(yes I'm actually watching the lecture I'm just not that far in)

Bingo

Oh my god yes

does anyone know what year is this lecture recorded?

LMAO I couldn't quite point my finger at it but this is it.

❤️❌🧢

@@BrBoyJuu too cryptic please decipher to clear text

@@OnerousEthic no lies here ❤️

😊

Dr. Staloff has had plenty of opportunity to sharpen and perfect his Humean sense of humor by deploying it against my grim Kantian seriousness.

If this wasn’t 1991, I’d be shocked.

No it was later not sure which year but whenever American Psycho came out.

Most likely 1992. This is either from the 1st or 2nd edition of the "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition" course published by "The Great Courses". The 1st edition was published in 1992 and 2nd edition in 1994/96 and then a 3rd edition was released in 2000. The 3rd one did not have Dr Sugrue in it. I got these dates from the Worldcat site. I cannot confirm them, since the 1st and 2nd editions are no longer available in The Great Courses site.

this is from the first edition vhs

@@frimports Underrated comment.

Seems so, yes. Bach's second Brandenburg Concerto, first movement.

Thanks a lot buddy, appreciate it

Thanks time-stamp guy.

thanks friend

This would be amazing!

He’s being doing livestreams

@@Garvey-vm3qt He uploaded webinars that were pre-recorded. Going live and speaking with chat live has still never happened I think. If Socrates was a person of the polis, It would be fun to see Micheal as a person of the interwebs, chatting with all the wise, well-read and definately not insane people that will appear in the chat with the smartest comments.

@@frankbongio I see. Well that’s kind of a relief, the chats I’ve seen from the webinars were psycho to the maximum.

​@@Garvey-vm3qt 90's Professor of Classics and history vs Modern internet nihilistic culture. This is the Socrates vs Gorgias students of our modern age. I'd see so many red superchats.

The way he says "okay..." and "now..." at the end of the sentences. It's really similar.

Copy cut of Mr Sugrue, even the choice of slacks.

They use the exact same cadences, it's weird!

They are friends after all

Aristotle probably went to Eleusis and ingested psychedelic pharmakon too

At superficial level they seem similar. And yet, evolution is far from affirmation of being. It is a constant change. Whereas potentiality is an embeded power in being which makes a being actualize to a certain telos. In potentiality, there is called essence--the whatness of a being--realizing what it meant to be. What this entails is that potentiality is the actualization of the four causes which Aristotle discovered. In evolution both formal and final causes are not only ignored but also not recognized. Evolution entails a total change of being overtime--a very debetable at best hardly belivable theory. In short, whereas Darwinian evolution agonistic about the Mind behind all that is, where as Aristotlian potentiality acknoweldges implicityl Mind/Logos behind it all.

I have a lot of issues with Plato as well as Aristotle but the two compliment the groundbreaking ontological metaphysics that Socrates uncovered by turning the microscope from nature onto the observer, unpacking it from different angles in a way that ultimately led to phenomenology which ultimately led to the development of psychology. Aristotle maintains his prowess to this day when you relate his insights to the proper contexts, which is highly nuanced considering the myriad insights that have been hypothesized since their time which we may sometimes take for granted when approaching older works…I mean, Aristotle and Plato both rejected atomism, I think that plays a big part in why students of either may have a difficult time in objectively putting the horses before the cart.

@@TaxidermiedMessiah it is easy to eulogize someone without citing his grounding or ontology. Great minds of the west are stumped because of Aristotelian cage , where practice is divorced from theory. The mythology of finding mathematical truths through theory is the first categorical error Bertrand Russell takes 200 pages to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 ! This is an attempt to save the theological in mathematics, rejection of due diligence on funding the study of self from anything but savoring the subject as a third person is still the flavor ieven in Nietzsche who despite his insight of the internalization of cruelty never understands that life is ontologically a question of being before a a question of psychology of revenge.he is stuck in an Aristotelian binary accepting the reality of power as as a mission without recognizing its other,arrogant teenager Nietzsche has assumed that there are no other paradigms. He accepts Schopenhauer’ s pessimism without recognizing that the very pessimism is my own calling. Heidegger and the phenomenologists continue that error The issue lies with the entire western philosophy that considers God as the transcendent other, the so called atheist philosophers are believers u thus doxastic premise under the guise of Nature which is nothing but God presented as secular .the farce of division between faith and science is legitimation of Aristotelian Doxa , that claims its prejudiced opinion as” The truth”.Marx too is a victim of this Doxa. The entire approach to religion is based on Christian theme of accepting Gid as the other, not immanent but transcendent.The only difference between Bertrand Russell and Kierkegaard that Russel rejects the possibility of divinity because it is other worldly and Kierkegaard does nor, neither one of them can accept a Neo-Platenist position of immanence. The west does not understand that when I listen to Jimi Hendrix with all my heart that that is divinity.The west assume that when I refer to the music as divine I am being allegorical How close Schopenhauer comes to understand the realit is amazing but the negativity of Aristotle,e stops him he goes into pessimism as an ontological co diction as if it were god given! Sorry young man unless you are willing to prioritize ontology as experiential noumena always to be known through experience and deny the Kantian myth of not knowing noumena you operate under Aristotelian dogma the claims it’s Apriori prejudices as truthThe arragence if the west into a rejection of the study of the first person through s irnce is rejected when religion is exempted from scrutiny of due diligence and presented as a first person experience?Time to reject Aristotelian inquiry js ripe but due to the narrative set by the west eulogizing the Greeks this myth will continue in arts and letters in social sciences which operate on unquestioned premises . It serves the ruling classes to perpetuate the myth that their narrative is the truth that soundness questioning the premis is not important

@@arunjetli7909 that’s such a loaded response that you’re essentially just flexing by name dropping. It doesn’t disprove my suggesting an objective approach to their works, you are implying that I’m breaking bread with mainstream philosophical conceptions based on merely one comment - reveals more about you than it does about me.

@@TaxidermiedMessiah thsnks young messiah it would be better if you responded to the content rather than attacking me i said nothing about you

@@arunjetli7909 a) I’m going to step over your ad hominem accusations for the sake of respecting what you just proposed, regardless of whether or not I think you’re compensating for your emotional reactions with sophistry - b) your latter comment was loaded with way too many platitudes that would require hours to unpack, ex: when you cite Russell (a mathematician) who evaluated the bylaws associated with proposing 2+2=4 as an objective corollary to an ontology that outlines the dynamics of 1 being a singular object and 2 being a duplicate of the aforementioned compartmentalization, etc… I get that and concur with that. But then you jump to Nietzsche (a linguist) and outline another platitude that (pretentiously) contends his theory as an expansion to what you just said about Russell, are you proposing Wittgenstein’s formulation of alphanumerical delineation? Like I said, it just seems like name dropping. I’m not looking to meet some conclusion that is personally compromising to either you or me, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from when you propose that Aristotle should not maintain the status that he has…I mean, it’s coming off like you’re judging a cave painting in proportion to a baroque painting as if the caveman was exposed to the same faculty that a baroque painter would have at their disposal.