Podcasts about hegel

Continuing on on sec. 469-483 of Hegel's Phenomenology, finishing the analysis of Antigone and bringing in Oedipus to say why the conflict between types of law is both criminal and destined. We then turn to the aftermath: a society alienated from law but with legally recognized self-conscious individuals. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Get three months free of online payroll and benefits software for small businesses at gusto.com/pel. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel. Go to HelloFresh.com/pel10fm to Get 10 free meals + a free Zwilling Knife with your third box.

durée : 00:58:23 - Le Souffle de la pensée - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye - En 1966 paraît la grande œuvre de Theodor W. Adorno : "Dialectique négative", pur produit de la 1ère génération de l'École de Francfort, dans lequel le philosophe réhabilite contre Hegel la dialectique dans toute sa force négative. L'écrivain et essayiste Aurélien Bellanger, séduit, nous en parle. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Aurélien Bellanger Écrivain et essayiste français

Is it possible for God to become more glorious or perfect than He already is? Today, R.C. Sproul interacts with the dialectical ideas that G.W.F. Hegel had about God and history—ideas that greatly influenced 19th-century thought. Get R.C. Sprouls' book The Consequences of Ideas and his companion 35-message video teaching series on DVD with your donation. You'll also unlock digital access to each message and the study guide. https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the digital teaching series and study guide with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of media for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Tohle je zkrácená verze (94min). Předplať si VIP jen za 100,- a poslechni si celý díl (128min) dřív a bez reklam zde: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6eCAZr2aoQ2HhDDTyIxD6r?si=afc9abcf6cf64f7ePořádáme Brain We Are Mini Fest! Na akci bude prof. Jan Hábl, Markéta Šetinová a Chili Ta Thuy. Na konci bude Ecstatic dance, tak přijď 26.3. od 17:00 do Radlické Kulturní Sportovny⁠, tady jsou lístky!⁠ ⁠https://goout.net/cs/brain-we-are-vztahy-a-smysl-chili-ta-jan-habl/sztychy/⁠Co když největší záhada neleží někde ve vesmíru, ale v tom nejbližším, co máme, ve faktu, že vůbec něco prožíváme?Tenhle rozhovor není jen o mozku, neuronech nebo jedné teorii vědomí. Je o hranici, kde se potkává neurověda, filozofie a subjektivní zkušenost. O tom, proč možná nikdy nevnímáme svět přímo, proč se vědomí nedá jednoduše zredukovat na elektrickou aktivitu, a proč se i ty nejodvážnější vědecké modely nakonec musí potkat s tím, jaké to je být. Jdeme od vtělenosti a evoluce přes kvália, integrovanou informaci a měření vědomí až k myšlence, že vědomí nemusí být objekt, který jednou najdeme, ale proces, který se neustále skládá, integruje a drží pohromadě. A právě v tom je tenhle díl silný: nesnaží se dát lacinou odpověď, ale zpřesnit samotnou otázku. Je to epizoda pro chvíle, kdy tě přestane zajímat jen to, co si myslíme o realitě, a začne tě zajímat, odkud se vůbec bere ten, kdo si něco myslí.Parťáci dílu jsou:Magniflex.cz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Máme velkou radost, že jsme narazili na celosvětově patentované velmi kvalitní matrace od italské značky Magniflex. Magniflex je dělají z těch nejkvalitnějších materiálů a spolupracují s odborníky na biomechaniku a lékaři. Navíc mají nadstandartně dlouhou záruku proti proležení a to až 12 let. Já mám konkrétně matraci magnistretch s patentovanou technologií, která dokáže tělo při tlaku na ní trošičku protahovat a nemůžu si jí vynachválit. Tak jdi na ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Magniflex.cz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ a udělej další krok ke kvalitnějšímu spánku a zdraví s Magniflexem.N⁠⁠⁠orsan.cz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Norsan Vyrabí Omega 3 z čerstvého rybího oleje z udržitelného rybolovu nebo z mořských mikrořas. Jdi na Norsan.cz zadej kód bwa10 pro 10% slevu a pořiď si kvalitní OMEGA-3 tvůj mozek a zdraví ti poděkuje.Minutáž:ČÁST 1 - VĚDOMÍ00:00 Úvod & Náš model reality07:38 Kde v těle sídlí naše já?11:24 Evoluční pohled: Vědomí a snaha neumřít15:17 Komplexita mozku a meze našeho chápání19:03 Pohled zevnitř vs. zvenčí22:07 Massiminiho experimenty: Jak se měří vědomí25:05 Teorie integrované informace (IIT)27:48 Jak IIT přistupuje k poznávání reality30:41 Co znamená "integrovaná" informace?33:28 Schizofrenie, split-brain a rozpad jednoty vědomí35:59 Měření "Fí" a zkoumání struktur zevnitř39:36 Locked-in syndrom a vědomí ve vegetativním stavu42:25 Vede IIT k panpsychismu?43:18 Joscha Bach a "dirigent" v našem mozku47:26 Protokoly, komprese dat a naše vzpomínky52:47 V čem se různé teorie vědomí shodují?58:41 Krátké shrnutí: Co tedy říká teorie o našem vědomí?01:05:08 Default Mode Network a kde vzniká naše "já"ČÁST 2 - SVOBODNÁ / LIMITOVANÁ VŮLE01:10:56 Existuje svobodná vůle?01:13:51 Determinismus vs. kvantová náhoda ve vesmíru01:19:19 Naše izolované "já" a iluze rozhodování01:22:11 Koncept limitované vůle: Proč je praktičtější?01:25:39 Praktická agence a naše vnitřní reprezentacePřechod do VIP- Kompatibilismus a Hegelův pohled na svobodu- Nelineární systémy a rozhodovací krajina našeho mozku- Libetovy experimenty: Rozhoduje mozek za nás dřív, než o tom víme?- Odkud se berou naše myšlenky? (Krátký experiment)- Vliv psychedelik a meditace na naše rozhodování- Rozšířené jáství, buňky a rakovina (Michael Levin)- Planárie a slizovky: Kde sídlí paměť, když ne v mozku?- Využití těchto teorií v trestním právu a posuzování viny- Analytický idealismus Bernarda Kastrupa- Filozofie procesu (Whitehead) a vznik sdíleného vědomí- Závěr a rozloučení

Continuing on Hegel's Phenomenology, "Spirit" chapter, now up to sections 464-483, which are under the sub-headings "Ethical Action. Human and Divine Knowledge. Guilt and Destiny" and "Legal Status." After anticipating it in last episode, we get  Hegel's allegorical analysis of Antigone as a clash between two types of law that cooperate in a harmonious society. With this clash, both fail, leaving us with modernity where law is alienated from individuals. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Go to NerdWallet.com/PEL for trustworthy small business loans. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel.  

What if the model you're using to understand reality is incomplete?If the foundation is even slightly off, everything built on top of it shifts.Meaning, identity, agency, truth.In Episode 1 of What If Investigations, we begin by asking a simple but unsettling question:How do we know our current model of reality is accurate?Drawing on Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Hegel's theory of how ideas evolve over time, we examine how worldviews form, how they replace one another, and how to test them under pressure.Before proposing any new framework, we ask:What makes a model strong?What makes one collapse?And what evidence would we expect to see if a deeper structure were present?Today we open the investigation.

On sec. 451-463 of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. We get into more detail on these passages about the way the two types of law (human and divine) interact, as well as how these play out in family roles and the responsibility to bury the dead. If you're not hearing the full version of this part of the discussion, sign up via one of the options described at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.

In Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction (Routledge, 2025), Tristan J. Rogers argues that philosophical conservatism is a coherent and compelling set of historically rooted ideas about conserving and promoting the human good. Part I, “Conservatism Past,” presents a history of conservative ideas, exploring themes, such as the search for wisdom, the limits of philosophy, reform in preference to revolution, the relationship between authority and freedom, and liberty as a living tradition. Major figures include Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, G.W.F. Hegel, and Roger Scruton. Part II, “Conservatism Present,” applies philosophical conservatism to contemporary conservative politics, focusing on issues such as nationalism, populism, the family, education, and responsibility. Rogers shows that conservatism has been defined differently at different times: as a loose set of connected ideas reacting against the French Revolution; as a kind of disposition or instinct in favor of the status quo; and more recently as any ideas opposed to the political left. But he also allows a set of questions to guide his argument for conservatism's merits: What is conservatism? Is it a coherent and attractive philosophy? What are conservatives for? And how is today's conservatism related to its past? In his answers, Rogers paints a compelling and coherent picture of an aligned and attractive set of ideas. Dr. Tristan J. Rogers teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco, CA. He has also taught philosophy at Santa Clara University, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the University of California, Davis. He is the author of The Authority of Virtue: Institutions and Character in the Good Society (2020). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here 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

In Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction (Routledge, 2025), Tristan J. Rogers argues that philosophical conservatism is a coherent and compelling set of historically rooted ideas about conserving and promoting the human good. Part I, “Conservatism Past,” presents a history of conservative ideas, exploring themes, such as the search for wisdom, the limits of philosophy, reform in preference to revolution, the relationship between authority and freedom, and liberty as a living tradition. Major figures include Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, G.W.F. Hegel, and Roger Scruton. Part II, “Conservatism Present,” applies philosophical conservatism to contemporary conservative politics, focusing on issues such as nationalism, populism, the family, education, and responsibility. Rogers shows that conservatism has been defined differently at different times: as a loose set of connected ideas reacting against the French Revolution; as a kind of disposition or instinct in favor of the status quo; and more recently as any ideas opposed to the political left. But he also allows a set of questions to guide his argument for conservatism's merits: What is conservatism? Is it a coherent and attractive philosophy? What are conservatives for? And how is today's conservatism related to its past? In his answers, Rogers paints a compelling and coherent picture of an aligned and attractive set of ideas. Dr. Tristan J. Rogers teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco, CA. He has also taught philosophy at Santa Clara University, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the University of California, Davis. He is the author of The Authority of Virtue: Institutions and Character in the Good Society (2020). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

In Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction (Routledge, 2025), Tristan J. Rogers argues that philosophical conservatism is a coherent and compelling set of historically rooted ideas about conserving and promoting the human good. Part I, “Conservatism Past,” presents a history of conservative ideas, exploring themes, such as the search for wisdom, the limits of philosophy, reform in preference to revolution, the relationship between authority and freedom, and liberty as a living tradition. Major figures include Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, G.W.F. Hegel, and Roger Scruton. Part II, “Conservatism Present,” applies philosophical conservatism to contemporary conservative politics, focusing on issues such as nationalism, populism, the family, education, and responsibility. Rogers shows that conservatism has been defined differently at different times: as a loose set of connected ideas reacting against the French Revolution; as a kind of disposition or instinct in favor of the status quo; and more recently as any ideas opposed to the political left. But he also allows a set of questions to guide his argument for conservatism's merits: What is conservatism? Is it a coherent and attractive philosophy? What are conservatives for? And how is today's conservatism related to its past? In his answers, Rogers paints a compelling and coherent picture of an aligned and attractive set of ideas. Dr. Tristan J. Rogers teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco, CA. He has also taught philosophy at Santa Clara University, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the University of California, Davis. He is the author of The Authority of Virtue: Institutions and Character in the Good Society (2020). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction (Routledge, 2025), Tristan J. Rogers argues that philosophical conservatism is a coherent and compelling set of historically rooted ideas about conserving and promoting the human good. Part I, “Conservatism Past,” presents a history of conservative ideas, exploring themes, such as the search for wisdom, the limits of philosophy, reform in preference to revolution, the relationship between authority and freedom, and liberty as a living tradition. Major figures include Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, G.W.F. Hegel, and Roger Scruton. Part II, “Conservatism Present,” applies philosophical conservatism to contemporary conservative politics, focusing on issues such as nationalism, populism, the family, education, and responsibility. Rogers shows that conservatism has been defined differently at different times: as a loose set of connected ideas reacting against the French Revolution; as a kind of disposition or instinct in favor of the status quo; and more recently as any ideas opposed to the political left. But he also allows a set of questions to guide his argument for conservatism's merits: What is conservatism? Is it a coherent and attractive philosophy? What are conservatives for? And how is today's conservatism related to its past? In his answers, Rogers paints a compelling and coherent picture of an aligned and attractive set of ideas. Dr. Tristan J. Rogers teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco, CA. He has also taught philosophy at Santa Clara University, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the University of California, Davis. He is the author of The Authority of Virtue: Institutions and Character in the Good Society (2020). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Om vad som lirar och inte lirar när Doktor Glas placeras i vår samtid. Om att vakna med ångest i natten, men att räddas när man äntligen förstår kärnan i Hegel. Samt om det barocka med naturgodis.Prenumerera här: https://underproduktion.se/envargsokersinpod

Continuing on the "Spirit" section of The Phenomenology of Spirit, giving a sort of social metaphysics, wherein the ethical life of a society is analyzed into two complementary types of law, human (explicit laws but also customs) and what Hegel calls "divine" (a subconscious ethical sense represented by the home and women). Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Visit functionhealth.com/PEL to get the data you need to take action for your health. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel.

Lately I've been carrying a specific kind of dread. Watching the situation with Iran develop, and noticing how often God gets woven into the justification for violence — quietly, almost liturgically, until you can't tell where the political calculation ends and the sacred mission begins. That observation sent me back to Slavoj Žižek, and to an argument I find both uncomfortable and urgent: that it isn't the absence of God that makes everything permissible. It's the presence of God. Or more precisely, the certainty that you're acting in his name.In this episode I trace both sides of that paradox — including the challenge my stepson puts to me constantly, that without God there's no real ground for ethics at all. I spend time with Hegel, Paul Tillich, and Todd McGowan on the idea of a God who doesn't control history and therefore can't be invoked to sanction it. No clean resolution. Just a question I think we need to be asking right now.

“Tudo é fácil quando temos vontade própria e estímulo alheio, mas é difícil sermos aquilo que somos. Os outros não deixam.” E ainda que lhes fosse indiferente, que não se acumulasse neles esse rancor de ver alguém tomar um enorme balanço, entregar-se a uma euforia tal que não precisa de outra coisa senão de preencher um instante, até contra o resto da sua vida, como se tivesse um poder de se libertar e esquecer de si mesmo, sendo essa a maior das fantasias, mesmo assim os outros estariam aí para te desmentir. Afinal, aquela chispa ou ferocidade que alguns revelam e os torna capazes de se desembaraçar dos efeitos previstos, de se borrifar no contexto, é aí que se acha o maior dos privilégios. E aquela compulsão mitómana é talvez o último sinal de arrojo, uma vez que a história inventada é sempre mais aliciante do que a maçadora tirania dos factos. Contudo, o grande entrave são os outros, e parece evidente como toda a etiqueta social se desdobra nessas fórmulas mais ou menos sub-reptícias de interromper alguém. Há, no entanto, alguns que sabem torcer pela oposição, viver como felizes desgraçados, muitas vezes até por conta de outrem, gozando os sinais de insubordinação. Depois daquele arranque, vamos citar-vos novamente Santos Fernando para deixar aqui outra pedra angular: “Tive que chegar à evidência de que o nosso semelhante é justamente aquele que em nada se nos assemelha.” Mas há mais… “Gostamos, nos outros, o que os outros não gostam neles.” O amor próprio deve assim ser colhido não em si mesmo mas à volta. Este não é um tempo para os homens andarem muito confiantes de si mesmos, pois isso identifica-os com os piores. Os melhores são os que se fogem, os que escapam. Aqueles que se fazem tão esquecidos de si que muitas vezes páram junto às montras para confirmar os traços do próprio rosto. “É para sabermos quem somos, que transportamos no bolso o bilhete de identidade.” A razão de toda esta solidão em que nos sentimos a dissolver, reféns de um quotidiano que trabalha em nós como ácido, é este excesso de confiança nas aparências, a forma como o espectáculo passou a governar até a metafísica. No fundo, um tipo só podia reconhecer-se nas divisões, na forma como num determinado momento parecia fazer uma escolha contra o de antes, contra si mesmo, romper, partir-se. “O Eu tem um conteúdo que o distingue de si, pois ele é a negatividade pura ou o movimento de se dividir, é a consciência”, escreveu Hegel. “Este conteúdo, na sua diferença, também é o Eu, pois ele é o movimento de se suprimir a si mesmo ou a negatividade pura que é o Eu.” Se temos tanta dificuldade para nos arrastar para fora de casa, fazêmo-lo porque, apesar de tudo, ainda é agradável encontrarmos na rua os nossos desconhecidos, especializarmo-nos na dor dos outros, como diz às tantas uma das personagens do último livro do nosso convidado. Saímos num gesto meio desaforado como quem se diz adeus a si mesmo, batendo com a porta, ofendendo-se os dois mutuamente, o que ficou e o que saiu. Fazemos estes cortes, ignorando-nos para nos conhecermos melhor. Santos Fernando ainda nos coloca diante de uma outra constatação: “– Perdão – exclamou o que tinha experiência da vida, experiência da falibilidade humana e experiência da bisbilhotice: – Só não espreita pelo buraco da fechadura, aquele que tem receio de estar a ser substituído do lado de lá.” Na verdade, esta frase deveria inverter-se, pois o receio mais constante nos nossos dias, um receio pânico, vem não da mera suspeita, mas da consciência de que estamos a ser substituídos do lado de lá, e não apenas por alguém novo ou melhor, mas por alguém muito parecido, um semelhante, um ser apenas um pouco mais indiferente, e, por isso, melhor adaptado às circunstâncias. Aquele que se ri da expressão que fazemos, aquele que nos provoca, esse duplo sinistro que divide connosco o mesmo lance de dados. “Acredito sinceramente ter interceptado muitos pensamentos que os céus destinavam a outro homem”, admitia Laurence Sterne. É uma forma de reconhecer essa capacidade de ocupar o lugar de outro… “Há gente que tem pára-raios para que os raios lhes caiam em casa”, retruca Santos Fernando, sempre à coca de uma oportunidade. Ele poderia concordar com o nosso convidado deste episódio quando ele reconhece que, entre certos seres sem tempo para os grandes arranjos litúrgicos, “Deus manifesta-se sob a forma de um insecto aramaico em risco de extinção”. “Um insecto fugidio, escondido em toda a parte”, adianta. E ainda acrescenta: “A palavra aramaico soa tão bem, não precisamos de mais nada para acreditar.” De resto, a fé já não é essa espécie de utopia transparente, mas algo mais rastejante, que sobrevive à base de impulsos, coincidências meio patéticas, um arranjo fenomenal de ninharias. Às tantas, num daqueles armazéns onde alguns tipos assistem à rotina frenética das mercadorias, esses milhares de produtos destinados a um trânsito internacional que, como nos diz José Gardeazabal, parece imitar o ritmo fértil das grandes migrações, fica claro como vamos sendo reduzidos a essa humildade dos espectadores da catástrofe, e às tantas percebe-se que o homem é precisamente aquilo que toda esta inquietação das mercadorias acaba por destruir, tornando-se um ser inteiramente esmagado, atirado para a margem, desfigurado por essa nova forma de miséria que se foi impondo com o monstruoso desenvolvimento da técnica. Como assinalou Erich Auerbach, “nos seus começos gregos, a poesia europeia possuía o conhecimento de que o homem seria uno – algo de indivisível, constituído pela força e pela forma do corpo, pela razão e pela vontade do espírito, de que o seu destino particular se teria desenvolvido a partir de uma tal unidade, quando à sua volta se reuniam, como que por atracção magnética, as acções e paixões que lhe estavam reservadas, fixando-se nele e formando assim elas mesmas uma parte da sua unidade”. Aquele filólogo e crítico literário vinca que foi “este entendimento que conferiu à epopeia homérica a intuição e a compreensão profunda da estrutura dos acontecimentos possíveis”. “Inventando e sobrepondo acções e paixões do mesmo tipo, Homero deu forma a Aquiles ou a Ulisses, a Helena ou a Penélope; de uma acção que revelava a essência, ou ainda de uma essência que se anunciava numa primeira acção, surgiu ao poeta inventor, de forma necessária e natural, a série e a suma das acções, tornadas idênticas, de todos eles, e ao mesmo tempo a orientação geral do percurso das suas vidas, o seu entrelaçamento no tecido dos acontecimentos, que constitui tanto a sua essência quanto o seu destino.” Mas hoje já não há unidade nos homens porque o destino é precisamente aquilo que faz deles esses seres inertes, dominados por um vazio que escarnece de todos os seus gestos. E também por isso o romance está em crise, pois não sabemos como traduzir alguma inspiração literária que sirva de fôlego a verdadeiras personagens, construindo a sua fictiva autonomia, e que habitem soberanamente essa zona dos mitos criada pelos grandes escritores. Vamos andar por aqui, indagar ainda sobre a forma como o novo paradigma tecnológico infectou a carne. E se, finalmente, e ao cabo de tantos naufrágios, o velho lobo desse mar que há décadas ia pingando pelas torneiras mal fechadas de tantas casas portuguesas lá se despediu de vez, também por aí vamos passar, aproveitando para uivar entre as fronteiras já praticamente apagadas da nossa cultura, e sempre com Gardeazabal a expor-nos a vasta colecção de pulgas colhidas noutras paragens e que a ele o ferram mais fundo e lhe transmitem a sua febre.

POUR COMMANDER MA BANDE DESSINÉE PHILORAMA : Sur Amazon : https://amzn.to/4sVjMyxSur Fnac.com : https://tidd.ly/3NSSUyVChez Cultura : https://tidd.ly/4raBhcgDisponible aussi dans toutes les bonnes librairies à partir du 4 mars !Les philosophes ne sont pas seulement des auteurs de systèmes abstraits, ce sont aussi des individus avec leurs failles, leurs excès et leurs contradictions. De Sartre expérimentant la mescaline aux choix personnels controversés de Rousseau, en passant par la rivalité entre Schopenhauer et Hegel, ces dix anecdotes vont vous montrer une autre facette de la philosophie. Sommaire : 00:00 - Introduction 00:35 - Socrate 02:25 - Schopenhauer 03:55 - Kant 05:15 - Rousseau 07:00 - Sartre 08:38 - Intermède 09:59 - Spinoza 11:34 - Marc Aurèle 13:33 - Hume 16:05 - Descartes 18:12 - Nietzsche 20:03 - Conclusion POUR COMMANDER "PHILORAMA" : Sur Amazon : https://amzn.to/4sVjMyx Sur Fnac.com : https://tidd.ly/3NSSUyV Chez Cultura : https://tidd.ly/4raBhcg---Envie d'aller plus loin ? Rejoignez-moi sur Patreon pour accéder à tout mon contenu supplémentaire.

On an excerpt from Soren Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846) that critiques Hegel's idea of logic (dialectic) and then argues for his own conception of "truth as subjectivity." In this first part, he's mostly focusing on Hegel. First (along with the rest of the world), K. denies Hegel's idea that logic is equivalent to physics (or biology, or any other analysis of what actually exists). Furthermore, the idea of a "system" is only one that (according to K) makes sense if you're looking down on the universe from God's perspective. Everything else is in progress: the object you're trying to know is changing, and you as subject are changing. Follow along, starting on PDF p. 2 (document p. 196). To get the other parts of this discussion, you'll need to support us at patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

9 Hours and 55 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the first 10 episodes of our ongoing Continental Philosophy series with Thomas777. He covers Aristotle, Thucydides, Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Grotius, and Hegel.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

On. G.W.F. Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), sec. 438-463. What constitutes society?  We're beginning a multi-episode arc here on the "Spirit" chapter of the book, so we learn what Spirit actually is and how it relates to individuals. We also talk about the two layers of law that make up society and how these can be in or out of harmony. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Get three months free of online payroll and benefits software for small businesses at gusto.com/pel. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel.

Dostoevsky's 1864 novella doesn't contain the descriptive detail, impersonal narration or many other features of 19th-century realism established by Flaubert. The book's two-part structure, which starts with a 40-year-old's furious rant against rationalism and moves on to present three humiliating episodes from his earlier life, offers no kind of conclusion. Instead, it is the unbearable moments of psychological truth that make ‘Notes from Underground' a revolutionary development in the history of realism. In this episode, James Wood is joined by the novelist and critic Adam Thirlwell to consider Dostoevsky's mastery of the inner life and the experiences that shaped his hostility to rational egoism, from being subjected to a mock execution and four years in a Siberian prison camp to his reading of Hegel and a visit to London's Crystal Palace. Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from the episode. To listen in full, and to all our other Close Readings series, sign up: Apple Podcasts: https://lrb.me/applecrwaor Other podcast apps: https://lrb.me/closereadingswaor Read more in the LRB on Dostoevsky: John Bayley: https://lrb.me/realismep301 Daniel Soar: https://lrb.me/realismep302 Michael Wood: https://lrb.me/realismep303

Brad and Paul discuss the work of William Desmond and approach it through his engagement with Hegel, his reading of Flannery O'Connor, and his opposition to the dark reading of Slavoj Žižek. (Sign up for “Do Not Let Your Hearts Be Troubled: Perspectives on Peace”: This class, with Ethan Vander Leek, examines “peace” from various perspectives: Biblical, theological, philosophical, and inter-religious. Go to https://pbi.forgingploughshares.org/offerings.) If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

What if the villain of the Bible has been hiding in plain sight across every mythology and empire in history? Doug Van Dorn and Dr. Judd Burton return for a members-only deep dive into the identity of Satan, not as a one-dimensional adversary, but as what Judd calls "the zero with a thousand artifices," an entity who wears different masks in different cultures while remaining the same being at the center. The guys trace him from the accuser in Job to the serpent in Eden, from Baal in the Ugaritic texts to Zeus in Greek myth, from Marduk in Babylon to Amun-Ra in Egypt, making the case that this figure has been seating himself as the chief deity of every dominant civilization throughout history. Doug offers a provocative reading of Job where the book opens with Satan as the accuser and closes with him revealed as Leviathan — the chaos monster that only God can tame — and suggests the Greeks separated what the Bible holds together, splitting the serpent and the sky god into different characters to recast the villain as the hero.The second half pushes the conversation into modern territory. If this entity rides the wave of empires, what does he look like now in a post-Enlightenment world that claims to have outgrown the gods? Doug argues that the separation of spirit and matter was always an illusion, and that Marx came from Hegel, Hegel came from Hermetic magic, and the occult never actually disappeared, it just moved underground. Judd connects the dots between ancient dialectical traps, the weaponization of language, and the re-emergence of pagan symbolism in modern politics and culture. The guys also explore Satan's counterfeit divine council, how the cross catastrophically disrupted his kingdom, the connection between chaos and water symbolism from Leviathan to Jesus walking on the sea, and why understanding this cosmic chess game is essential for making sense of everything from Epstein to alien abductions to the strange stories that pour into the Blurry Creatures inbox every week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

En este episodio exploramos la lectura de Friedrich Nietzsche sobre la tragedia griega en El nacimiento de la tragedia y su diálogo con Freud, Schopenhauer y Hegel. La tragedia aparece como afirmación del dolor, choque de fuerzas y aprendizaje radical para decir sí a la vida.

BMH: https://x.com/FedPoasting https://substack.com/@fedpoasting?r=2adfmq J: https://findmyfrens.net/jburden/ Buy me a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/j.burden Substack: https://substack.com/@jburden Patreon: https://patreon.com/Jburden GUMROAD: https://radiofreechicago.gumroad.com/l/ucduc Subscribestar: https://www.subscribestar.com/j-burden Axios: https://axios-remote-fitness-coaching.kit.com/8ebf7bacb8 ETH: 0xB06aF86d23B9304818729abfe02c07513e68Cb70 BTC: 33xLknSCeXFkpFsXRRMqYjGu43x14X1iEt

En 1989, au moment où le mur de Berlin tombe et où le bloc soviétique vacille, Francis Fukuyama publie un article devenu célèbre : The End of History? Il y développe une thèse audacieuse : l'humanité serait peut-être arrivée au terme de son évolution idéologique majeure.Attention, il ne parle pas de la fin des événements, ni de la fin des conflits. Il parle de la fin de l'Histoire au sens philosophique, hérité de Hegel et d'Alexandre Kojève : l'Histoire comme lutte entre grandes idéologies concurrentes pour définir le meilleur régime politique.Selon Fukuyama, le XXe siècle a vu s'affronter trois grands modèles : le fascisme, le communisme et la démocratie libérale. Le fascisme est vaincu en 1945. Le communisme s'effondre en 1989-1991 avec la chute de l'URSS. Il ne resterait alors qu'un modèle sans rival idéologique crédible : la démocratie libérale associée à l'économie de marché.Sa thèse est donc la suivante : la démocratie libérale pourrait constituer la forme finale de gouvernement humain, non pas parfaite, mais la moins mauvaise et la plus universalisable. Il ne dit pas que tous les pays sont démocratiques, mais qu'aucune idéologie alternative globale ne semble capable de la remplacer durablement.L'argument repose aussi sur une dimension anthropologique : le besoin humain de reconnaissance, ce que Hegel appelait le « thymos ». La démocratie libérale offrirait un cadre permettant de satisfaire ce besoin par des droits, l'égalité juridique et la participation politique.La thèse a suscité un immense débat. Certains l'ont interprétée comme un triomphalisme naïf de l'Occident. D'autres ont souligné que l'histoire postérieure — terrorisme, montée de la Chine autoritaire, résurgence des nationalismes, guerres en Ukraine ou au Moyen-Orient — semble contredire l'idée d'un monde stabilisé autour d'un modèle unique.Fukuyama lui-même a nuancé sa position par la suite. Il reconnaît que la démocratie peut reculer, que les institutions peuvent s'affaiblir et que l'Histoire, au sens des crises et rivalités de puissance, continue évidemment.La « fin de l'Histoire » n'est donc pas l'annonce d'un monde pacifié pour toujours. C'est une hypothèse sur l'absence d'alternative idéologique systémique à la démocratie libérale après la Guerre froide.Qu'on l'approuve ou qu'on la critique, cette thèse reste l'une des plus influentes pour comprendre l'optimisme des années 1990… et les désillusions du XXIe siècle. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

ABSTRACT In his influential master-slave dialectic, Hegel looks to demonstrate that being a master is self-defeating. The master seeks absolute independence and genuine recognition from another. However, they depend upon their slave for their mastery, and the recognition their slave provides is “one-sided and unequal” (PS, §191, p. 114). Thus, Hegel claims that mastery undermines itself. In this paper, I put some pressure on this dialectic. Amongst other things, I argue that what is primarily wrong with the master is the fact they dominate a slave, not that they somehow fail on their own terms. ABOUT Joe primarily works on ethics and agency in Kant and the post-Kantian tradition. He also has interests in the philosophy of love and media ethics.

In this episode of Chasing Leviathan, PJ Wehry is joined once again by political theorist Dr. Chris Yeomans to discuss his recent work on republicanism, political participation, and the legacy of Hegel. The conversation centers on why republicanism has reemerged as a serious framework for political thought and how Yeomans traces its development from contemporary neo-republican theory back through nineteenth century labor republicanism and into the classical civic tradition rooted in Aristotle. Rather than treating political philosophy as an abstract exercise, the episode situates these ideas within lived questions of freedom, agency, and civic responsibility.PJ and Dr. Yeomans explore how modern political discourse often flattens freedom into individual choice or non-interference, while republican traditions emphasize freedom as non-domination and active participation in shared political life. Yeomans explains why Hegel remains a difficult but indispensable figure for understanding these debates, particularly when it comes to the role of institutions, ethical life, and the formation of citizens. The discussion also addresses common misunderstandings of Hegel as either an authoritarian thinker or a simple apologist for the state, offering a more nuanced account of how his philosophy engages republican concerns.Throughout the episode, the conversation returns to questions of work, labor, and political belonging, especially in the context of modern democracies that struggle with disengagement and polarization. This episode will be especially relevant for listeners interested in political theory, republicanism, Hegel, civic participation, and the philosophical foundations of freedom in contemporary society.Make sure to check out Yeomans' book: Hegel and Republicanism: Non-Domination, Economics, and Political Participation

Crisis didn't always mean endless catastrophe. In German thought, it once meant a turning point—a judgment that forces choice. We dig into why that word saturated late 19th‑century philosophy and how it connected national unification, scientific ambition, and the search for values that could survive modernity's shocks.We start with the idealists: Kant's “critical” epoch set the mood for Hegel's self‑clarifying history and the historicists' hunt for inner laws of culture. From there, we follow the political tremors—Napoleon to Bismarck, unification to Weimar—to see how crisis moved from battlefield to spirit. Nietzsche then flips the frame. With God declared dead, he treats crisis as the baseline. The “last man” laughs, while creativity becomes obligation. Whether you read eternal return as metaphysics or a test, the question remains: can you affirm life without borrowed certainties?Enter Husserl with a different alarm. The sciences aren't failing; they're succeeding so thoroughly that they forget their ground. His method—the epoché and phenomenological description—recenters evidence in the lifeworld, the shared, embodied world where things show up with sense before theory. That doesn't undercut physics or math; it anchors them. We talk through demarcation debates, the limits of positivism, and how probability and incompleteness humbled simple falsification stories. Along the way we revisit Marx's crises as forks, not fate, and unpack how “krisis” in Greek names decision at its root.If crisis is judgment, not doom, then it asks something of us: to test idols with Nietzsche's courage and to pause with Husserl's discipline before deciding what to affirm. We close with practical stakes—why method matters for public reason, how translation shapes concepts, and where philosophy still helps when hot takes run out.Enjoy the conversation? Follow the show, share it with a friend who loves big ideas, and leave a review so more curious people can find us.Send us a text Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic,Julian

In part 2 of our discussion of the physics of David Bohm reflected in the work of Hegel, Brad and I lay out the significance of Bohm's theory as it overlaps with Hegel's philosophy and also discuss the role of preaching, connected to these difficult topics.  If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

9 Hours and 55 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the first 10 episodes of our ongoing Continental Philosophy series with Thomas777. He covers Aristotle, Thucydides, Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Grotius, and Hegel.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

What would trinitarian science look like? Dr Paul Axton joins David Gornoski to talk about William Desmond's reading of Hegel, the tension between body and mind, the Trinitarian principle in creation, how matter has always existed, and more. Check out Forging Ploughshares podcast here. Follow David Gornoski on X here. Visit aneighborschoice.com for more

We're up to sec. 208 in The Phenomenology of Spirit, still trying to figure out how and why individual consciousness is related to "The Unchangeable," which could be the Kantian thing-in-itself, or perhaps specifically the human soul as a thing-in-itself, or maybe Platonic Forms or God or some other Parmenidean One. Because this "part two" discussion was so enthralling, I'm sharing it on this feed, but to get parts 3 and 4, you'll need to sign up to support us: patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Brad and Paul, so as to explain recent blogs and podcasts, discuss Hegel's Logic as it applies to the quantum reality and theory of David Bohm and which describes how it is that Christ unifies all things, bringing together mind and matter through the understanding that thought or cognition is ultimate reality. Paul's depiction of two kinds of letter is the point of entry. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

We're within the Self-Consciousness chapter of The Phenomenology of Spirit, specifically starting at sec. 206 on the Unhappy Consciousness. This comes after the famous Master-Slave section as well as sections about Stoicism and Skepticism, and it depicts a dividedness within the self stemming from a faulty view of the relation between self and world. Subscribe to Closereads at patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy; follow us there via the free tier to get episodes like this ad free, or pay us to get future installments in this series and everything else we've recorded. (Alternatively, support both PEL and Closereads at patreon.com/partiallyexaminedlife for a nice combo deal.)

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights. Today is part three of my book report on David Bentley Hart's book called That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation. The past two weeks we covered the beginning of his book, the Introduction. I'm going to begin this section by reading out of his final remarks, because he does a good job of simplifying his arguments here at the end of the book. So we'll start with that. Hart says on page 201, It may offend against our egalitarian principles today, but it was commonly assumed among the very educated of the early church that the better part of humanity was something of a hapless rabble who could be made to behave responsibly only by the most terrifying coercions of their imaginations. Belief in universal salvation may have been far more widespread in the first four or five centuries of Christian history than it was in all the centuries that followed, but it was never, as a rule, encouraged in any general way by those in authority in the church. Maybe there are great many among us who can be convinced to be good only through the threat of endless torture at the hands of an indefatigably vindictive god. Even so much as hint that the purifying flames of the age to come will at last be extinguished, and perhaps a good number of us will begin to think like the mafioso who refuses to turn state's evidence because he is sure he can do the time. Bravado is, after all, the chief virtue of the incorrigibly stupid. He goes on to say, I have never had much respect for the notion of the blind leap of faith, even when that leap is made in the direction of something beautiful and ennobling. I certainly cannot respect it when it is made in the direction of something intrinsically loathsome and degrading. And I believe that this is precisely what the Infernalist position, no matter what form it takes, necessarily involves. And to remind you, if you didn't hear the past two episodes, Infernalist refers to the notion that there is an unending hell of pain and torture for the unregenerate or the unrepentant. Further down page 202, Hart says, I honestly, perhaps guilelessly, believe that the doctrine of eternal hell is prima facie nonsensical for the simple reason that it cannot even be stated in Christian theological terms without a descent into equivocity, which is equivocation, so precipitous and total that nothing but edifying gibberish remains. To say that, on the one hand, God is infinitely good, perfectly just, and inexhaustibly loving, and that, on the other, he has created a world under such terms as oblige him either to impose or to permit the imposition of eternal misery on finite rational beings is simply to embrace a complete contradiction. All becomes mystery, but only in the sense that it requires a very mysterious ability to believe impossible things. [Jumping down the page, he says,] Can we imagine logically, I mean not merely intuitively, that someone still in torment after a trillion ages, or then a trillion trillion, or then a trillion vigintillion, is in any meaningful sense the same agent who contracted some measurable quantity of personal guilt in that tiny, ever more vanishingly insubstantial gleam of an instant that constituted his or her terrestrial life? And can we do this even while realizing that, at that point, his or her sufferings have, in a sense, only just begun, and, in fact, will always have only just begun? What extraordinary violence we must do both to our reason and to our moral intelligence, not to mention simple good taste, to make this horrid notion seem palatable to ourselves. And all because we have somehow, foolishly, allowed ourselves to be convinced that this is what we must believe. Really, could we truly believe it all apart from either profound personal fear or profound personal cruelty? Which is why, again, I do not believe that most Christians truly believe what they believe they believe. So, what he's saying here, what I've been talking to you about, is the idea that God, the God Above All Gods, what we call the Father in Gnosticism, would condemn people to everlasting torment, everlasting torment, with no other goal than to punish, because they're never going to get out of it. That's what everlasting means. And so it's just punishment for the sake of punishment, and that that great, unlimitable God would impose this punishment on little, limited, finite beings who only lived a brief millisecond of time in the great span of time of God. That God would create these people for the purpose, basically, of condemning them to everlasting torment. You see, that is not even rational. It doesn't make any sense. Not if you believe God is good. It's impossible. Now, if you think that God is evil, well, then that's not God, is it? By definition, if you believe that God is cruel and vindictive and unreasonable, well, that's not the God Above All Gods. And this should come as relief to those of you who think you can't believe in God, because God is so cruel and vindictive. Perhaps you were raised in an extremely cruel household with extremely vindictive parents, or schoolteachers, or somebody got to you and, in the name of God, inflicted cruelty upon you. Then you have come to accidentally transpose their human cruelty onto God, because they told you to. But that's not God, by definition, you see? And when I say, by definition, that means, like, cold is not hot, by definition. Cold is cold. And if you're going to start arguing, oh no, cold is hot, well, then you're not talking about cold, you're talking about hot. Do you see what I mean? And if you have been rejecting God, the God Above All Gods, because you have this view of God as merciless and vindictive, cruel, illogical, unfair, unjust, take comfort, because that's not God you're talking about. Now, it may be the small g god of this world. It could be the guy whose best friend is Satan, because remember, that is a small g god of confusion. And its main job is to cause you to forget that you come from transcendent goodness, that you come from above, from the God Above All Gods, and that you do have freedom. You do have free will. You are meant to inherit joy. You are to do good works, and to be happy, and to be in love, and to love everybody else. Don't let some evil archon, or evil Demiurge, or evil human, redefine God in such a way that you reject God, because that's the mistake. That's a categorical error. And that's why I say, take comfort, have joy, receive the love that was meant for you. Throwing out the baby with the bath water means to reject the Good because you can't sort it out from the bad. Refusing to accept God or Christ because you reject the flawed Christian Church is an example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Okay, back to the book. On page 205, Hart says, It was not always thus. Let me at least shamelessly idealize the distant past for a moment. In its dawn, the gospel was a proclamation principally of a divine victory that had been won over death and sin, and over the spiritual powers of rebellion against the big G God that dwells on high, and here below, and under the earth. It announced itself truly as the good tidings of a campaign of divine rescue on the part of a loving God, who by the sending of his Son into the world, and even into the kingdom of death, had liberated his creatures from slavery to a false and merciless master, and had opened a way into the kingdom of heaven, in which all of creation would be glorified by the direct presence of big G God, [or the Father, as we call him in Gnosticism]. And by the way, this paragraph that I just read about early Christianity, is entirely consistent with this Valentinian Christianity that I share with you here. That is the entire purpose of we second-order creatures being sent down here below, to bring the good tidings of life and love and liberty to the fallen Demiurge, and now subsequently to all of the people who have been hoodwinked by the Demiurge and Satan into believing in the false god that does not incorporate love. Hart goes on to say, It was above all a joyous proclamation and a call to a lost people to find their true home at last, in their father's house. It did not initially make its appeal to human hearts by forcing them to revert to some childish or bestial cruelty latent in their natures. Rather, it sought to awaken them to a new form of life, one whose premise was charity. Nor was it a religion offering only a psychological salve for individual anxieties regarding personal salvation. It was a summons to a new and corporate way of life, salvation by entry into a community of love. Nothing as yet was fixed except the certainty that Jesus was now Lord over all things and would ultimately yield all things up to the Father, so that God might be all in all. Now we're going to go back into the earlier part of the book to explain some of these concepts in more depth. Hart has broken his book into four meditations, or four subjects we could call it. The first meditation is, who is God? The second meditation is, what is judgment? The third meditation is, what is a person? And the fourth meditation is, what is freedom? A reflection on the rational will. So in the first meditation, who is God? Hart explains to us that, The moral destiny of creation and the moral nature of God are absolutely inseparable. As the transcendent good beyond all things, God is also the transcendental end that makes every single action of any rational nature possible. Moreover, the end toward which He acts must be His own goodness, for He is Himself the beginning and end of all things. This is not to deny that, in addition to the primary causality of God's act of creation, there are innumerable forms of secondary causality operative within the creative order. But none of these can exceed or escape the one end toward which the first cause directs all things. And so what he is saying here is that the first causality is the expression of God's goodness, the purity of God reaching out through the Son and into the Fullness of God—emanating. That is the principal causality. That is the prime mover of all things, what we call the base state of consciousness, the matrix. But then there is a secondary causality that takes place subsequent to that. And I guess the first act of secondary causality was probably the fall, in that it was the first act of will prompted by ego that apparently deviated from God's original plan, although the Tripartite Tractate does say we shouldn't blame Logos because the fall was the cause of the cosmos which was destined to come about. But whereas the Father is the prime mover and remains shielded in purity and fullness and goodness—you see, all the love emanates from the Father, evil doesn't swim back upstream. It's all emanating from the Father, and it's all good. But we do have secondary causality down here in the created cosmos, primarily due to the actions of the Demiurge and the never-ending war that runs amuck down here. Hart says, page 70, First, as God's act of creation is free, constrained by neither necessity nor ignorance, all contingent ends are intentionally enfolded within his decision. And second, precisely because God in himself is absolute, absolved, that is, of every pathos of the contingent, every affect of the sort that a finite substance has the power to visit upon another, his moral venture in creating is infinite. One way or another, after all, all causes are logically reducible to their first cause. This is no more than a logical truism. In either case, all consequence are, either as actualities or merely possibilities, contingent upon the primordial antecedent, apart from which they could not exist. In other words, all the things that happen down here in the cosmos couldn't have happened without God giving it the first start, without the Father giving it the initial emanation. He goes on to say, And naturally, the rationale of a first cause, its definition, in the most etymologically exact meaning of that term, is the final cause that prompts it, the end toward which it acts. If, then, that first cause is an infinitely free act emerging from infinite wisdom, all those consequence are intentionally entailed, again, either as actualities or as possibilities within that first act. And so the final end to that act tends is its whole moral truth. The traditional definition of evil as a privation of the good, lacking any essence of its own, in other words, what we would call in Gnosticism, evil is the shadow of the good. Evil is the shadow of Logos. It's not a thing in itself. It's the absence of the love and the light of the Father. It is also an assertion that when we say God is good, we are speaking of Him not only relative to his creation, but as he is in himself. All comes from God, and so evil cannot be a thing that comes from anywhere. Evil is, in every case, merely the defect whereby a substantial good is lost, belied, or resisted. For in every sense, being is act, and God, in his simplicity and infinite freedom, is what he does. He could not be the creator of anything substantially evil without evil also being part of the definition of who he essentially is, for he alone is the wellspring of all that exists. Jumping down the page on 71, Hart says, “God goes forth in all beings, and in all beings returns to himself.” That's how I describe as we all carry the Fullness of God within our being, and within every cell of our being. And since we are carrying the Fullness of God within us, we will have to return to the Fullness of God ultimately. We can't be lost in everlasting torment, because we are the Fullness of God, and God cannot torment itself. Hart says, God has no need of the world. He creates it not because he is dependent upon it, but because its dependency on him is a fitting expression of the bounty of his goodness. Doesn't that remind you of, in the beginning, the Father was alone, and he admired his goodness and beauty and love. He was full of love and beauty, and gave birth, so to speak—He emanated the Son. And the Son and the Father gave glory to one another. And in that giving of glory to one another, then the Son emanated the Fullness. And then in giving glory to one another in the Fullness and to the Son, the Fullness emanates us, the second order of powers. And it's all because you can't love without having an object to love, even if it's only in your own mind. Love requires an object of devotion, and giving glory is the reciprocal of love. We give glory because we were first loved. It's a fitting expression of the bounty of goodness, as Hart puts it. Then he goes on to say, This, however, also means that within the story of creation, viewed from its final cause, there can be no residue of the pardonably tragic, no irrecuperable or irreconcilable remainder left behind at the end of the tale. For if there were, this irreconcilable excess would also be something God has directly caused. Now, in our Gnostic gospel, there is a remnant “left behind at the end of the tale.” And that is the shadowy archons that were never a part of the original creation because they did not come from the “first cause” discussed earlier. The shadows of the Demiurge did not come from the Fullness or the fallen Aeon, but are only the absence of the qualities of that Aeon, this is why they are referred to as shadows. They are figments that do not have a reality outside of the Deficiency. Therefore, they have no home to return to in the Fullness of God. They are not from the Fullness. And he talks a bit about Hegel's system and dismisses it, and I'm not going to go into it. Hart says, The story Christians tell is of creation as God's sovereign act of love, neither adding to nor qualifying His eternal nature. And so it is also a story that leaves no room for an ultimate distinction between the universal truth of reason and the moral meaning of the particular, or for any distinction between the moral meaning of the particular and the moral nature of God. Only by insisting upon the universality of God's mercy could Paul, in Romans 11.32, liberate himself from the fear that the particularity of that mercy would prove to be an ultimate injustice, and that in judging His creatures, God would reveal Himself not as the good God of faithfulness and love, but as an inconstant God who can shatter His own covenants at will. Hart reminds us that down through the centuries, Christians have again and again subscribed to formulations of their faith that clearly reduce a host of cardinal Christian theological usages, most especially moral predicates like good, merciful, just, benevolent, loving, to utter equivocity, and that by association, reduce their entire grammar of Christian belief to meaninglessness. [On the next page, 75, he says], consider, to begin with the mildest of moral difficulties, how many Christians down the centuries have had to reconcile their consciences to the repellent notion that all humans are at conception already guilty of a transgression that condemns them justly to eternal separation from God and eternal suffering, and that in this doctrine's extreme form, every newborn infant belongs to a massa damnata, hateful in God's eyes from the first moment of existence. Hart loves to throw in Latin. Massa damnata obviously means that the masses would be damned. The very notion of an inherited guilt is a logical absurdity, rather on the order of a square circle. All that the doctrine can truly be taken to assert, speaking logically, is that God willfully imputes to innocent creatures a guilt they can never have really contracted out of what, from any sane perspective, can only be called malice. But this is just the beginning of the problem. For one broad, venerable stream of tradition, God, on the basis of this imputation, consigns the vast majority of the race to perpetual torment, including infants who die unbaptized. And may I point out that in Gnostic Christianity there is no inherited guilt at all because the Fall was not caused by the first humans, Adam and Eve, but occurred at the Aeonic level. Christianity carries a remnant of that understanding forward when it refers to “fallen angels,” but it does not connect the dots to realize their culpability in original sin. And then the theology of grace grows grimmer, for according to the great Augustinian tradition, since we are somehow born meriting not only death but eternal torment, we are enjoined to see and praise a laudable generosity in God's narrow choice to elect a small remnant for salvation, before and apart from any consideration of their concrete merits or demerits, and this further choice either to predestine or infallibly to surrender the vast remainder to everlasting misery. So it is that, for many Christians down the years, the rationale of evangelization has been a desperate race to save as many souls as possible from God. The time has really gotten away from us, and we've only touched the first meditation, so I hope you are enjoying this theology. It's theology, and I know that's difficult slog, but I'm sharing with you these thoughts because they comprise basically the sum total of Christian theology for the past 2,000 years, and it has gone through changes here and there. David Bentley Hart is a scholar of Eastern Orthodoxy and a scholar of religion and philosopher and so forth, and I think that he has very clear sight. So we'll pick this up one more time next week, and I promise we'll wrap it up. Onward and upward! God bless us all! This book gathers the essential insights of gnosis into a clear, approachable form. Gnosis can be as simple or as intricate as you choose to make it, but its heart is always accessible. A Simple Explanation guides you through the often tangled vocabulary and shifting landscapes of Gnostic thought, offering a path that is both illuminating and easy to follow. The glossary alone is a treasure—an indispensable reference for anyone exploring ancient Christian mysticism, the Nag Hammadi texts, or the deeper layers of spiritual philosophy. Now available in paperback, hardback, Kindle, and audiobook editions through amazon and your local booksellers.

We're within the Self-Consciousness chapter of The Phenomenology of Spirit, specifically starting at sec. 206, which is the transition between two sections we've already considered on this podcast: Stoicism (and Skepticism) and Reason. The more famous part of the self-consciousness portion of the book is on the Master-Slave conflict, and in this section, we've got a similar dividedness, but it's all within one psyche, like you're being tortured by a voice in your head that you don't realize is just part of you. We go between three different translations here: Pinkard, Inwood, and finally Miller, which is what we normally use and will use going forward. You can choose to watch this on unedited video. To get future parts, subscribe at ⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Close on the heels of Renée Good's death, Minneapolis protestor Alex Pretti was killed in another altercation with ICE agents. Investigation into both incidents will hopefully make judgment easier in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion the situation looks grim. Losing ground on the media battlefield and in polls ahead of the midterms, Trump must consider the extent and nature of his mandate on immigration. This week, the guys take a hard look at the electoral reality and discuss what it means for the Right's policy agenda. Plus: regulatory bloat (aka Hegel's revenge) makes it hard to translate political will into meaningful action in the UK, while inclement weather and exploding trees (!) make for an eventful week in the U.S. Get full access to Claremont Digital Plus at claremontinstitute.substack.com/subscribe

Join me in a profound exploration of time, eternity, and human consciousness with Professor Sean Kelly, philosopher and author of "Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era."This conversation delves into William Blake's enigmatic line "Eternity is in love with the productions of time," examining the dialectic between finite temporal experience and the eternal realm. From ancient Greek cosmology to Christian mysticism, from Hegel's philosophy to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, this episode weaves together Eastern and Western wisdom traditions to illuminate the sacred nature of temporal existence. Discover how kairos moments—those opportune times when the eternal breaks into ordinary experience—can be cultivated through contemplative practice, engagement with beauty, and openness to the sacred.Topics Explored:The relationship between eternity and temporal existenceIntegral time and developmental cosmologyKronos vs. Kairos: sequential time and sacred momentsThe eternal recurrence as "one turn of the wheel"Intermediary beings and nested hierarchies of consciousnessPractical wisdom for cultivating kairos experiencesThe role of art, nature, and contemplation in accessing timeless awarenessTimestamps: 2:12 - Blake's "Eternity in love with the productions of time"4:33 - Spatializing time: Ancient Greek cosmology 8:00 - Two realms of experience: Sub-lunar and eternal 12:00 - The erotic link between time and eternity 15:00 - Time as matrix for divine productions 18:00 - Integral non-dualism: East meets West 22:00 - Integral time and developmental cosmos 28:00 - The block universe vs. process philosophy 34:00 - Intermediary beings and higher dimensional time 42:00 - Kronos: Sequential time and human experience 48:00 - Memory, anticipation, and character development 52:00 - Kairos: The opportune moment58:00 - Christ as kairos and the fractal nature of sacred time 66:00 - Cultivating kairos: Practical guidance 72:00 - Music, nature, and aesthetic experience 78:00 - Nietzsche's eternal recurrence84:00 - One turn of the wheel: Integral time perspective 90:00 - Closing reflectionsGuest Bio: Professor Sean Kelly teaches philosophy at California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) and has made significant contributions to integral, transpersonal, and evolutionary philosophy. His work bridges Eastern and Western wisdom traditions, exploring consciousness, cosmology, and the human experience of time.

In this episode of Chasing Leviathan, PJ Wehry is joined by philosopher Dr. Adebayo Oluwayomi, assistant professor of philosophy at West Chester University of Pennsylvania, to discuss his book Foundations of Black Epistemology: Knowledge, Discourse, and Africana Philosophy.The conversation examines how philosophical canons are formed, who is recognized as a knower, and how Black thinkers have often been treated as secondary or optional within Western philosophy. Dr. Oluwayomi argues that philosophy is never neutral and that canon formation reflects deeper questions of power, exclusion, and epistemic harm.They discuss major figures such as Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel, focusing not only on their influence but also on the racial assumptions that are frequently ignored in philosophical education. The episode then turns to Black intellectuals including Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, and Huey P. Newton, showing how their work contributes substantively to epistemology, moral reasoning, political theory, and liberation movements.Dr. Oluwayomi's work challenges inherited assumptions about philosophy, knowledge, and authority, and asks what is lost when entire traditions are treated as peripheral rather than foundational.Make sure to check out Dr. Oluwayomi's book: Foundations of Black Epistemology: Knowledge Discourse in Africana Philosophy

Contribute to the East West Lecture Series fundraiser: theeastwestseries.com Today, Dr. Jacobs tackles the common objection: Was ancient Christianity infiltrated by Greek philosophy, such that it required a reformation or restoration? The answer is a resounding no. Follow Dr. Jacobs as he tracks the history through Old and New Testaments, German Idealism, and of course, a little realism and nominalism dusted on top for good measure. All the links: Substack: https://nathanajacobs.substack.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thenathanjacobspodcastWebsite: https://www.nathanajacobs.com/X: https://x.com/NathanJacobsPodSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0hSskUtCwDT40uFbqTk3QSApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nathan-jacobs-podcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/nathanandrewjacobsAcademia: https://vanderbilt.academia.edu/NathanAJacobs00:00:00 Intro 00:02:05 The case for Hellenistic or Platonized Christian baggage 00:06:49 German idealism 00:15:21 Hegel and the Church Fathers 00:20:08 The leftist Hegelians, atheism, and Christianity 00:26:18 The protestant application00:30:42 Open theism 00:35:16 Hebrew ideas vs Greek ideas 00:42:00 Mathematical truth vs Philosophical truth00:50:07 Realism and nominalism 00:56:03 The Septuagint and the Jewish shift away 01:03:58 Are the Church Fathers platonists? 01:19:19 Idealism in Old Testament studies 01:25:11 Cases in the New Testament 

durée : 00:03:52 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - Pourquoi structurer la pensée en trois parties ? D'où vient la structure thèse-antithèse-synthèse ? Hegel y voyait un dépassement des contradictions. Mais faut-il toujours les surmonter ? Et si la triangulation éclaire plutôt la dualité ? - réalisation : Louise André

A conversation with Michael Lazarus about his recent book, "Absolute Ethical Life: Aristotle, Hegel, and Marx" (Stanford University Press).

SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK is back on the show to talk about his new book Quantum History: A New Materialist Philosophy. We're talking Quantum Variations, Superposition, Wave Collapse, Catastrophe, & So On.Thank you to everyone for supporting our project and keeping us going. The series on Quantum History will continue with some more interviews and episodes with some great guests who have been working on all of these things and we're looking forward to it!After Ž our next guest is philosopher and friend of the show Agon Hamza to talk about history, Hegel, Freud, War, and the work of Slavoj Žižek.SUPPORT US ON PATREON!See you in Paris,Ž&…

Felsefe ve Kritik'in bu bölümünde düşünce tarihinin en etkili ve en zor filozoflarından biri olan Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel masaya yatırılıyor. Kaan Özkan ve Ömer Albayrak; Hegel'in felsefesini, tarih anlayışını, tin kavramını, diyalektiğini ve modern düşünceye getirdiği eleştirileri detaylı biçimde tartışıyor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul Axton preaches, describing the transformed mind, or knowing God as the suspension of the common Jewish and Enlightenment notion of God and, recognized by Hegel. Paul's suspension of the law and Hegel's negation of the negation as the displacement of a mediated notion of God and direct knowing in Christ, are making the same argument about the necessity to cease believing in the God of the law so as to believe in the Father of Christ. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

Lo último de Escohotado acaba de ver la luz. Si, ya sé que el maestro murió hace más de tres años, pero algo dejó escrito para que ahora su hijo Jorge lo haya adaptado para su publicación póstuma. Ese algo es la “Filosofía para no filósofos” publicado por la editorial Espasa y que supone la última de las lecciones escohotadianas. No es un libro enteramente nuevo, se trata de una adaptación de textos anteriores como “Filosofía y metodología de las ciencias sociales” publicado hace más de cuarenta años y “Génesis y evolución del análisis científico”, que vio la luz a principios de siglo. En ambos casos se encuentran descatalogados, luego tenemos la oportunidad de acceder a un material de primera calidad que nació en las clases que Escohotado impartía en la UNED. “Filosofía para no filósofos” hace honor al título. Es un texto accesible para un público amplio y cumple con creces la promesa de ofrecer un recorrido por la historia del pensamiento occidental desde los orígenes míticos hasta el siglo XX. En tanto que no deja de ser un manual de filosofía se puede abordar en cualquiera de los 24 capítulos que tiene. Arranca con el pensamiento arcaico y precientífico para luego adentrarse en la filosofía griega desde los presocráticos como Tales, Heráclito o Parménides hasta los grandes sistemas filosóficos de Platón y Aristóteles, a los que Escohotado critica por su excesivo idealismo. Hace hincapié en figuras como Epicuro y Lucrecio como precursores del racionalismo científico, y dedica espacio a la ciencia helenística personificada en Euclides y Arquímedes. Pasa de puntillas por la edad media ya que, a juicio del autor, es una época no especialmente innovadora en materia de pensamiento. El renacimiento y la modernidad, auténticas especialidades de Escohotado, los trata con gran detalle. A lo largo de varios capítulos desfilan los principales pensadores europeos de los siglos XV, XVI, XVII y XVIII: Copérnico, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Spinoza (al que admira especialmente), Leibniz, empiristas ingleses como Locke, Berkeley y Hume, la Ilustración francesa e Immanuel Kant, al que dedica un capítulo entero Es un libro claro y totalmente accesible al lector lego en filosofía. Escohotado escribe con su característica elegancia, pero con un lenguaje directo, en ocasiones irónico y salpicado de anécdotas cotidianas. Su mérito principal es el de evitar a propósito la abstrusa jerga de los filósofos que hacen inabordables sus obras. Consigue hacer más o menos comprensibles conceptos realmente complejos como los sistemas filosóficos de Kant o Hegel. A todo le añade su perspectiva personal, determinada, caro está, por sus propias convicciones. Escohotado en vida defendía la libertad individual y el uso de la razón y, al mismo tiempo, criticaba de forma inmisericorde el irracionalismo y el colectivismo. No es, por lo tanto, un manual neutro, un resumen de historia de la filosofía. Cada una de sus páginas está impregnada por el espíritu y la erudición del autor. Una obra, en definitiva, muy valiosa e instructiva. Sirve como manual para aprender filosofía sí, pero también como punto de partida a muchas y muy buenas reflexiones sobre el mundo y la naturaleza humana. Hoy vamos a hablar de “Filosofía para no filósofos” en La ContraPortada. No estará el autor con nosotros (ya me gustaría), pero si su hijo Jorge, que es, como decía antes, quien se ha encargado de revisar esta edición y darle su forma final. - "Filosofía para no filósofos" de Antonio Escohotado - https://amzn.to/3Yih3B5 · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #escohotado #filosofia Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

9 Hours and 55 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the first 10 episodes of our ongoing Continental Philosophy series with Thomas777. He covers Aristotle, Thucydides, Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Grotius, and Hegel.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

In this conversation, Jay Morris speaks with Dr James Bryson about the modern crisis of meaning and the difficulty of remaining spiritually oriented in a world shaped by reductionist accounts of mind, body, and nature. They reflect on the psychological and cultural repercussions of a scientific picture that brackets teleology and final causes, leaving many modern people disembodied, disenchanted, and uncertain about purpose. While acknowledging the genuine success of modern science, Dr Bryson argues that its limits must be faced honestly, especially where questions of meaning, value, and the human heart are concerned. The discussion then turns to education and the experience of intellectual disinheritance. Dr Bryson reflects on his own formation through a liberal arts education and the humbling discovery of the vast conversation that constitutes the Western tradition. Reading Plato, Dante, and Hegel not as isolated figures but as interlocutors across time, he emphasizes that tradition is a lineage we already inhabit, whether consciously or not. To read historically, he suggests,  is not to retreat into the past, but to become aware of the forces shaping our thinking and to take responsibility for them. The conversation culminates in a meditation on teaching, love, and the philosophical life. Dr Bryson argues that education at its best does not impose conclusions, but kindles desire, granting students permission to pursue the questions that genuinely move them. Drawing on Plato's understanding of eros, he describes philosophy as an act of midwifery, helping ideas come to birth rather than dictating outcomes. In an age marked by spiritual malaise and intellectual fragmentation, the conversation offers a hopeful vision of education as the recovery of orientation, enchantment, and the shared pursuit of wisdom. Applications for Ralston College's MA in the Humanities are now open. Learn more and apply today at www.ralston.ac/apply Authors, Artists, and Works Mentioned in this Episode: Plato   Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit   Blaise Pascal Dante Plotinus Homer Virgil Alfred North Whitehead Arthur O. Lovejoy Aristotle Johann Gottlieb Fichte Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy An Outline of European Architecture by Nikolaus Pevsner Dante's Paradiso The Ring of Truth by Roger Scruton The Magician's Nephew by C.S. Lewis  

TIANANMEN SQUARE AND THE UNMASKING OF THE COMMUNIST PROJECT Colleague Professor Sean McMeekin. The conversation begins with the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, framed not as an anomaly but as the definitive "unmasking" of the communist regime. While the protests initially gathered to mourn reformer Hu Yaobangand coincided with Gorbachev's visit, the subsequent violence revealed that political brutality, rather than popular sovereignty, is the essence of the communist project. Professor McMeekin argues that Tiananmen stripped away the pretense of the "consent of the governed," proving the regime relied entirely on raw force. The discussion traces the origins of this ideology to Karl Marx, a Prussian philosopher influenced by Hegel. McMeekin posits that Marx was primarily a "wordsmith" who viewed history as an abstract binary struggle between oppressors and the oppressed, treating communism as a philosophical "word game" rather than serious economic theory. NUMBER 1 1945 MOSCOW