Podcasts about hegel

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

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.

Florian Schroeder ist Satiriker, Kolumnist, Hörfunk- und Fernsehmoderator und Autor von Büchern wie »Unter Wahnsinnigen – Warum wir das Böse brauchen« und »Happy End - Warum Du ohne Glück glücklicher bist«.Ein Gespräch über Patti Smith, Hegel und Friedrich Merz' vergebliche Versuche gemocht zu werden, über Anti-Dogmatische Haltung, ab wann es keine Idole mehr gibt und was die Voraussetzung sind, um die Wirklichkeit zu kommentieren, über Texte von Karl Schmidt, Nick Land und Curtis Yarvin, über das Ende der Silicon Valley Ära, die Auflösung von Widersprüchen im chinesischen System und was denn jetzt wirklich “Glück” ist.Zur Folge⁠⁠Florian Schröder im NetzBuch: »Happy End - Warum Du ohne Glück glücklicher bist«⁠⁠ (signiertes Exemplar bei Dussmann)⁠⁠Podcast Homepage⁠Unterstützung

Antiseri ha rappresentato nel migliore dei modi la figura del filosofo dei nostri tempi: tanto colto quanto disponibile a incontrare le istanze della contemporaneità, a discutere con tutti, a cominciare dai giovani studenti che incontrava in aula; ed è proprio su questo aspetto della sua vita di studioso che vorrei incentrare il mio ricordo. - Flavio Felice su AvvenireOggi è scomparso Dario Antiseri, grande filosofo e storico della filosofia che è stato il maestro di generazioni di liberali della LUISS di Roma. Antiseri è stato un alfiere della “società aperta”, di quella speciale interpretazione dei rapporti tra persone ed istituzioni che ha appreso e studiato direttamente da Karl Popper, dedicandosi alla diffusione di queste idee in Italia anche in quegli anni in cui il discorso politico era dominato da una cultura marxista intollerante, chiusa alle istanze provenienti dalla cultura liberale, introducendo la filosofia politica di un epistemologo che ardiva presentare Platone, Hegel e Marx come i profeti della “società chiusa”.Abbiamo voluto ricordarlo in una LIVE speciale di LeoniFiles insieme a:Raimondo CubedduEnzo Di NuoscioFlavio FeliceAlberto MingardiRoberta Adelaide ModugnoFlorindo RubbettinoConduce Carlo StagnaroPreferisci seguire su YouTube?

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

Stāsta komponists un kontrabasists Kristaps Pētersons; pārraides producente – Rūta Paula    Stikla šķiedra, piena un maizes kombināti, ugunsdzēšamo iekārtu rūpnīca, gaļas kombināts, mēbeļu kombināts – Valmiera 1994. gadā bija varena pilsēta. Tad, kad brīnišķīgā režisore Māra Ķimele 1994. gada 8. janvāra rītā nebrauca uz pašas režisēto izrādi III Senās mūzikas festivāla Valmierā ietvaros, viņas uzmanību neviļus nepiesaistīja Rīgas ielas asfalta segums. Gaisa temperatūra nebija mīnusos un ielas segums nedz mirdzēja, nedz laistījās fraktāļu struktūru skāvumā. Pilnīgi droši viņa tad neievēroja arī vienu no Latvijas arhitektūrā ievērojamākajiem funkcionālisma celtniecības paraugiem – bankas ēku Rīgas ielā 40 ar franču firmas Fichet seifu, kas pēc arhitektu Anša Kalniņa un Emmas Krēsliņas [2] projekta tapusi 1931./32. gadā. Autobuss brauca bez režisores pa Rīgas ielu tālāk pa parasto maršrutu. Dažas sekundes vēlāk viņa neievēroja arī kūpošos dūmus no katlu mājas skursteņa, veicot 90° pagriezienu no Rīgas uz Andreja Upīša ielu. Arī tipogrāfiju "Liesma" A. Upīša ielā 7 Māra Ķimele neaplūkoja pat pāris sekundes. Tas nekādi nebija iespējams. Autobuss tad nogriezās pa labi uz Beātes ielu – asfalts nemirdzēja un nelaistījās vēl joprojām. Var ticēt, ka režisore būtu bijusi gatava bez īpašām ceremonijām no autobusa kāpt ārā, kad tas iebrauca Raiņa ielā un neredzama vairs nebija arhitekta Arnolda Nikolaja Čuibes [3] projektētā, 1938./39. gadā celtā neoeklektiskā [bijusī] Valsts komercskolas ēka – tur viņas režisētajai izrādei bija jānotiek. No autobusa izkāpa senās mūzikas vokālā ansambļa "Canto" mūziķi. Dažas stundas iepriekš, Sietlā Krists Novoseličs [1] bija pabeidzis "Nirvana" [4] uzstāšanos "Center Arena" ar vārdiem: "Liels paldies, ka atnācāt, jūs esat brīnišķīga publika! Brauciet mājās prātīgi! Atcerieties, ja esat lietojuši alkoholu – nevadiet auto. Atcerieties iet balsot vēlēšanās. Atcerieties nešķērsot ielu tam neparedzētās vietās." [5] Bet "Canto" uzstāšanās bija paredzēta 17:00 ar itāļu zvaigznes Adriāno Bankjēri [6] slaveno komēdiju "Maza ballīte Karnevāla ceturtdienas vakarā pirms vakariņām" [7]. Ja man būtu bijusi humora izjūta, man "Mazā ballīte" būtu patikusi. Izrādes ievadā uz jautru sarīkojumu visus aicina Moderno Diletto tēls. Gribētos tulkot – Modernais diletants, bet google translate saka – Modernais prieks. Jau jūtama kaitinoša kņudoņa vēderā. Un jo tālāk, jo nepatīkamāk. Pēc uzrunas seko padsmit numuru virtene ar, piemēram, Kjodžas veču dziesmu, ar mīlētāju dziedājumu, ar tantes Bernadīnes stāstu par žagatu, kas lamājas. Vēl ir suņa, dzeguzes, kaķa un pūces kontrapunkts, kuru kāds asprātīgi nosaucis – "cantus fermus", muļķa mīlas madrigāls, vīna dzeršana un joki par sērkociņiem un lupatām. Respektīvi – ar katru numuru bēdīgāk. Uz atvadām "Moderno Diletto" sola drīz atgriezties ar jauniem jokiem. Apmēram tāds saturs – delartisks – šiem kumēdiņiem, ar kuriem režisore Māra Ķimele bija tikusi galā. Izrāde tika iestudēta kārtīgi. Tā ir ierakstīta Latvijas Televīzijā. Ansamblis "Canto" [8] bija lielisks un režisorei [9] nekas tur vairs nebija darāms! Kad iestudējums gatavs, režisorei ir jādod telpa izpildītājiem, jo mākslas darba atdošana publikai pilnībā attiecas uz viņiem. Šo izrādi uztvēru ļoti personiski – kāds tur vēl Modernais prieks? Vārdnīcā kļūda! Modernais diletants ir. Apvainojos. Tāpēc iestudējumu neredzēju. "Die Schuld ist nicht das gleichgültige doppelsinnige Wesen, daß die Tat, wie sie wirklich am Tage liegt, Tun ihres Selbsts sein könne oder auch nicht, als ob mit dem Tun sich etwas Äußerliches und Zufälliges verknüpfen könnte, das dem Tun nicht angehörte, von welcher Seite das Tun also unschuldig wäre. ... Unschuldig ist daher nur das Nichttun wie das Sein eines Steines..." (Georgs Vilhelms Frīdrihs Hēgelis) [10] "Vaina būtībā nav vēsa un neskaidra, it kā paveiktais, kāds tas patiesi redzams dienas gaismā, varētu vai varbūt nevarētu būt paša cilvēka darbība, it kā varētu pastāvēt kaut kas ārējs un nejaušs, kas šai darbībai nepieder, un kura dēļ tā būtu nevainīga. Gluži pretēji, īstenībā nevainība ir akmenim līdzīga bezdarbība." [11] Izmantotā literatūra Raksts sagatavots, izmantojot Oksfordas mūzikas vārdnīcas, "Broekmans & Van Poppel" izdevniecības (Utrehta, Nīderlande), portāla livenirvana.com, Valmieras integrētās bibliotēkas, Valmieras zonālā Valsts arhīva un Valmieras muzeja materiālus [1] Novoselic, Krist (dzimis Komptonā 1965. g.) horvātu izcelsmes amerikāņu mūziķis, grupas "Nirvana" basģitārists, politiķis un aktīvists [2] Kalniņš, Ansis (dzimis 1903. g. – miris Rīgā 1944. g.) 1931. g. beidzis Latvijas Universitātes arhitektūras fakultāti un Kalniņa (dz. Krēsliņa), Emma (dzimusi Valmierā 1899. g. – mirusi Rīgā 1985. g.) 1934. g. beigusi LU arhitektūras fakultāti, strādājusi privātpraksē kopā ar vīru A. Kalniņu (1934 – 1942) un citur [3] Čuibe, Arnolds Nikolajs (dz. 1908. g. Valmierā – m. 1941. g. Rīgā) 1933. gadā beidzis Latvijas Universitātes arhitektūras fakultāti, Izglītības ministrijas Skolu departamenta arhitekts [4] "Nirvana" – amerikāņu rokgrupa no Aberdīnas, saistīta ar Sietlas alternatīvās mūzikas ainavu, radusies 1988. g. [5] "Thanks a lot for coming, you're a wonderful audience, have a safe ride home, remember not to drink and drive. Remember to vote, remember not to jaywalk [..]"; Kristapa Pētersona tulkojums [6] Banchieri, Adriano (dzimis Boloņā 1568. g. – miris Boloņā 1634. g.) itāļu komponists, ērģelnieks un teorētiķis. Ērģelnieks Sanmikelē, Bosko un Monte Oliveto, kur 1613. g. kļuva par abatu. Olivetāņu mūks. [7] "Il Festino nella sera del giovedi grasso avanti cena" Op. XVIII (Venezia 1608); Kristapa Pētersona tulkojums [8] senās mūzikas vokālais ansamblis "Canto" (vad. Irēna Nelsone) nomināli skaitījās amatieri – nebija aizmirsuši muzicēšanas prieku un savienoja to ar azartiski precīzu izpildījumu un izcilu stila izjūtu [9] Māra Ķimele ir viena no ievērojamākajām režisorēm Latvijas teātra ainavā, izcilība; nenovērtējams ir viņas devums Valmierai (līdz 1994. gadam viņa Valmieras Drāmas teātrī bija iestudējusi 36 lugas), īpašu vietu viņas mākslā allaž ieņēmuši tieši latviešu dramaturgu darbu iestudējumi – tie, kuriem ir paveicies būt klāt brīžos, kad režisore iestudē kādu lugu, atceras fenomenālas analītiķes spējas un prasmi atrastās cēloņsakarības sasaistīt ar pasaules kontekstu [10] Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (dzimis Štutgartē 1770. g. – miris Berlīnē 1831. g.); citāts no Hēgelis, G. V. F. "Gara fenomenoloģija", VI, "Gars" (Hegel, G. W. F. "Phänomenologie des Geistes", VI, "Der Geist") [11] Ievas Ginteres tulkojums

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

Vi hylder frihed, selvrealisering og retten til at være ligeglad med andre. Men man kan ikke være sig selv alene. Rune Selsing forklarer, hvorfor Hegels kritik af individualisme, materialisme og gudløshed er mere aktuel end nogensinde. Dagens gæst har læst G.W.F. Hegels Åndens fænomenologi fra 1807 tre gange og mener, at Hegel var verdens første borgerlige filosof og kulturanalytiker. Hegel er højaktuel i dag, fordi han allerede i lyset af Den Franske Revolution forstod, hvad moderniteten førte med sig ved siden af mere frihed og større velstand: ensomhed, fremmedgørelse, anerkendelsestrang og Guds død. Det beder jeg Rune Selsing om at uddybe og forklare, så selv værten kan være med. Rune Selsing er økonom og filosof og forfatter til "Den borgerlige orden" sm.m. sin hustru Eva Agnete Selsing. Han har været fast kommentator i Jyllands-Posten siden 2012 og laver sammen med Eva podcasten Kreutzersonaten, hvor de taler om bøger og filosoffer, de elsker eller hader. Deres nylige podcast om Hegel kan høres her.

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

Rememoramos el maravilloso momento vivido en Carlos Casares, y lanzamos nuestra comunidad de WhatsApp a la que te invitamos a sumarte en este link https://chat.whatsapp.com/Kn5rrjKwabiAaWGUpFL0hO y recibir material Bioexistente exclusivo.

Viola Carofalo"Etica della differenza sessuale"Luce IrigarayOrthotes Editricewww.orthotes.comIl libro rappresenta il manifesto del pensiero di Luce Irigaray, o meglio il nucleo iniziale della sua riflessione sul soggetto donna – un'etica e una politica nuove che prendono principio dalla differenza sessuale – i cui singoli argomenti saranno affrontati uno alla volta nei testi successivi.La risposta alla differenza sessuale di Luce Irigaray è affermativa: i sessi sono per natura diversi, ontologicamente. Nella filosofia occidentale il pensiero maschile si è imposto come soggetto universale e neutro, che costruisce il mondo a partire da sé e che sottrae all'essere sessuato femminile l'accesso al simbolico e dunque la capacità di autosignificarsi. È necessario per le donne colmare la mancanza di un pensiero proprio su se stesse e sul mondo, dotandosi di uno strumento conoscitivo che riconsegni loro questa capacità fondativa.Il punto di partenza non può che essere il corpo, sede di origine fisica e simbolica.Questo libro parte da un assunto: ogni epoca ha una ‘cosa' e una soltanto da pensare, un solo compito, una sola urgenza. Per questa ragione ogni persona che scrive, pensa, fa filosofia è e deve essere contemporaneamente dentro e fuori dal suo tempo. Ne è immersa fino al collo, se ne è nutrita, si è socializzata attraverso i suoi simboli e le sue idee dominanti. Ma contemporaneamente è anche fuori, capace di cambiare quel tempo, di prevedere nuove nascite e nuove grammatiche, continue rotture che lo trasformino in maniera sotterranea o dirompente.Per Luce Irigaray la ‘cosa' che la sua epoca ha da pensare è la differenza sessuale.Invitata nel 1982 a tenere un ciclo di lezioni presso l'Università Erasmus di Rotterdam, la filosofa e psicanalista belga sceglie questo come tema attorno al quale organizzare il suo progetto di critica radicale del pensiero e, soprattutto, di ricostruzione, per la fondazione di una nuova genealogia. Irigaray immagina il mondo della cultura, della filosofia, dell'arte, della politica, come contemporaneamente pronto ed impaziente per questa nuova nascita, per questa rigenerazione, e resistente ad essa.Gli anni precedenti, quelli dei movimenti e delle lotte del Dopoguerra, gli anni Sessanta e Settanta, hanno visto incredibili progressi nel campo dei diritti, ma anche dei modi e delle forme della rappresentazione del femminile. Le donne hanno iniziato ad esistere nel discorso pubblico, ad essere raccontate e a prendere parola, ma forse questo cambiamento non è stato abbastanza profondo. Manca quella rottura che Irigaray in questo libro vorrebbe preparare, rendere possibile.Una cesura epocale, veramente rivoluzionaria, esige una mutazione profonda. Questa mutazione parte da una critica al pensiero filosofico occidentale, e in particolare a quello di Hegel, pensiero con il quale Irigaray ha un rapporto burrascoso e ininterrotto, che attraversa tutta la sua riflessione, dalla prima opera, Speculum. Dell'altro in quanto donna del 1974, alla più recente, Nascere. Genesi di un nuovo essere umano del 2017, passando, ovviamente, per Etica della differenza sessuale. Obiettivo critico per eccellenza di Irigaray è la dialettica che, come vedremo a proposito della figura di Diotima, costituisce l'acme di un pensiero che rimuove/oggettifica la differenza. Da Platone in poi, primo dei filosofi chiamati in causa e messi sotto torchio nelle lezioni raccolte in questo volume, questo pensiero si fonda sul meccanismo per il quale dall'Idea discendono proiezioni imperfette ed incomplete. Così i soggetti nella loro concretezza, il corpo, i corpi, la differenza, vengono squalificati: l'aspirazione all'Uno, all'Assoluto e all'Universale, che si deposita nel pensiero e nel linguaggio, si paga con la soppressione dei soggetti in carne ed ossa, con il loro depotenziamento. La rimozione della donna, del femminile, nasce, per Irigaray, dunque da questa aspirazione e dall'operazione mistificatoria per cui, dietro all'Universale si cela, in realtà, il maschile; «il soggetto si è sempre scritto al maschile, benché si pretendesse universale o neutro: l'uomo. Ciò non toglie che l'uomo – perlomeno in francese – non è neutro, ma sessuato. (…) Per le donne, restano le arti cosiddette minori: cucina, maglia, ricamo, cucito; eccezionalmente, la poesia, la pittura, la musica. Queste arti, quale che sia la loro importanza, oggi non fanno la legge. In ogni caso non apertamente». Fare la legge. L'ambizione e l'obiettivo ultimo di Irigaray, a dispetto di chi interpreta la sua filosofia della differenza come intervento limitato al piano dei linguaggi e delle rappresentazioni e alla costruzione di un mondo separato, delle e per le donne, è quello di rivoluzionare l'intero edificio simbolico per rendere il mondo vivibile per tutte le persone, renderlo un posto accogliente e fertile: «dobbiamo restare vivi e creatori di mondi», scrive, «questo è il nostro compito. Ma non si può assolverlo se non con l'opera di due metà del mondo: maschile e femminile».[Dall'Introduzione di Viola Carofalo]Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

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!

On Franz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks, ch. 7, B. "The Negro and Hegel." Hegel describes the abstract attainment of self-consciousness through recognition, but is this actually how it works in real slavery and its aftermath? Read along with us, p. 216 (PDF p. 234). You can choose to ⁠watch this on video⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Paul Axton preaches: The theme of Mathew captured in Immanuel, is completed in the Lord's Supper, in which the efficacious presence of God is made to bear on the lives of believers in what Hegel calls "actualized Christian Freedom." There is freedom from the violence of blood spilled in the taking up of the blood of Christ in the life of believers.  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.

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

This is a Patreon episode we liked so much that we unlocked it for everyone to hear. We hope you enjoy it. This week, Jason and Ben sat down to acknowledge and resolve all the contradictions that have manifested in our discussions on this podcast. Actually, we don't resolve anything, but we do acknowledge some things. Our listeners will know that we often disagree with the broader left, each other, and our earlier selves. While we don't manage to piece together a solid line for the podcast, we do manage to talk a lot about those contradictions.Send us a message (sorry we can't respond on here). Support the showVisit the Regrettable Century Merch Shop

Exploring Hegel's Vision of Progress and Freedom

--{ "Commerce, Christmas, and Caring"}-- Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - A brief update as this year draws to a close. - Depressing times for some, anxiety for others - CON-Sumer, Path of the unexpected - Lenin, Hegel, dialectical chessboard - Alternatives, primitive peoples - Life purpose, life quality, life reflections - Outworn Christmas ritual - Fake patriot leaders - Sumerian priest recruitment, technique. (Songs: "Baker Street" and "Right Next Time" by Gerry Rafferty, "You've Got A Friend" by James Taylor)

Episode: 1488 John, Washington, & Emily Roebling, and the Brooklyn Bridge.  Today, a family gives us the Brooklyn Bridge.

In this talk Paul Axton gave at a local restaurant, the focus is on outlining the Gospel of Matthew as Jesus as Temple recapitulation, the implication of which is Jesus taking up the historical, social, and legal situation of the Temple and Israel, and this is worked out by Gillian Rose and G.W.F. Hegel as addressing the injustice of the law and the Temple or the City of Man.  If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!    

The future of European thoughtWhat is analytic philosophy and what is continental philosophy? And, perhaps most importantly, does this distinction make any sense?The division between these two branches has divided Western philosophy for decades now, with the Anglo-Saxon world largely associated with the analytical school, and the European continent with the, well, continental one. In this panel, our speakers discuss the future of thought for Western philosophy and Europe. Is the division between these schools obsolete? Are they both under threat? What can we expect?Join our three philosophy professors, Christoph Schuringa, Genia Schönbaumsfeld, and Babette Babich to discuss these themes. Hosted by Danielle Sands.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

durée : 00:27:28 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda, Mathias Le Gargasson, Antoine Dhulster - Par Jean Amrouche - Présentation Pierre Desgraupes - Avec Jean Hyppolite (philosophe, spécialiste de Hegel), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (philosophe) et Jean Beaufret (philosophe, spécialiste de Heidegger) - réalisation : Rafik Zénine, Vincent Abouchar, Emily Vallat

A conversation with Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Professor Emerita of Early Modern History at the University of Munster and Rector of the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin. Germany is becoming increasingly important to this podcast, which is why we're digging into another aspect of this fascinating part of Europe. Dualism and dissolution; between fealty and federation; the unravelling of the Holy Roman Empire and a tumultuous period. All setting the stage for Napoleon Bonaparte...This discussion:- Explores the complexities and contradictions of the Holy Roman Empire in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, including its structure, political dynamics, and the concept of legitimacy.- Discusses the dualism and rivalry between Austria and Prussia, and how their ambitions and actions contributed to the fragmentation and eventual dissolution of the Empire.- Examines the significance of symbolism, rituals, and ceremonies in sustaining imperial power—and the ways these traditional forms were both maintained and undermined in practice.- Looks at cultural and intellectual responses to the era's upheavals, including the reactions of figures like Goethe, Schiller, and Hegel to the French Revolution and emerging German nationalism.- Considers the impact of Napoleon and the mediatisation of the Empire, questioning whether Napoleon was the executioner of the Holy Roman Empire or if its internal weaknesses had already sealed its fate.Help us produce more episodes by supporting the Napoleonic Quarterly on Patreon: patreon.com/napoleonicquarterly

TENE is joined by a very special guest, Alex from Antipolitka Journal, who guides us through the story of Gianfranco Sanguinetti—the rich, handsome communist revolutionary who predicted Gladio. Mentioned reading: Guy Debord - Anselm Jappe Debord, Time and Spectacle - Tom Bunyard Spectacular Logic in Hegel and Debord: Why Everything is What it Seems - Eric-John Russell   Related TENE Episodes: 240: Kali Yuga Reading Room - Freda's "Disintegration of the System" 239: Buddy Cops and Gladio - Piazza Fontana in a Film -------- Antipolitika: Anarchist Journal from the Balkans https://antipolitika.noblogs.org/ Available here: https://pmpress.org/ -------- Subscribe to patreon.org/tenepod @tenepod.bsky.social  x.com/tenepod  

What if the renewed fascination with Domenico Losurdo says more about our appetite for stability than about Marxism's future? We sit down with Ross Wolfe to unpack how a Verso‑to‑Monthly Review pipeline, a revived faith in China's statecraft, and the polemical stretching of “Western Marxism” built a Dengist common sense on the contemporary left. The story runs through publishing politics, bad categories, and a philosophical move that recodes the twentieth century's defeats as proof that the state must be forever.We press on the scholarship: where Losurdo distorts Perry Anderson, ignores Russell Jacoby's tighter frame, and sidelines entire currents like British Marxism, the Situationists, and Johnson–Forest. We reopen the Italian debates—Operaismo, Tronti, Althusser—and ask whether Sartre's and workerist priorities were really blind to anti‑colonial struggle or simply refused to romanticize models that never fit advanced capitalism. From there, we tackle the hinge: Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Does it license a permanent state, or did Marx and Lenin get it right that the state's existence tracks class antagonism and should wither as class society is abolished?The conversation widens to strategy. We examine the labor‑aristocracy thesis, the quiet third‑worldism that relieves organizers of responsibility at home, and the way China's present contradictions—major trade with Israel, BRICS diplomacy, GDP slowdown, regional rivalries—undercut claims that socialism can be national. If history “could only go this way,” what is left to change? We make the case for rebuilding class independence and international coordination in the core and periphery alike, not lowering horizons to match yesterday's outcomes.Subscribe, share, and leave a review to keep these long‑form dives alive. Then tell us: should the left reclaim the withering of the state—or retire it?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

Tiananmen Square, the Unmasking of Communism, and Karl Marx's Hegelian Roots Professor Sean McMeekin Professor Sean McMeekin's book, To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Communism, begins with the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 as the "tearing off of the mask" of communism, revealing raw force and brutality. The discussion traces communism back to Karl Marx, noting that he was a Hegelian who drew from Hegel the idea of history as a product of "incessant struggle," which Marx reduced to class struggle between oppressors and oppressed. Marx's theory, described as an "abstract word game" and a "philosophical project," posited that history would inevitably simplify into a "binary dialectical cataclysm" between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

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.