by Barry Feinstein, the cameraman, who came in and broke everything up. It may seem odd that Crosby and Dickson, who were on the same side, were the ones who got into a fight, while Michael Clarke, who had previously hit Crosby, was listening to Crosby over Dickson, but that's indicative of how everyone felt about Crosby. As Dickson later put it, "People have stronger feelings about David Crosby. I love David more than the rest and I hate him more than the rest. I love McGuinn the least, and I hate him the least, because he doesn't give you emotional feedback. You don't get a chance. The hate is in equal proportion to how much you love them." McGuinn was finding all this deeply distressing -- Dickson and Crosby were violent men, and Michael Clarke and Hillman could be provoked to violence, but McGuinn was a pacifist both by conviction and temperament. Everything was conspiring to push the camps further apart. For example, Gene Clark made more money than the rest because of his songwriting royalties, and so got himself a good car. McGuinn had problems with his car, and knowing that the other members were jealous of Clark, Melcher offered to lend McGuinn one of his own Cadillacs, partly in an attempt to be friendly, and partly to make sure the jealousy over Clark's car didn't cause further problems in the group. But, of course, now Gene Clark had a Ferrarri and Roger McGuinn had a Cadillac, where was David Crosby's car? He stormed into Dickson's office and told him that if by the end of the tour the group were going on, Crosby didn't have a Bentley, he was quitting the group. There was only one thing for it. Terry Melcher had to go. The group had recorded their second album, and if they couldn't fix the problems within the band, they would have to deal with the problems from outside. While the group were on tour, Jim Dickson told Melcher they would no longer be working with him as their producer. On the tour bus, the group listened over and over to a tape McGuinn had made of Crosby's favourite music. On one side was a collection of recordings of Ravi Shankar, and on the other was two Coltrane albums -- Africa/Brass and Impressions: [Excerpt: John Coltrane, "India"] The group listened to this, and basically no other music, on the tour, and while they were touring Gene Clark was working on what he hoped would be the group's next single -- an impressionistic song about their trip to the UK, which started "Six miles high and when you touch down, you'll find that it's stranger than known". After he had it half complete, he showed it to Crosby, who helped him out with the lyrics, coming up with lines like "Rain, grey town, known for its sound" to describe London. The song talked about the crowds that followed them, about the music -- namechecking the Small Faces, who at the time had only released two single

Rob and Massimo talk to Northwestern University professor (and Rob's PhD advisor!) Richard Kraut about why one might want to consider adopting Aristotelianism as a philosophy of life.

Episode: 2652 Descartes, the Scientist.  Today, an extended postscript.

Join us today as Jenna and Adria go through the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac.  Learn that this is a story shared by many faiths and how the interpretations can lead us to a better understanding of God's character.References:Miitopia for the switchinter-liner BibleGuide for the perplexed by Maimonides:Scriptures:Genesis 22Quran 37:102 -108(sacrifice of Ishmael)Genesis 22:5I Corinthians 6:12Quotes:Rabbi Ari Kahn-Isaac's death was never a possibility — not as far as Abraham was concerned, and not as far as God was concerned. God's commandment to Abraham was very specific, and Abraham understood it very precisely: Isaac was to be "raised up as an offering", and God would use the opportunity to teach humankind, once and for all, that human sacrifice, child sacrifice, is not acceptable.Maimonides was a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages.  Who wrote a Guide for the perplexed to reconcile Aristotelianism with Rabbinical Jewish theology by finding rational explanations for many events in the text.Our info:Email: Pastors@secondlifechurch.comGive: secondlifechurch.com/givingClosing song:"So I'm told" by Divided Skies

Several different schools of philosophy emerged at the same time and shortly after the famous traditions of Platonism and Aristotelianism in ancient Greece. The most significant, which have had a lasting impact on philosophy since antiquity, were Cynicism, Stoicism and Epicureanism, each of which offered a moral programme advocating the best way to live and a more abstract physical, scientific model of the workings of the universe. This lecture traces the main intellectual strands in each, focussing on the differences between them. The great thinkers whose works will be considered in detail are the fragments of Diogenes and of Zeno, the founders of Cynicism and Stoicism respectively, and Lucretius, the author of the great Epicurean poem of the 1st century BCE, On the Nature of Things.A lecture by Edith Hall, 27 MayThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/cynics-stoics-epicureansGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

In this episode I speak to University of Manchester Professor, Matthew Cobb, on his recent book "A History of the Idea of The Brain" - We discuss topics from Galen and Aristotelianism through to modern Computational approaches.

The fourth part of David's Jewish Philosophy lecture series considers three giants of Jewish thought from the Medieval Period: Maimonides, the Rambam Avraham ibn Daud Rabbi Levu ben Gershon, also known as the Ralbag. David explores the centrality of Aristotelianism for these thinkers as well as the influence of Islamic culture on Western theology and … Continue reading "#82 A Journey Through Jewish Philosophy (4)" The post #82 A Journey Through Jewish Philosophy (4) first appeared on David Solomon. Related posts: #81 A Journey Through Jewish Philosophy (3) #80 A Journey Through Jewish Philosophy (2) #79 A Journey Through Jewish Philosophy (1)

In this third and final episode with Dr. Bruce Gordon, host Michael Egnor picks Gordon’s brain on the overlaps between historical metaphysical perspectives and modern neuroscience. What does St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about metaphysical realities, and how does that compare to Plato’s idealism? Who is right? And what can near-death experiences and other phenomena tell us about the… Source

In this third and final episode with Dr. Bruce Gordon, host Michael Egnor picks Gordon’s brain on the overlaps between historical metaphysical perspectives and modern neuroscience. What does St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about metaphysical realities, and how does that compare to Plato’s idealism? Who is right? And what can near-death experiences and other phenomena tell us about the… Source

Tripp in an AI researcher at Amazon and a friend I met through the Paul Vanderklay online community. He is an expert on Aristotelianism, Thomistic theology, and the philosophy of mind with a masters in philosophy from Duke. We talk about the doctrine of divine simplicity, how that relates to the doctrine of the trinity, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Ray Kurzweil, Alvin Plantinga, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, David Hume, Thomas Bayes, the argument against miracles, Adam Friended, Michael Shermer, Alexander the Great, Tim McGrew, Douglas Murray, Christian Atheists, William Lane Craig, the cosmological argument, the Gospel of John, John the Baptist, and just why was Jesus crucified? Here is our first conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvXOZj4kQGU&t=2s Here is a link to Tripp, Esther and Adam Friended debating the resurrection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7g9ic521c8 Tim McGrew and the argument from miracles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSEobV4cHnc

We are a virtual and physical Bet Midrash with international membership dedicated to striving to know God by embracing the world through the lens of Torah.Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq9Aa_VpAGp9bPYdv24IgDQ/videosInstagram:https://www.instagram.com/TheHabura/Website:https://www.TheHabura.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jordan and Brandon talk with Rob Koons about Christianities relationship to Aristotelianism and Thomism. What are these two schools of thought? How do they differ? How do they relate to Christianity? Is orthodoxy linked to them? Are they irrelevant with the rise of modern science? And much more.Find more info about the London Lyceum or contact us at our website.Resources:1) Aristotles Revenge, Ed Feser2) Real Essentialism, David Oderberg3) Substance and the Fundamentality of the Familiar, Ross Inman4) Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Contemporary Science, ed. William Simpson5) Thermal Substances, Rob KoonsSupport the show

In this episode, Mark and Adam discuss the second chapter of "A New History of Western Philosophy," Schools of Thought: Aristotle to Augustine. They break down an in-depth look at Aristotle's teachings, look at the philosophies of Stoicism, and touch on the beginnings of St. Augustine's ideas. They also mispronounce Aristotelianism many times and begin arguing about the true hero of "The Lord of the Rings!"

Episode: 1938 Three M-names help us to understand air: Meeting the Zeitgiest.  Today, we learn what air is made of.

Why, then, do you talk so much more bravely than you live? Why do you pay regard to common rumor, and feel annoyed by calumnious gossip? Why do you drink wine that is older than yourself? --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stoicmeditations/support

Episode: 1898 What happened after Galileo? Pierre Gassendi happened!  Today, what happened after Galileo?

#Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras. Wikipedia #Plato Athenian philosopher was an Athenian philosopher during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, founder of the Platonist school of thought, and the Academy, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Wikipedia Born: Classical Athens Died: Athens, Greece Notable ideas: Platonic philosophy; Innatism; Theory of forms; Idealism #Aristotle Greek philosopher DescriptionAristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath during the Classical period in Ancient Greece. Taught by Plato, he was the founder of the Lyceum, the Peripatetic school of philosophy, and the Aristotelian tradition. His writings cover many subjects. Wikipedia Born: 385 BC, Stagira, Greece Died: 323 BC, Chalcis, Greece Schools of thought: Aristotelianism, Peripatetic school Education: Platonic Academy (368 BC–348 BC) --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/vegansteven/message

On episode 44, we welcome philosopher Daniel A. Kaufman to discuss the flourishing life according to Aristotle, the limited utility of philosophy and self-help, debate the logic of Stoicism, and discuss the importance of experience and moderation in practical wisdom.  Daniel A. Kaufman got his B.A. in history and philosophy at the University of Michigan and his Ph.D. in philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center. He is Professor of Philosophy at Missouri State University, and his main areas of interest are aesthetics, epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language. Daniel is also the editor and publisher of The Electric Agora. The Electric Agora publishes essays, videos, reviews, and humorous pieces, lying at the intersection of philosophy, the humanities, science, and popular culture. Daniel is the host of the Sophia program on MeaningofLife.tv. He is also one of the authors and editors of the book “How To Live a Good Life” and today we are discussing Aristotelianism. The link for the book can be found below in the description!  Leon Garber is a philosophical writer, contemplating and elucidating the deep recesses of man's soul. He is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist — specializing in Existential Psychotherapy, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, and Trauma Therapy — and manages a blog exploring issues of death, self-esteem, love, freedom, life-meaning, and mental health/mental illness, from both empirical and personal viewpoints.  Alen D. Ulman is a content creator and life long auto-didact. Alen manages the page Ego Ends Now which is a growing community for expanding consciousness with vital information about science, medicine, self actualization, philosophy, psychology and methods to overcome identification with compulsive thought. The purpose of Ego Ends Now is to make sure to give everyone in it's community every tool available to add levity in their own lives, making it a very real possibility for them to create a life of their own design, and help impact the world and our global community positively. Find us on:  Twitter: https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  O4L: https://o4lonlinenetwork.com/seizethe...  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seizethemom...  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMome...  We are also everywhere podcasts are available!  Where you can follow Daniel A. Kaufman:  The Electric Agora: https://theelectricagora.com/ Sophia: https://meaningoflife.tv/programs/current/sophia The Electric Agora on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ElectricAgora How to Live a Good Life Book Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0525566147/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_GrzsEb6MH4VK2  

Stoicism occupies a logical space between the kin philosophies of Cynicism and Aristotelianism. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stoicmeditations/support

Aristotelianism and Stoicism differ in their conceptions of eudaimonia, the kind of life we should pursue. In a sense, they are both right. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stoicmeditations/support

Fr. Dcn. Dr. Ananias Sorem (his channel is here) joins me to discuss the important issue of key Greek and Hellenic terms and how the fathers transformed them. Orthodoxy has the freedom to utilize philosophic ideas and terms without being boxed into any strict philosophical system – be it Platonism, Aristotelianism or later philosophical insights. Truth is one and wherever truth is, it is ultimately in reference to the Logos Himself. This will be a basic glossary of sometimes foreign and consuming terms that at times are from the realm of philosophy and can be a stumbling block. We will cover terms like Arche, Monarchia, Hypostasis, Ousia, Enhypostatized, telos, logoi, Logos, and many more which are necessary for attaining the nuance of an Orthodox phronema without falling into the mistake of Hellenism and the word-concept fallacy.

Lecture at Thomas Aquinas College March 29, 2019

In this episode, Alex talks with Prof. Scott Berman (St. Louis University) about platonism. They talk about various competing views, such as nominalism, conceptualism, constructivism, contemporary and classic Aristotelianism, and how they stack up against platonism. If you enjoy this content, please follow us:https://www.facebook.com/thoughtologytube/https://www.patreon.com/home

March 16, 2001. Harry Jaffa presented "Calhoun vs. Madison: Transformation of the Thought of the Founding" at this symposium celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of James Madison, the nation's fourth president. Speaker Biography: Harry V. Jaffa is Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute and professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate School. He received his B.A. in English from Yale in 1939 and a Ph.D from the New School for Social Research. He is the author of many articles and books, including his study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, "Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates" (1959), "Thomism and Aristotelianism" (1979), "The Conditions of Freedom" (1975), "How to Think About the American Revolution" (1982) and most recently, "Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question" (1994). Jaffa recently released the first volume of the sequel to his classic "Crisis of the House Divided," titled "A New Birth of Freedom" (2000). For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7341

Basic Science Clinic by Steve Morgan & Sophie Connolly If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things. Rene Descartes Welcome to Basic Science Clinic, this is the 3rd Crit Think podcast on mathematics. Having examined the origin of maths and its influence on the enlightenment explosion of rationality and empiricism, we now turn our attention to extracting the ways maths turns up in our critical care practice. Is it essential to know the maths? Thou doth protest too much methinks. Think of these relationships as the grammatical fibre to your conceptual fabric. It’s like totally, you know like, easy to make yourself understood without no grammar, do ya know wanna I mean…like? However, understanding maths as the language of science with grammatical and linguistic accuracy changes your perception of the relationships between the physiological variables that you are attempting to dial up in your practice. Go deeper, understand better, effortlessly recall.   In this pod we’ll cover: Basic mathematical relationships Relations Vs Functions Classification of mathematical models Important relations in critical care Word of the Day: Peripatetic; 1. adjective; itinerant, walking or traveling about; 2. noun; an adherent of Aristotelianism.  

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin's book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin's book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin’s book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin’s book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin’s book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin’s book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin’s book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Craig Martin‘s new book carefully traces religious arguments for and against Aristotelianism from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. Based on a close reading of a staggering array of primary sources, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014) in turn subverts several assumptions about the connection between Aristotelian thought and the emergence of the new sciences in early modernity. The book argues that we ought to understand the seventeenth century decline of Aristotle and Aristotelians as an authority in natural philosophy in its relation to the contemporaneous religious readings of Aristotelian texts. In a series of chapters that each look carefully at a particular temporal and philosophical context of debate over the readings of Aristotle, Averroes, and their interlocutors by various religious communities, Martin’s book offers a compelling and deeply textured account of arguments over the piety, language, translation, and other aspects of the Aristotelian corpus. This is a book that beautifully shows the interrelationships of the histories of science and religion, while taking readings on a journey through the philosophical corpora of some of the most foundational thinkers on the nature of the cosmos and the soul; through transformations in the craft of historical analysis; and through an important period when translation (and debates about it) helped shape the intellectual histories of the medieval and early modern worlds. It is a fascinating book, and an especially important study for anyone interested in the history of early modern science and/or the relationships between the early histories of science and religion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of the podcast, we learn about the Christian Aristotelean philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas. We begin by examining a song by The Postal Service which sets the stage for a discussion about how often humans mistake correlation with causation. Next, we learn about Aristotle’s conception of God as “The Unmoved Mover” and his thoughts on the nature of infinity. All of these ideas lead us to St. Thomas Aquinas’ quest to reconcile Aristotelianism and Christianity, which he approaches by arguing that the Christian belief that God created the universe and the Aristotelean belief that the universe has always existed are not mutually exclusive ideas. All this and more on the latest episode of Philosophize This! Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)

John Carriero is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is author of Between two Worlds: a Reading of Descartes’s “Meditations” (2009) and co-editor with Janet Broughton of A Companion to Descartes (2008). He is especially interested in understanding early modern rationalist thought as the outgrowth of the seventeenth-century collision between the new science and Aristotelianism. His essays “Spinoza on Final Causality” (2005) and “Substance and Ends” (2008) are two significant contributions to that project. This podcast is an audio recording of John's talk - "Epistemology Past and Present" - at the Aristotelian Society on 18 February 2013. The recording was produced by Backdoor Broadcasting Company in conjunction with the Institute of Philosophy, University of London.

Peter looks at the history of Aristotelianism up the time of the Roman Empire and the beginning of commentaries on his works

In late antiquity, Aristotelianism and Platonism made a comeback, and pagan philosophy developed alongside Judaism and Christianity.

This is the 10th episode in our series examining the impact Christianity has had on history & culture. Today we consider the impact the Faith has had on science.This subject is near & dear to me because when I first went to college in the mid-70's, I was studying to be a geologist. I'd always been fascinated by science and loved to collect rocks, so decided geology would be my field. I took many classes on the trajectory of one day working in the field as a geological engineer.I was only a nominal believer in those days and when I first entered college saw no incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. It seemed obvious to my then uninformed mind that God had created everything, then used evolution as the way to push things along. I now realize my ideas were what has come to be known as theistic evolution.One of my professors, who was herself an agnostic, was also a fastidious scientist. What I mean is, she hadn't imbibed the ideology of scientism with its uncritical loyalty to evolution. Though she admitted a loose belief in it, it was only, she said, because no other theory came any closer to explaining the evidence. She rejected the idea of divine creation, but had a hard time buying in to the evolutionary explanation for life. Her reason was that the theory didn't square with the evidence. She caught significant grief for this position from the other professors who were lock-step loyal to Darwin. In a conversation with another student in class one day, she acknowledged that while she didn't personally believe it, in terms of origins, there could be a supreme being who was creator of the physical universe and that if there was, such a being would likely be the Author of Life. She went further and admitted that there was no evidence she was aware of that made that possibility untenable. It's just that as a scientist, she had no evidence for such a being's existence so had to remain an agnostic.For me, the point was, here was a true scientist who admitted there were deep scientific problems with the theory of evolution. She fiercely argued against raising the theory of evolution to a scientific certainty. It angered her when evolution was used as a presumptive ground for science.It took a few years, but I eventually came around to her view, then went further and today, based on the evidence, consider evolution a preposterous position.I give all that background because of the intensity of debate today, kicked up by what are called the New Atheists. Evolutionists all, they set science in opposition to all religious faith. In doing so, they set reason on the side of science, and then say that leaves un-reason or irrationality in the side of faith. This is false proposition but one that has effectively come to dominate the public discussion. The new Atheists make it seem as though every scientist worth the title is an atheists while there are no educated or genuinely worthy intellects in the Faith camp. That also is a grievous misdirection since some of the world's greatest minds & most prolific scientists either believe in God, the Bible, or at least acknowledge the likelihood of a divine being.A little history reveals that modern science owes its very existence to men & women of faith. The renowned philosopher of science, Alfred North Whitehead, said “Faith in the possibility of science, [coming before] the development of modern scientific theory, is[derived from] medieval theology."' Lynn White, historian of medieval science, wrote, "The [medieval] monk was an intellectual ancestor of the scientist." The German physicist Ernst Mach remarked, "Every unbiased mind must admit that the age in which the chief development of the science of mechanics took place was an age of predominantly theological cast."Crediting Christianity with the arrival of science may sound surprising to many. But why is that? The answer goes back to Andrew Dickson White, who in 1896 published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Ever since then, along with the growth of secularism, college & university professors have accepted White's argument that Christianity is an enemy of science. It unthinkable to many that Christianity could have fostered the arrival of science.There are differences between Christianity and pagan religion. One is that Christianity, with its heritage in Judaism, has always insisted that there's only one God, Who is a rational being. Without this presupposition, there would be no science. The origin of science, said Alfred North Whitehead, required Christianity's “insistence on the rationality of God."If God is a rational being, then human beings, who are made in His image, also employ rational processes to study and investigate the world in which they live. That idea moved Christian philosophers to link rationality with the empirical, inductive method. Robert Grosseteste was one of these philosophers who in the 13th C went further and began to apply this idea practically. A Franciscan bishop and the first chancellor of Oxford University, he was the first to propose the inductive, experimental method, an approach to knowledge that was advocated by his student Roger Bacon, another Franciscan monk, who asserted that “All things must be verified by experience.” Bacon was a devout believer in the truthfulness of Scripture, and being empirically minded, he saw the Bible in the light of sound reason and as verifiable by experience. Another natural philosopher & Franciscan monk, was William of Occam in the 14th C. Like Bacon, Occam said knowledge needed to be derived inductively.300 years later another Bacon, first name  Francis this time, gave further momentum to the inductive method by recording his experimental results. He's been called "the creator of scientific induction."' In the context of rationality, he stressed careful observation of phenomena and collecting information systematically in order to understand nature's secrets. His scientific interests did not deter him from devoting time to theology. He wrote treatises on the Psalms and prayer.By introducing the inductive empirical method guided by rational procedures, Roger Bacon, William Occam, and Francis Bacon departed from the ancient Greek perspective of Aristotle. Aristotelianism had a stranglehold on the world for 1500 years. It held that knowledge was only acquired thru the deductive processes of the mind; the inductive method, which required manual activity, was taboo. Remember  as we saw in  a previous episode, physical activity was only for slaves, not for thinkers & freemen. Complete confidence in the deductive method was the only way for the Aristotelian to arrive at knowledge. This view was held by Christian monks, natural philosophers, and theologians until the arrival of Grosseteste, the Bacons & Occam. Even after these empirically-minded thinkers introduced their ideas, a majority of the scholastic world continued to adhere to Aristotle's approach.Another major presupposition of Christianity is that God, who created the world, is separate and distinct from it. Greek philosophy saw the gods and nature as intertwined. For example, the planets were thought to have an inner intelligence that caused them to move. This pantheistic view of planetary movement was first challenged in the 14th C by Jean Buridan, a Christian philosopher at the University of Paris.The Biblical & Christian perspective, which sees God and nature as distinctively separate entities, makes science possible. As has been said, Science could never have come into being among the animists of Asia or Africa because they would never have experimented on the natural world, since everything—stones, trees, animals & everything, contains the spirits of gods & ancestors.Men like Grosseteste, Buridan, the Bacons, Occam, and Nicholas of Oresme, and later Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, saw themselves as merely trying to understand the world God had created and over which He told mankind in Gen 1:28 to have "dominion". This paradigm shift is another example of Christianity's wholesome impact on the world.Belief in the rationality of God not only led to the inductive method but also to the conclusion that the universe is governed by rationally discoverable laws. This assumption is vitally important to scientific research, because in a pagan world, with gods engaged in jealous, irrational behavior, any systematic investigation of such a world was futile. Only in Christian thought, with the existence of a single God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, Who functions in an orderly and predictable manner, is it possible for science to exist and operate.From the 13th to the 18th C  every major scientist  explained his motivations in religious terms. But if you examined a science textbook for the local public school you'd never know. Virtually all references to the Christian beliefs of early scientists are omitted. This is unfortunate because these convictions often played a dominant role in their work.One early cutting-edge concept was "Occam's razor", named in honor of William of Occam. This idea had a tremendous influence on the development of modern science. Simply put, it's the scientific principle that says what can be done or explained with the fewest assumptions should be used. This means that a scientist needs to ‘shave off' all excess assumptions. The idea first arose with Peter of Spain but Occam finessed it into usable form. Modern scientists use this principle in theorizing and explaining research findings.As was common with virtually all medieval natural philosophy, Occam didn't confine himself just to scientific matters. He also wrote 2 theological treatises, 1 dealing with the Lord's Supper and the other with the body of Christ. Both works had a positive influence on Martin Luther.Most people think of Leonardo da Vinci as a great artist and painter, but he was also a scientific genius. He analyzed and theorized in the areas of botany, optics, physics, hydraulics, and aeronautics, but his greatest benefit to science lies in the study of human physiology. By dissecting cadavers, which he often did at night because such activity was forbidden, he produced meticulous drawings of human anatomy. His drawings and comments, when collected in one massive volume, present a complete course of anatomical study. This was a major breakthrough because before this time and for some time after, physicians had little knowledge of the human body. They were dependent on the writings of the Greek physician Galen whose propositions on human physiology were in large measure drawn from animals like dogs and monkeys. Leonardo's anatomical observations led him to question the belief that air passed from the lungs to the heart. He used a pump to test this hypothesis and found it was impossible to force air into the heart from the lungs.Lest anyone think Leonardo's scientific theories and drawings of the human anatomy were divorced from his religious convictions, it's well to recall his other activities. His paintings—The Baptism of Christ, The Last Supper, and The Resurrection of Christ—are enduring reminders of his Christian beliefs.The anatomical work of Leonardo was not forgotten. The man who followed in his footsteps was Andreas Vesalius, who lived from 1514 to 64. At 22, he began teaching at the University of Padua. In 1543 he published his famous work, Fabric of the Human Body. The book mentions over 200 errors in Galen's physiology. The errors were found as a result of his dissecting cadavers he obtained illegally.When Vesalius exposed Galen's errors, he received no praise or commendation. His contemporaries, like his former teacher Sylvius, still wedded to Greek medicine, called him a "madman." Others saw him as "a clever, dangerous free-thinker of medicine." There's little doubt of his faith in God. On one occasion he said, "We are driven to wonder at the handiwork of the Almighty." He was never condemned as a heretic, as some anti-church critics have implied, for at the time of his death he had an offer waiting for him to teach at the University of Padua, where he first began his career. Today he's known as the father of human anatomy.Where would the study of genetics be today had the world not been blessed with the birth of the Augustinian monk Gregor Johann Mendel? As often stated in science textbooks, it was his working on cross-pollinating garden peas that led to the concept of genes and the discovery of his 3 laws: the law of segregation, the law of independent assortment, and the law of dominance. Mendel spent most of his adult life in the monastery at Bruno, Moravia. Though Mendel is used by secularists to explain genetics & evolution, he rejected Darwin's theory.4 names loom large in the textbooks of astronomy: Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, & Galileo. The undeniable fact is, these men were devout Christians. Their faith influenced their scientific work, though this fact is conspicuously omitted in most science texts.Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, Poland, in 1473. While still a child, his father died, and he was sent to his mother's brother, a Catholic priest, who reared him. He earned a doctor's degree and was trained as a physician. His uncle had him study theology, which resulted in his becoming a canon at Frauenburg Cathedral in East Prussia. History knows him best for having introduced the heliocentric theory that says the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. During the Middle Ages it was suggested the Earth might be in motion, but nobody had worked out the details. Copernicus did, and therein lies his greatness.Copernicus received a printed copy of his masterwork Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies on his deathbed in 1543. He'd hesitated to publish his work earlier, not because he feared the charge of heresy, as has often been asserted without any documentation, but because he wanted to avoid the ridicule of other scientists, who were strongly tied to Aristotle and Ptolemy. It was Copernicus' Christian friends, especially Georg Rheticus and Andreas Osiander, 2 Lutherans, who persuaded him to publish.Although Copernicus remained a moderately loyal son of the Roman Catholic Church, it was his Lutheran friends that made his publication possible. That information is surprising to many people, including university students, because most only hear that Christian theologians condemned Copernicus's work. For instance, critics like to cite Luther, who supposedly called Copernicus a fool. John W. Montgomery has shown this frequently cited remark lacks support.When Tycho Brahe died in 1601, Johannes Kepler succeeded him in Prague under an imperial appointment by Emperor Rudolph II. Kepler, who'd studied for 3 years to become a Lutheran pastor, turned to astronomy after he was assigned to teach mathematics in Graz, Austria, in 1594. Unlike Brahe, who never accepted the heliocentric theory, Kepler did. In fact Kepler, not Copernicus, deserves the real credit for the helio-centric theory. Copernicus thought the sun was the center of the universe. Kepler realized & proved the sun was merely the center of our solar system.Kepler's mathematical calculations proved wrong the old Aristotelian theory that said the planets orbited in perfect circles, an assumption Copernicus continued to hold. This led Kepler to hypothesize and empirically verify that planets had elliptical paths around the sun.Kepler was the first to define weight as the mutual attraction between 2 bodies, an insight Isaac Newton used later in formulating the law of gravity. Kepler was the first to explain that tides were caused by the moon.Many of Kepler's achievements came while enduring great personal suffering. Some of his hardships were a direct result of his Lutheran convictions, which cost him his position in Graz, where the Catholic Archduke of Hapsburg expelled him in 1598. Another time he was fined for burying his 2nd child according to Lutheran funeral rites. His salary was often in arrears, even in Prague, where he had an imperial appointment. He lost his position there in 1612 when his benefactor the Emperor was forced to abdicate. He was plagued with digestive problems, gall bladder ailments, skin rashes, piles, and sores on his feet that healed badly because of his hemophilia. Childhood smallpox left him with defective eyesight and crippled hands. Even death was no stranger to him. His first wife died, as well as several of his children. A number of times he was forced to move from one city to another, sometimes even from one country to another. Often he had no money to support his family because those who contracted him failed to pay.Whether in fame or pain, Kepler's faith remained unshaken. In his first publication he showed his Christian conviction at the book's conclusion where he gave all honor and praise to God. Stressed and overworked as he often was, he would sometimes fall asleep without having said his evening prayers. When this happened, it bothered him so much that the first thing he'd do next morning was to repent. Moments before he died, an attending Lutheran pastor asked him where he placed his faith. Calmly, he replied, "Solely and alone in the work of our redeemer Jesus Christ." Those were the final words of the man who earlier in his life had written that he only tried "thinking God's thoughts after him." He was still in that mindset when, four months before he died, he penned his own epitaph: “I used to measure the heavens, Now I must measure the earth. Though sky-bound was my spirit, My earthly body rests here."We'll end this podcast with a brief review of the 17th C, scientist Galileo. Like Kepler, a contemporary of his, Galileo searched and described the heavenly bodies. He was the first to use the telescope to study the skies, although he didn't invent it. That credit goes to Johann Lippershey, who first revealed his invention in 1608 at a fair in Frankfurt. With the telescope, Galileo discovered that the moon's surface had valleys and mountains, that the moon had no light of its own but merely reflected it from the sun, that the Milky Way was composed of millions of stars, that Jupiter had 4 bright satellites, and that the sun had spots. Galileo also determined, contrary to Aristotelian belief, that heavy objects did not fall faster than light ones.Unfortunately, Galileo's observations were not well received by his Roman Catholic superiors, who considered Aristotle's view—not that of the Bible—as the final word of truth. Even letting Pope Paul V look through the telescope at his discoveries did not help his cause. His masterpiece, A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, resulted in a summons before the Inquisition, where he was compelled to deny his belief in the Copernican theory and sentenced to an indefinite prison term. For some reason the sentence was never carried out. In fact, 4 years later he published Dialogues on the Two New Sciences. This work helped Isaac Newton formulate his 3 laws of motion.Galileo was less pro-Copernican than Kepler, with whom he often disagreed. He largely ignored Kepler's discoveries because he was still interested in keeping the Ptolemaic theory alive. He also criticized Kepler's idea of the moon affecting tides.The mystery is - If he was less pro-Copernican than Kepler—why did he get into trouble with the theologians who placed his books on the Index of forbidden books? The answer was because he was Roman Catholic, while Kepler was Lutheran.When modern critics condemn the Church & Christianity for its resistance to the Copernican theory, it must be noted and underscored that it was not the entire church that did so. Both Lutherans & Calvinists supported the Copernican theory.And it needs to be stated clearly that the reason the Roman Church proscribed Galileo's work was precisely because they adhered to the scientific ideas of the day which were dominated by the Aristotelianism. Their opposition to Galileo wasn't out of a strict adherence to the Bible – but to the current scientific thought. I say it again - It was errant science, or what we might call scientism that opposed Galileo. This is the mistake the Church can make today – when it allows itself to adopt the politically correct line of contemporary thought; the majority opinion – what the so-called experts hold to – today; but history has shown, is exchanged for something else tomorrow.Listen: History proves that while scientific theories come and go, God's Word prevails.And that brings us to the end of The Change series. Next week we'll return to our narrative timeline of church history.

This is Part 2 of The Rationalist Option on Communio Sanctorum, History of the Christian Church.In our last episode, we took a look at the genesis of the Enlightenment in England and France. We'll come back to France a bit later after taking a brief look at the Enlightenment in German and Russia.Germany took a bit longer to join the Enlightenment. That was due in part to the condition of the land following the Thirty Years War. It's estimated the population shrank from twenty million to just seven after it. There's also the issue of Germany not really being a country. It was at that time a collection of independent statelets, united by language and culture, but divided between Catholics and Lutherans.The low regard for contemporary culture at that time in Germany is illustrated by the fact that while Newton, Locke, and Voltaire were regarded as heroes in their realms, Germany's equivalent, Gottfried von Leibniz, was never popular during his lifetime. Yet he was one of the most brilliant men, not just of his day, but of all time. Born in 1646 in Leipzig, Leibniz was the son of a professor of philosophy. He studied law before taking up with a disreputable group of alchemists and worked for the Elector of Mainz.Leibniz came to the attention of the world in 1672, when he was sent on an unofficial ambassadorial mission to Paris. The purpose of this trip was to present Louis XIV with a plan he'd worked out for the invasion of Egypt, by which he hoped to distract the Sun King from ambitions he might have toward Germany. Nothing came of Leibniz's diplomacy,  although Napoleon seems to have adopted his strategy a century later. In any case, while in Paris, Leibniz took the opportunity to meet with all the luminaries in the foremost city of culture in Europe. He studied mathematics, quickly becoming one of the foremost mathematicians in the world, and made a number of important discoveries, including differential calculus, for which tens of thousands of students have hated him ever since. He also proudly demonstrated an extraordinary mechanical calculator he had built.Leibniz's interests were so wide-ranging he could never keep his mind on what he was doing. In 1676, he became Court Chancellor of Hanover and was put in charge of the library. But he was more interested in the mines at Harz and spent several years devising increasingly ingenious devices to solve the problem of draining them. He eventually worked for several German states, as well as the cities of Berlin and Vienna, for which he designed a number of civic improvements. In his spare time, he traveled extensively around Europe, meeting other rationalist luminaries, and carrying out his work in mathematics, chemistry, physics, metaphysics, and theology. He produced hardly any books of importance, but his vast correspondence, much of which is still in the process of being edited and published, dwarfed the output of most of his contemporaries; and there cannot have been any subject, however obscure, with which he did not deal, and on which he was not an authority. Leibniz died in 1716, an increasingly marginalized figure, defiantly wearing his long brocade coat and huge wig which had gone out of style decades before.Despite Leibniz's virtual single-handed attempt to kick-start the German Enlightenment, it didn't get rolling until the 18th C. Prussia, the largest of the German states, took the lead, as its rulers sought to drag their country into the modern era. Frederick Wilhelm, who came to the throne in 1713, reformed the economy after staying with relatives in the Netherlands.Wilhelm, a careful Lutheran, had no love for Catholic France, but his son, Frederick II, known as Frederick the Great, was a quite different person than his father. Upon his accession to the throne in 1740, he set about building on his father's practical reforms with a program of cultural renovation. Among his first acts as ruler was to recall from exile Christian Wolff, the leading German philosopher, and Leibniz's heir. Frederick II's enthusiasm for French culture meant the usual coldness between the two realms saw a remarkable thaw. French was even spoken in his court, and it was at his invitation Voltaire moved to Prussia in 1749. Frederick was also keen to bolster the position of Prussia in Europe, which he did by engaging in a series of wars between the 1740s and 60s.During the late 17th C, the Russian Czar Peter the Great traveled all over Europe on a mission to learn all he could about the Enlightenment. He was eager to see what impact it had had on the realms of culture, economics, and engineering. His plan was to return to Mother Russia and drag it, if need be, into the modern world.Although Western Russia geographically is considered a part of Europe, it had for centuries been isolated. It was ruled by the Mongols for much of the late Middle Ages and was a bastion of Orthodox Christianity, a separate denomination from the Catholics and Protestants in the West. Westerners knew virtually nothing about Russian religion, and Russians cared virtually nothing for the West.It's hardly surprising that, when Peter returned home, he had to enforce his reforms with an iron hand if he was going to make headway. Beards, a revered symbol of Orthodoxy, were banned in an attempt to get people to look more Western. Young men were happy to comply, as many women preferred. But most older men kept their beards in boxes, fearing they were bereft of salvation without them. Traditional Russian dress, which reached the ankle, was banned. Everyone had to dress like the French, and anyone who refused had their clothes force-tailored. English hairstyles were mandatory for women. Schools were built, the calendar reformed, military conscription introduced, and church hierarchy was placed firmly under State control. Like Louis XIV's France, Peter's Russia was an avowedly Christian country. As a symbol of the new, Westward-leaning Russia, Peter transferred the capital to a new city, St Petersburg, on the Baltic coast.But Peter was hardly a model of Enlightenment tolerance. In 1718, he had his son tortured to death for treason. Still, his reforms were extended and completed by Catherine the Great, a Prussian who became Empress of Russia in 1762. She organizing a coup against her own husband. Unlike Peter, Catherine grew up in Western Europe and had thoroughly imbibed Enlightenment principles. She corresponded with Voltaire and other leading cultural figures; patronized the arts, and founded the famous Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. Catherine was also a skilled diplomat, and as the most powerful monarch in Europe, extended Russian influence throughout the continent.Okay, so, you're wondering how this is church history. I thought it wise to spend a little time charting the broad outlines of the Enlightenment so we could see how the thinking it produced affected theology.That happens with the advent of Rationalism.Rationalism reached its apex in the 18th and 19th Cs. It's characterized by an interest in the physical world and its confidence in the powers of reason. In Western Europe, there'd been a growing interest in Nature since the 13th C. That was the era of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, who reintroduced Aristotelian philosophy as a tool for doing theology. One of the points of contrast between Aristotelianism and the earlier Platonism that dominated theological thought was precisely that the new philosophy emphasized the importance of the senses and perception. The later Middle Ages, with its distrust of speculation, continued in the same vein. The art of the Renaissance, with its appreciation for the beauty of the human body and the world, was an expression of this interest. By the 17th C, many thought the goal of reason was understanding the world of nature.Parallel to that, there appeared growing confidence in the powers of reason. Often, these two trends were combined in an effort to show the degree to which the order of nature coincides with the order of reason. This can be seen, for instance, in the work of Galileo, who was convinced the entire natural world was a system of mathematical relations, and that the ideal of knowledge was the reduction of all phenomena to their quantitative expression. Every success of such efforts seemed to confirm the most optimistic expectations of the power of reason.This all led to the philosophy of René Descartes in the first half of the 17th C. His system was based on great confidence in mathematical reasoning, joined to a profound distrust of all that is not absolutely certain. He compared his philosophical method to geometry, a discipline that accepts only what is an undeniable axiom or has been rationally proven.In applying his method, Descartes felt he ought to begin with an attitude of universal doubt, making sure that, once he found something he could not doubt, he would be certain of its truth. He then found that undeniable first truth in his own existence. He could doubt everything, but not that the doubting subject existed. “I think, therefore I am,” became the starting point for his philosophy. But this I whose existence cannot be doubted is only the subject as a thinker. The existence of his body wasn't proven, so must be doubted.Before proving his existence as a body, Descartes felt he could, get this >> Prove the existence of God. He found in his mind the idea of a “more perfect being,” and since his mind could not produce such an idea, which was above itself, it must have been placed there by God. Therefore, Descartes's second conclusion was that God exists. It was only then, on the basis of the existence of God, and of trust in the divine perfection, that Descartes felt free to move on to prove the existence of the world and of his own body.Descartes was a profoundly religious man who hoped his philosophy would be found useful by theologians. But not all agreed with him. Many theologians feared the challenge of Cartesianism—as his philosophy was called. The universal doubt Descartes proposed as his starting point seemed to some a kind of crass skepticism. The faculties of several universities declared Aristotelianism was the philosophical system best suited to Christian theology, and there were those who declared Cartesianism lead to heresy. Dismayed, Descartes decided to leave his native France. He moved to Sweden, where he lived the rest of his life.But he was not without supporters. In France, those intellectual circles where Jansenism had been popular embraced Cartesianism. Eventually, others among the more orthodox also took it up, and debates continued for a long time.The main point at which Cartesianism led to further theological and philosophical developments was the question of the relationship between spirit and matter, between soul and body. It's at this point we could really get into a sticky wicket as we parse all the various ways theologians and philosophers offered ideas on the inter-relationship between the thinking self and the thing that occupies space in the form of a body. But we won't go into the theories of Occasionalism, Monism, and Preestablished Harmony.Let me just say this became a realm of contentious debate between a Dutch Jew named Baruch de Spinoza and our friend Leibniz.While these philosophical developments took place on the Continent, in Britain, philosophy took a different route in what's called Empiricism. It's drawn from a Greek word meaning experience. Its leading figure was Oxford professor John Locke, we considered in the previous episode. In 1690, Locke published his Essay on Human Understanding. He read Descartes and agreed the order of the world corresponded to the order of the mind. But he didn't believe there was such a thing as innate ideas to be discovered by looking inward. He contended that all knowledge is derived from experience; the experience of the senses, and the working of our minds. That meant the only genuine knowledge is based on three levels of experience: Experience of self, Experience of the world around us, and Experience of God, whose existence is manifest by the existence of ourselves and the world.To this Locke added another level of knowledge, that of probability. Probability works like this; You and I have repeatedly experienced someone's existence; let's call him George. We know George. He's a friend we see a couple of times a week. When George isn't standing in front of us, we still have reason to believe He exists, even though at that moment, we have no purely empirical basis to believe in his existence. Still, sound judgment gives us reason to discern the probability of George's existence. Locke said that this judgment of probability allows us to get on with the practical affairs in life.Faith, Locke said, is assent to knowledge derived from revelation rather than reason. Therefore, although highly probable, knowledge derived by faith can't be certain. Reason and judgment must be used in order to measure the degree of probability of what we believe by faith. For this reason, Locke opposed the “fanatical enthusiasm” of those who think that all they say is based on divine revelation. For the same reason, he defended religious toleration. Intolerance is born out of the muddled thinking that confuses the probable judgments of faith with the certainty of empirical reason. Besides, toleration is based on the very nature of society. The state does not have the authority to limit the freedom of its citizens in matters such as their personal religion.In 1695, Locke published a treatise, The Reasonableness of Christianity, in which he claimed Christianity is the most reasonable of religions. He said the core of Christianity is the existence of God and faith in Christ as Messiah. But Locke didn't believe the Christian Faith had added anything of importance to what could, in any case, have been known by the proper use of reason and judgment. In the final analysis, Christianity was little more than a very clear expression of truths and laws that others could have known by their natural faculties.Others would come along later and drive a wedge between faith and reason, divorcing them into different camps. And in the settlement, Faith would be left impoverished while Reason drove off with all the goodies.One of those who drove the wagon was David Hume in the mid-18th C. In my estimation, Hume can be blamed for the post-modern tendency of knee-jerk negativity toward absolutes. An illustration may best help to describe his philosophy, or better, his anti-philosophy. Hume was skeptical of reason, saying the only reason, reason seems to work is because of mental habits we've developed. In other words, In Hume's system, Descartes' doubt didn't go far enough; he ought to have doubted his own ability to reason.Hume maintained, for instance, that no one has ever experienced what we call cause and effect. We've seen, for instance, when a pool ball collides with another ball, there's a noise and the second ball moves off in some direction. If we repeat that several times, we see similar results. So we conclude by the power of reason that the movement of the first ball caused the movement of the other. But, Hume contended, we've not seen any such thing. All we've witnessed is a series of phenomena, and our mind has linked them by means of the notion of cause and effect. This last step, Hume claimed, taken by any who see a series of phenomena that are seemingly related, has no basis in empirical observation. It is rather the result of our mental habits. So, by an empiricists' definition, that's not rational knowledge.Hume's uber-skepticism places such strict rules on interpreting what our senses tell us, there's no room left for the working of logic and deduction. He cripples us and turns his followers into inveterate skeptics.It wasn't long until some Enlightenment thinkers washed their hands of faith altogether and began to envision a world without God or religion.We'll talk about later developments in Philosophy and their impact on theology in a later episode.