But i see time as an inherent property or effect of the transformation from 2 dimensional to the third. Once you have achieved that third dim, then you have mass, thus volume. Now that you have weight, the ramifications of that commences. Objects react with themselves and other objects. One reaction is motion.... the logical progression to space-time aka gravity inevitable.. at least that's how I explain it to myself

By the way - my mother’s names was Sophia and so today i sent the lecture to my two sons so we may this this great new inspiring ritual for every New Year’s Eve in memory of her absence; Before she died of cancer I asked her what was this all this about and she answered that we came here to be purified. So to me finding this lecture today was a great way to be reverent of all that is this perennial knowledge that decorates our inner aspirations to the good the true and beautiful as my mothers stands for SOPHIA (behind the Veil of the material) , like plato said - the absolute archetypes . We need these aspirations towards our better angels. What a way to start the YEAR 2025 ! I am so so grateful! May my sons carry on the tradition . This was such a great idea, Stephen

Here's a sample of the auto-generated captions (from the start): you're all very welcome to tonight's first Sophia lecture of the 2024 Sophia lecture series it's my privilege briefly I promise to introduce you tonight to roson college to the Sophia lectures and most importantly to our distinguished Sophia lecturer Dr Ian melist Rolston college is a Revival and a reinvention of the University it seeks simply speaking to emulate the greatest

Thank you for this suggestion, and we apologize for the oversight. We have gone in to correct errors and the changes should be live shortly. Thank you also for engaging with this content.

@@RalstonCollegeSavannah Ralston again shows us that the pursuit of excellence is not dead. How refreshing!

where is this from

@ It is a transposition of pragmatic communication. If you mean what is the interpretive source that would be me.

I like your description of being in a little cottage....

33:33

40:58

No ....

@@PerryWidhalm Well, at least you're parsimonious.

BOTH Ludwig and Martin were full-time criminals. 🐟 03. WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy, is the predilection for WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom, is the soundness of an action or a decision, with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and the principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek, “philosophia” (meaning, “love of wisdom”), and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which includes mainly European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. Furthermore, each of these two kingdoms can be loosely divided into lesser branches of philosophy, such as the Continental-analytical division of Western philosophy, and the various schools of epistemology of India, China, and Middle-East Asia, some of which are outlined below. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which the term, “philosophy”, is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and/or ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma (lawlessness), which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes, as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic”, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor, Socrates, as asserting that the best philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times, is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment, need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Sacred Scripture, in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena, are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. Cont...

@@TheWorldTeacher Cut and pasting is poor form. Perhaps put your understanding into your own words and terms.

All knowledge comes from fragmenting the ever-changing whole into defined bits and pieces. In-other-words, you cannot possibly express the whole unfolding reality via knowledge. The whole can only be experienced not delineated.

I don't see how somewhat Baconian metaphors of human meaning can deliver, in the end, much meaning.

@@PerryWidhalm One of the principle features of the world of learning Ralston College aims to promote is the idea of the canon, of authority, of learning from great authorship. Given that in 1999 Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations was voted by US professional philosophers to be the most important philosophical text published in the 20th. century., I have every right, even the duty, to draw on Wittgenstein's and Wittgensteinian philosophers' thinking in my comment. Only the remarks from Zettel are 'cut and pasted'. Should I have typed them from the original instead? What's your problem?

Yes, they will eventually make their way to this KZbin channel, but we encourage you to sign up for our emails to be notified about content like this: www.ralston.ac/subscribe