Aristotle vs. Kant on Epistemology and Ethics

In this lecture series, Dr. Peter Kreeft examines key ideas in philosophy by comparing and contrasting two representative philosophers in each episode.
In lecture 3, Dr. Kreeft examines the epistemology and ethics of Aristotle and Kant. Modern students have great difficulty believing common sense because our modern philosophies have percolated down to them through our modern culture.
To learn more about these philosophers and the other major philosophers who helped shape the world, check out Dr. Kreeft's book series, "Socrates' Children: An Introduction to Philosophy from the 100 Greatest Philosophers": books.wordonfire.org/socrates...
---WATCH---
Subscribe to this Channel: wordonfire.institute/youtube
Bishop Barron’s Channel: / @bishopbarron
Word on Fire en Español Channel: / @wof-es
---WORD ON FIRE INSTITUTE---
Join Bishop Barron and over 20,000 evangelists inside the Word on Fire Institute at wordonfire.institute
---WORD ON FIRE---
Word on Fire: www.wordonfire.org/
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): dailycatholicgospel.com/
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Bishop Barron Instagram: bit.ly/2Sn2XgD
Bishop Barron Facebook: bit.ly/2Sltef5
Bishop Barron Twitter: bit.ly/2Hkz6yQ
Word on Fire Instagram: bit.ly/39sGNyZ
Word on Fire Facebook: bit.ly/2HmpPpW
Word on Fire Twitter: bit.ly/2UKO49h
Word on Fire en Español Instagram: bit.ly/38mqofD
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: bit.ly/2SlthaL
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: bit.ly/38n3VPt
---SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE---
Donate: www.wordonfire.org/donate/
Word on Fire Store: store.wordonfire.org/
Pray: bit.ly/2vqU7Ft

[@stevecole3192]

I am only now learning of Dr. Kreeft. Had I only found him 30 years ago I feel I'd be a better person today.

[@LostArchivist]

There are tons of his material scattered across KZbin. He is awesome!

[@commercialrealestatephilos605]

Never too late 🙌🙏☝️

[@markwiechman8513]

Me too! I found his Practical Theology book a few years ago. I struggle with almost every book about these subjects except his and Bishop Barron.

[@stevecole3192]

@@markwiechman8513 You took the words right out of my mouth Mark. I tried reading Chesterton and couldn't get through chapter two. For me the beauty of Dr. Kreeft's lectures is I can pause and rewind! I'm old. Really old. Blessings from Kansas~

[@grmalinda6251]

My grandson liked him at 15.

[@rajendramisir3530]

Just beautiful comparison and contrast of Aristotelian and Kantian epistemology and ethics. You left us with an honest conclusion. Brilliant and insightful, Professor. Thanks for sharing.

[@tommore3263]

Professor Kreeft is maybe the most intelligent philosopher of our age. This is the core stuff of life.

[@Bob-hr1rj]

I agree. Wolfgang Smith is also brilliant.

[@Youdamana]

@@Bob-hr1rj Agreed for sure. Vertical causation....!

[@Youdamana]

@@88SunsetStrip Is he a philosopher?

[@charlesfisher83]

​​@Youdamana yes he teaches at Boston College

[@tommore3263]

@@Bob-hr1rj Agreed. Vertical causation.. works so well with Aquinas' Final Cause.. the Cause of causes.Cheers🙂

[@cameronturner3108]

I’m pumped for this. I’ve been following this series. It feeds me.

[@antoniomoyal]

Aristotle, Aquinas and Kreeft. Inconmensurable. Thank you.

[@eskorekpe1513]

M. J. Adler

[@markrobertbb]

Incommensurable means having no equally applicable standard, or simply incompatible. I'm sure you mean something else?

[@samtallen4156]

This series is awesome, please do more. God bless Word on Fire!!

[@gethimrock]

Thank you so much for this series WOF and Dr. Kreft. We need more of both of you!

[@dadadrew]

Kreeft gets better, clearer and more effective as he gets older and older. superb.

[@Youdamana]

Is Peter Kreeft the finest philosopher of our time? God bless you sir as you so richly bless us and restore the possibility of rational sanity in our world.

[@RichardIjaz-hv8gn]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. A generous man in true sense is how I think of you

[@Aqua_the_meek]

May God bless Peter kreeft and his work for all the conversions he inspires and enlightens

[@lupnasty]

This man is a national treasure.

[@edokeshishyan9449]

This series is amazing. The parallel between Sola Scriptura and Scientism was fantastic (6:40). I've never heard of any more convincing argument against Sola Scriptura than that.

[@davidconroy6350]

Dr. Kreeft did not properly define Sola Scriptura.

[@fopdoodler9427]

As a Calvinist, I know that Peter Kreeft created a strawman and attacked the strawman rather than what it means in reality. Sola Scriptura actually means that when a pope decides to sell indulgences to build a beautiful Church in the Vatican while the Bible tells us to be sober, he shouldn't be allowed to. He will be hostile to the Bible, which is God's Word.

[@nunoalvarespereira87]

​@@davidconroy6350Yes he did

[@Th3BigBoy]

​@@davidconroy6350 Maybe but he is using it the same way most people do today. I will make an observation and I'm immediately challenged to provide a Bible verse for it. This is naked Scriptura. Which is how the vast majority understand Sola Scriptura.

[@antoniomoyal]

I have to listen to it several times to take notes. The link of final cause with ethicts is an aspect I did not link so clearly. It is paramount to have a comprehensive understanding of ethics and how it links with the rest of existence.

[@lomaszaza7142]

Unless i misunderstood, you are asking about the relationship or the link between final cause and ethics right?? So here my take: In Aristotlian, final cause is not merely about time but about telos i.e. purpose or goal. So the final purpose of ethics is to know what ought to be done i.e. to know the purpose of ones action--both in thought and deed. I hope this explain your question :)

[@antoniomoyal]

@@lomaszaza7142 yes thank you

[@golddmane]

That disconnect is natural, here's why: a telos is something's end, whereas what's ethical is what has as itself an end. So, there's no apparent external telos to ethical action beyond the action itself, regardless of the result, in both Kant and Aristotle. However, the key difference is that Aristotle takes this final cause to take form as an entire life, such that a life filled with these inherently valuable actions, when done for their own sake, is an ethical life, a eudaimon/happy life. Kant, on the other hand, merely ascribes morality to the actions themselves, not an entire life.

[@antoniomoyal]

@@golddmane I kind of follow you. I'm not so much interested in what Aristotleor kant say, as to what makes sense and brings us closer to truth. As i see it, every being has a final cause, both the living organism as well as the actions of that being. The final cause is external to the being, just as the efficient cause. But there is no being without a final cause. Would you agree?

[@stephencotter538]

❤ Peter Kreeft. ❤ His talks. ❤ His books. Go Red Sox #BostonStrong

[@williambuysse5459]

A combination of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton is Dr. Kreeft but as himself; a wonderfully simple and direct man in all the best sense. A true teacher.

[@ReclusiveAsta]

These philosophy focused lectures are brilliant, so much context and concise information.

[@briankelly5828]

This is profound stuff. I am learning new perspectives with each lecture - thank you.

[@jeffsmith1798]

Thank you so much for posting this!

[@JoePalau]

There is a difference between Aquinas and Aristotle. Much work has gone into articulating this difference since the early 19th Century by Historians of Ancient Greece. And, there are 20th Century Philosophers who were inspired by the Greek Aristotle but accepted the advent of Darwin. John Dewey led the way on this and John Herman Randall, Jr are worth a go. All that said, There is much to be learned from this lecture on Realism vs Idealism, Realism vs Nominalism and the rocky shoals of Skepticism both Ancient and Modern. Most importantly, let this talk prime you pump but don’t stop here. Find what stimulate your curiosity and don’t take any answer as final. There is always more to discover and amazing turns to be taken in the Adventure of Ideas 😊

[@josephbokulich8048]

So good! I love Dr Kreeft!

[@brianfreeland7716]

Dr. Kreeft insight into the Epistemology and Ethics of Aristotle is by design not taught in most American public high schools.

[@zita-lein]

Loved this! ❤

[@heidiooohs276]

this was great! loving this series

[@cardenioscouse6238]

This is wonderful thank you.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video..

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Thank you. This is very helpful. One minor correction regarding sola Scriptura. For the 16th century reformers, Sola Scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only authority, but that it is the supreme authority for matters of doctrine and practice, those things pertaining to salvation. The tradition of the church fathers and the councils, scholarship and reason also have authority (for doctrine and practice) but only insofar as they are compatible with scripture. The reformers were concerned that the Catholic Church was adding requirements for salvation that were not in scripture, or elevating doctrines that were not taught by scripture, which were then made mandatory. There are some protestants who reject all tradition, but that was not the original intent of the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Anglicans).

[@kattula76]

Thank you so much for this wonderful series, but where are (how can I find as I couldn't) the 1sr 2 lectures & the successive/next ones please??

[@SMRogers]

Listening to these lectures frames the retreat I have been looking for. Retreat to faith and teason

[@mollym6375]

Amazing

[@sammygoodnight]

Thanks for this

[@MG-ye1hu]

Great idea to structure a lecture series in contrasting figures, this is indeed revealing in many respects. I'm enjoying these lectures immensly. Thank you!

[@jeffreykalb9752]

"Quantificational logic" does not mean that it only deals with mathematical quantity. It can handle all Aristotelian cases. Quantificational logic simply refers to the quantifiers "there exists" and "for each", which serve the same role as the quantifiers "some" and "all" in Aristotelian logic. It is more comprehensive than simple propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers. Hence the name. One advantage possessed by modern logic over Aristotelian logic is that it is possible to put quantifiers simultaneously in the subject and the predicate of a proposition.

[@davidstorrs1147]

What I have listened to this 2 times now, I will listen again. I' am completely astonished &/ or haven't got a view or opinion as to the content of this man' s insights & lecture. But to say that I was completely enthralled by him & his inquiry into the subject matter of which he discusses in complete detail of how he was able to lay out his own thesis of what might have been to the thoughts of the 3 most important Greek philosiphers that shaped the origins of MANKIND'S particular conscience of as to how to measure nature in form's to discover how knowledge is obtained by humankind's nature &/ or of the nature of matter which is unfamiliar to MANKIND'S knowledge. That's what I understood from this speech. How say YOU. Ps; please feel free to enlighten me as to the differential assumptions of which I have obtained through opinion rather than proof of my thoughts &/ or opinion on this most important lecture

[@davidstorrs1147]

I have listened again to this man' s intuition on the subject matter of which he elaborates. Once again, i' am profoundly in attendance of. I would like to interject a little bit if I can . While I admit that I have a limited knowledge of philosophy in terms of formal education in philosophy & the social sciences, I have been self educating myself on the enlightened philosiphers to which I have been studying. What I have learned is of great importance to me relatively speaking as to this conversation & lecture. A thought occurred to me as to the relationship between FREEWILL &/ or MANKIND'S obtained knowledge in consciousness of the universal fundamentals of what FREEWILL encompasses in terms of the individual &/ or as a collective . It is in a statement that I have written down & Would like to share. HERE it goes folk's. " THE Alibi &/ or Alibies for, slash, FROM FREEWILL ". I would welcome any or all comments or views on this statement as to the relevance of this lecture or irrelevance in so regards. Ps; be advised, it is just a thought of mine & may not or may come to mind when discussing morals, ethics & values as it relates to MANKIND'S known knowledge &/ or unknown knowledge of the subject of FREEWILL . HOW say YOU?

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:21 📜 Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are considered among the most important philosophers in history. No philosophers today are predicted to reach their level of greatness. 02:33 🤔 Aristotle's rationality and common sense often confound modern students and philosophers alike, making his ideas difficult to understand and accept. 06:22 🧠 Aristotle's philosophy upholds the concept of "form," the essence of things that includes their natural end or purpose (teleology). Modern science's focus on measurement and quantification has led to a decline in appreciation for such notions. 07:48 💡 Aristotle's theory of natural moral law, based on human nature's inherent essence, is in contrast to subjective values or desires. This concept of objective morality is often at odds with modern cultural trends. 10:11 🧩 Aristotle's logic, involving four key questions (what, whether, why), provides a structured approach to evaluating ideas. Inductive abstraction (moving from particulars to universals) and deductive reasoning (moving from universals to particulars) are central to his epistemology. 12:18 🕊️ Aristotle's hylomorphism explains that entities consist of both matter and form. This idea applies to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father. 15:21 🌏 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding causation and explanation in the world. 18:08 🌟 Aristotle's view on human nature strikes a balance between inherent virtue and potential vice. He believes in training and directing human impulses through reason to develop virtues and eradicate vices. 20:27 🤝 While Aristotle and Plato differ on some points, their overall agreement is more significant than their differences. Their shared understanding of the reality of God and the Divinity of Christ is analogous to the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. 22:47 🧐 Aristotle's theory of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) has practical applications, aiding in comprehensive explanations of various subjects. 25:01 🌞 Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, often translated as "happiness," actually refers to objective human flourishing and perfection, encompassing both physical and spiritual well-being. 26:52 🤔 Aristotle's approach to suffering and justice differs from modern interpretations. He would not consider the question of why the righteous suffer as an unanswerable mystery but would view it as a path to wisdom and humility. 27:18 🧠 Aristotle added virtues to Plato's foundation, but disagreed on the relationship between knowing and doing the true good. 28:15 🧘 Moral virtues come from practice, constructing good habits and character, not just knowing the good intellectually. 29:27 🤔 Kant and Aristotle offer serious ethical and epistemological options, avoiding extremes like skepticism and dogmatism. 31:02 🌍 Kant's epistemology, the "Copernican Revolution," asserts humans create the structure of reality rather than passively perceiving it. 33:19 🌈 Kant's view: We can't know objective reality; our knowledge is limited by our mental structures (categories) applied to experience. 35:11 🤯 Kant's skepticism becomes paradoxical; questioning objective truth leads to contradictions. 37:01 🏆 Aristotle's virtue ethics contrasts with Kant's ethics of rules; Kant's principles emphasize human dignity and equality. 38:11 🔄 Kant's categorical imperative: Act according to maxims that could become universal laws; treat humanity as an end, not a means. 39:23 ❗ Kant's principles are necessary but insufficient for a complete morality; they regulate how to treat others, not personal character. 40:47 🧙 Kant's third formulation exalts human will as the creator of moral law; autonomy replaces reverence to God's will. 42:23 🙏 Kant's epistemology and ethics both emphasize human activity and creation, sidelining receptive aspects like divine revelation. 43:35 🤝 Kant's idea that every individual is an end in themselves has influenced modern ethics, including Pope John Paul II's teachings. Made with HARPA AI

[@phylliscory2105]

Collection of habits constitute character. Categorical imperative: Do unto others.... I bought the set of books for deeper study.

[@matthewgilbertlmft3837]

Thank you

[@warclipsnow]

Men of culture I'm glad we are here.

[@arthurmaglieri1824]

His books are fantastic!!! I reread them they are so good

[@johnkalbert2014]

Praise the Lord

[@slmille4]

29:27 for anyone else who is here for Kant

[@ReadingDave]

Perhaps what brings great minds together is dialog.

[@leonardosalvatore8667]

I appreciate Dr. Kreeft's candid and concise delivery. These are complex ideas, but they deserve time and attention, as the very fabric of our world reflects the tension between them. For one, I am grateful to live in a time where profound insights into the nature of the world and ourselves are freely and openly available.

[@davidstorrs1147]

This lecture of this professor is quintessentially entwined with the abilities &/ or inabilities of mankind to acknowledge & disquish the parallels of what obtained knowledge mankind has achieved throughout the hx. Of mankind's limited knowledge of a nature unrelated of & / or of mankind 's inability to understand through quatatave measument the truth of forms that have yet to be resolved to the question of not only the nature of mankind, but more importantly, the nature of mankind's origins of makeup as it relates to quantity vs; mankind's qualities in form's of morals, values &/ or ethical principles.

[@incognito3620]

“scientific and scientism” wonderful video. Philosophy is not scientific. It does not deal with weights and measures. WOW. This video blows me away.

[@tommore3263]

This is the stuff if we want to understand what sanity means. Let's spread the word on these essential truths. Every time we hear someone speak of "values".

[@CynicalBastard]

If someone refers to a universal as a value, what then?

[@Youdamana]

@@CynicalBastard Values are options and relative not normative and the foundation of good law to such a person. And relativism is incoherent.

[@CynicalBastard]

@@Youdamana So what is normative has no value? That seems incoherent.

[@paulpunii44]

Excellent, synthesis and understanding of philosophy. A great mind Dr. Kreeft.

[@kerwinbrown4180]

Interesting, as I have run into Kanz's arguments about will in those that support what they call "free will".

[@TomCarberry413]

Thanks for the interesting discussion. One quibble at the end. The US did not end slavery. The 13th amendment ended privately owned slaves, but created the whole new category of slaves of the state for anyone convicted of any crime. "For the time being, during his term of service in the penitentiary, he is in a state of penal servitude to the State. ." Ruffin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 62 Va. 790, 796, (1871).

[@marlinaricafort7319]

I like this subjects

[@radical_truffle]

Very nice, Thank you. However a small comment regarding the very end, about forgiveness. I think Aristotle can be forgiven for ignoring human freedom, because he is first and should be expected to be added to. Conversely Kant should not get lenience because he did not overall add to Aristotle, but actively ignored and even butchered important parts. IMO Kant is worth knowing because he offers a different perspective, but ultimately his is just a novelty with a few interesting new ideas, which unfortunately have been twisted to our detriment since. Anyway, many thanks..

[@Hallowpoynt]

Yes

[@robertoabril1813]

​ @Dainis Geidmanis Dr. Marcus Grodi and Dr. Scott Hans might be essential to consult.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Right view

[@blairhakamies4132]

So beautiful ❤❤❤❤❤❤.

[@goodquestion7915]

Aristotle is the 13th apostle of Catholicism. Without him several of Aquinas' and Augustine's main ideas would be vacuous and "out of the blue". It seems that Dr. Kreeft considers Aristotle as one of the roots of christian moral philosophy, disregarding that he was a greek that grew around Zeus believers, and most likely atheist.

[@kropotkinbeard1]

Chomsky will, AND should, be remembered hundreds of years from now..

[@whalercumming9911]

Champion of the "return to form" - how original

[@piva1358]

❤❤❤

[@markbirmingham6011]

Comment for traction🎉

[@faysal8597]

Aristotle deserves his nickname #ThePhilosopher

[@jobebrian]

What’s with the background synth drone and the sound of running water? I’m wondering what it’s supposed to add to the lecture. Listenability? Or is it there for those who want to be lulled to sleep? If so, is the content to be taken in subconsciously? Does that even work? I’m skeptical-I can’t imagine either sound be used with a lecture in mathematics. It’s a good lecture. It doesn’t need to be watered down or enhanced with special effects.

[@manfredrust7839]

Kant did make a real big shift in the history of philosophy. It was the Jewish thinker Moses Mendelssohn who called him "the great destroyer". If you read Kant's works closely, it may really be in some way disillusioning. Kleist created the term "Kantian Crisis" and became his famous victim. His philosophy had thrown the poet in a deep existential crisis.

[@darrellee8194]

How can he conflate form with purpose when Aristotle explicitly separates form and purpose. 5:17

[@Hambastegy]

🙏👏

[@awolf.8557]

This man is explaining what's wrong with the west.

[@shadyganem5448]

Totally.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watching it 19:50

[@dubbelkastrull]

43:43 bookmark

[@mintusaren895]

Truely I only take one meal a day but now changed

[@thomasmcculey7942]

We as a society have objectified Kantian subjectivity. Our subjectivism has brought us to the point of even denying scientific reality, ie the denial that there are only two genders. No matter how hard we try nature will not conform to who we think we are. This subjectivism is a complete seperation from reality.

[@golddmane]

That's not why people deny two genders. There's no point in discussing modern political topics because you must keep in mind that virtually everyone in politics, and really just everyone in general, is primarily concerned with negative liberty. Those who are concerned with positive liberty essentially have the Stoic mindset that anyone's a slave who depends on external goods. You won't see people like that very often because politics are inherently concerned with how humans interact with each other, but humans are an external good. It's no coincidence that people are torn between the right and the left, because these are ONLY based on judgements ie, I don't like trans people so I want them banned politically vs I'm fine with trans people so I don't want them banned. Notice how both of these concern negative liberty, though one's right and one's left. Feel free to respond, I'd be happy to have a discussion about this.

[@barrypenobscott9882]

Yikes! There's an entire new vocabulary here which I need to learn.

[@mortenfallingborg7922]

Kreeft is simply plain wrong on Aristotle's views on contraception. In the third chapter of the seventh book of "History of Animals" he gives some very dubious advice on what ointments to use as a woman in order to avoid pregnancy.

[@incognito3620]

Dr. Kreeft’s opening statement is profound and I totally agree. But why? Dr. Kreeft goes right to the point and that is Aristotle was “Reasonable to a fault and had ( what has been lost in humanity) Common Sense. Too very difficult concepts to embrace and accept at face value. It also makes me think rationality is a lost art. Many “ thinkers” today use opinion and conjecture in place or rationality. We question what is rational It is no longer a given. Aristotle was a (the) original thinker. His ideas and conclusions were based on rational thinking not filled with conjecture or opinion. These two options are not facts and may not be reasonable. I want to believe “ Truth”- ultimate truth is unquestionable. Absolute. When we muddy the waters truth becomes dubious. Suspect. Society and current political arenas plus religious beliefs contribute to the obfuscation to truth thereby rendering it possibly true. Not completely true. Which to is a human failing.

[@sebastianorlander1326]

There is something rather galling in Dr. Kreeft's presentation of Kant, in that he seems to have missed the train on most of the Kant scholarship that has been going on for the past 40 years or so. Had he perhaps read some of the landmark monographs on Kant's epistemology and ethics, he might have found that Kant actually does not say that we 'make' nature (as limited minds we have to in some sense reconstruct nature in our minds in order to understand our experience) and that he in fact has a lot to say about piety and holiness (the Critique of Practical Reason is rather telling here: "... the moral law leads ... to religion, that is, to the recognition of all duties as divine commands, no as sanctions ... but as essential laws of every free will in itself, which must nevertheless be regarded as commands of the supreme being because only from a will that is morally perfect and at the same time all-powerful, and so through harmony with this will, can we hope to attain the highest good ..." KpV 5:129). Kant is certainly not without his faults, but he is certainly worth studying. Particularly, you cannot win against the nominalist if you are not willing to accept certain basic insights that they grasp correctly. Kant certainly provides a strategy for showing that we can arrive at a respectable kind of realism from apparently nominalist premises.

[@bob.smith117]

#Lecture3

[@billwassner1433]

Great lecture. Interesting comparison. Thank you.

[@ianhowe1449]

Not sure I follow. If Kant’s philosophy provides a more radical skepticism than Hume, then why was Kant so bothered by Hume’s skepticism? & if Kant believed that “the thing in itself” is unknowable, that seems to contradict the fact that Kant was a pious Christian from devout Pietist Lutheran parents?

[@soldtobediers]

3:33 ''Common Sense'' kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXuziWWJpch2p9k You can't live together, you can't live alone Considering the weather, oh my how you've grown From the men in the factories to the wild kangaroo Like those birds of a feather, they're gathering together And feeling exactly like you They got mesmerized by lullabies and limbo danced in Pairs Please lock that door, it don't make much sense That common sense, don't make no sense no more Just between you and me, it's like pulling When you ought to be shoving Like a nun with her head in the oven Please don't tell me that this really wasn't nothing One of these days, one of these nights You'll take off your hat and they'll read you, your rights You'll wanna get high every time you feel low Hey, Queen Isabella stay away from that fella He'll just get you into trouble, you know? But they came here by boat and they came here by plane They blistered their hands and they burned out their brain All dreaming a dream, that'll never come true Hey, don't give me no trouble, or I'll call up my double We'll play piggy-in-the-middle with you You'll get mesmerized by alibis and limbo dance in Pairs Please lock that door, it don't make much sense That common sense, don't make no sense no more It don't make much sense, that common sense Don't make no sense no more ~John Prine song album by the same name (1975) To the age old argument; ''Which came first the chicken or the egg?'' I unapologetically answer... ''Why! He Came First!'' The Creator, He came 1st. The Creators' Rooster, He came 2nd. The Creators' Hen, she came 3rd. For did she not have to be laid - before all 3 entity's eggs ever could ? Does that not prove then - that creation demands a Creator ? ~Just another one of those many one's of ''We His Believers'' who's patiently awaiting ''His✝ Just⚖ Return🪃'' Blessings be continual upon your every endeavor WoFI. So till that long ago promised time; When we are overwhelmingly blessed by those things yet to be seen, heard, felt, and smelt; Within those many mansions full of our past kin; Which await all those who've accepted His Sacrifice.

[@bradbowers4414]

Sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the only source of authority or knowledge about God, only that it must be the highest. Great point about science though.

[@nathanandnickSherbetImage]

The physical universe is designed by the Master scientist. Therefore design is measurable.

[@gettingtogive]

Wonderful. Thank you for this great lecture 🙏

[@lancelove9700]

How to make all humans appear to be dead and stretched between a past and future and creating a terminal for standard and control. Masking illusion layering minimalizations and many many other tools make all this possible. I can answer any question or implicated context or conceptualism here in.. The retainer on my competency here as it relates to the subjects is that there is no operable real highest standard except human rendering of the subject and it's content. Which we are still processing and creating from.. even when that means destroying. Much of the contrasting dynamics are based on those two acts. As life and death but more accurately as an economy of the logic of reality and realism and virtuality as a framed product of the bias of the analytic itself. These subjects and it's content revolves around the economy of logic and the world. When you ask why and why not or it's shown to you... All you're seeing is economy. The speed of life is a measurement and all measurements are scripted as economic because we have life and it has a beginning and end and at what speed and pace is... Again economy. Yes and no would not exist.. if this economic contract did not precede it. The world and universe would not exist if it were not for measurement and economy. Human beings as all beings are a measure and defined as a limit of limits where they begin to define as opposed to occupy or exist for the sake of reason and logic. It is not so. Even the raw terms of Genesis apply and what an end it is. Does the teacher eat the apple gift at the end of the class? The beginning? Or upon thier ACTUAL success as a teacher and obviously apt and successful pupil. YOu cannot have one without the other. Unless by apt you mean appointed or appropriated. In which case the apple is the subject and the consumer and observer or attendant of the tree are the observer and employee of the service to protect and represent it. We can manipulate realities into conceptualism as we like... But eventually there will be a truth to that action if we are not fair and balanced and see nature's losses as our losses used to stimulate conceptual gain and turn the "noise" of reality and earth and ourselves into logic and proportion and rationality. They precede us with the image of success at doing just that but provide a platform for other beings of other types. If time with knowledge and wisdom makes you a better person or closer to God. Then isn't time with the world closer to how god created this world and universe. If you can't bite the whole apple... You likely starved or survived it's possible toxicity because of a measure and logic related to design and limits as well. Your big mouth can't bite the bigger apple and thats no reason to worry. There is more to this book and all books than meets the time or mind or eye. Just as in this universe there is much more than earth. It's vast emptiness is not to be cast as nothingness. It takes honesty above joy and the pleasure of life to understand life. If god cannot accept this then god is a fool and a tool and a wimp. Which god is... And so is man. Again.. honesty is required... As well as a knowledge of the weaknesses god must bear and has or denies. Anyone can cut off thier arm with a stone and call themselves strong. Isn't it ironic? An armless man is strong!? His patience and kindness to himself prevails over his pain and the rationalisms of other men and his former self with an arm attached to his body. So we are limited here on earth by the framed speed and measure of the real intelligence of the land. We all work in intelligence. If there is a judgement so does god. Are you willing to take the terminal and control your end of that terminal? I am. Exhaustion is not faith. Apology is not honesty or correction or bearing the burden of your acts or words or thoughts. There is no one to confess them to accept someone who can say... "I've heard alot." Big deal. We say alot and it means a little. But more specifically it seems to make us believe it means our law and our reasoning. And it is. Because it remains a fractionated bias of our logic and interests. While god has said and done nothing at all. Death is a door. At death you are given the true knowledge of this earth and universe. It is at peace and struggling to live and survive. You will be stripped of every possession whether it be physical or mental or emotional. You will see that everything is in it's rightful place and is meant to include you in death as much as it cannot in life. If you do not like it... It is likely because you have been affected during life and missed out on Earth's value and meaning and purpose and your own as well. Luckily there are people like me. Who know what is true as opposed to what is good or evil. It is good for the body and mind to die. They don't live at the same speed either. In life you observe the world and in death you are it's essence. It is everything you loan or lien on to yourself and others. But the purpose is not self installment it is a reminder that death is the fullness of the perceptions and perspectives here. It does take YOU to make this what it is. You are beautiful and kind and muscular and structural and powerful and you flow and pulse and pump and live and all of the world and universal is within and without you in harmony and balance even with and mostly because of life and death. Humans do try be crafty and tricky with this information and principles of knowledge and craft.

[@lancelove9700]

That is okay in pursuit of knowledge and wisdom but it does not determine the realities or thier nature at all. To live on earth perfectly and peacefully we merely exist and pass. There is no goal here but what man has created. I can do that perfectly. If you like science fiction I am good at that. I can save or destroy any intention of goal or ideal or ideology because I am neither the creator nor the destroyer. There is no such thing. I can turn off a light and the moon does not glow. I can turn on a light and the sun will go down. They are not in any concert or cooberation of realism or truth at all. Neither is god and I will never stop making a case for humanity to be empowered against god. For the sake of truth and a relational term of Gods truth as a conceptualism. I demand liberation equal with Lucifer but apart from mankind. Honesty is required if the applied terms are to be real in this world and any other state of possibility related to this god... Or any god or deity or idol before me in life physical and real or otherwise. If there is a dream I will take challenge at it's host and demand I rule the waking world. I will drag one into the if I have to as all these knowledge's have been made that way. I know what I will ask god. Not for humanity not for justice not for peace not for heaven haven hell hope or healing. But the terminal truth humanity has ignored. That my absence is as good and well as my presence. My life is perfect. No life could be better. Because of it's product. Which is not of my life... But of the earth and the path of truth. Which is liberty and freedom and rights and truth. That is lived everyday by every insect here and every drop of water the same.. I will tire of humanity but I will never tire of this that I am... And will always be. Unless I am damned to some fate which I am not and never have been unless it was done by man. (Woman and child are obviously included) Ive never had to ask a tree to take an apple. I've never had to give it a leaf to gain the fruit. And money is not a lesson of this premise or logic at all. Human weakness is responsible for this relational theory and it's expression. Not nature. I know how powerful it is to seem to have control. But I know who is in control. The wind. The rain. The ground. The life.. and the path and the way to it. Not my armor or arms. Not my wisdom or want. But my madness and the peace of it. Sure... Call me a worm.. call me a monkey... Call me a cab.. but call me with the wind... And the rain and earthquakes and snow and realities. I know man's memory is of the tiger and mosquito and flea... But that is not accurate... And is a memory of soap... And alcohol in which a dead baby is immersed while living men and women sit and say they enjoy a nice alcoholic beverage they bought with money. Flies never bother anyone. Disease has never seized a soul or sole. They are also our faults. As we are a fault for the logic of the earth and universe and so we come. No this is not an insult to man and his ears or his deafness... But an interruption at the court of the king and his kindness. Stop. Your politics are honorable. But your truth is device. Mine is not. I only desire companionship with life and this world.. Not man or woman or child... Those are layers of developer I do not need. Fear FOR me. Is not FEAR of me. Man is feared by man. Suppression is a key here. And I will not ever need that key. A god that doesn't recognize man is a man. Because man has no base but bias in gods name. If you will submit to God you will submit to me. And I will never fall. Or fail.. I will dive... And I will land whether it be with a splat or a thud or upon my feet. Whatever is the will to succeed my desire and truth is to be granted to me. If Lucifer is the model for pride I will be the model for redemption. Not in some sacrifice. But to prove the knowledge of man's truth is the model for Lucifer's fall. Nothing has occured here. Ever will. Because I am the water. I am the land. I am the money you spend and save. I am the dirt. I am the gold. All things are all beings in truth. Call it death... It is common. But truth is his name. And my aim is mine. Man can try to change the tool and instrument. But it will not be done. Truth Is here to stay. No one will escape the truth but with a great lie. Enjoy the immortality and fusion based realities and conceptualisms. But there is no need. Death is a graduation we merely need to bear forward as we live towards. Good will and kindness are great things we need. But honesty and truth prevail. I am dirt. I am dying. I am water I am living. I am man and I am machine. You will NEVER change that. All else is vanity. You will hurt me with your institution and instruction. You will fear my innocence and my natural character. You will curse me and scourge me with flaws and lessons and morals. You will make me of lies and labors. But you will never. Change this world or it's heart. If your lesson is don't give man a weapon. Then you've failed. It could not be done... And you imagine it is so as you imagine a god I cannot overcome with my sincerity and truth. What did you inherit? Me? No. God...because you cling to the imagination of the image of man...while god is illusory. You've no need of god or man or woman or child at all. You'll not answer the children of the world when they call you. You'll be busy. Doing calculations and creating the void of conceptualisms and virtuality become real. While I listen to them. All of them. From cotton to crabs. They all say the same thing. AAH! and nothing... Calm them. But you cook them. It becomes a political rouse and ruse. This is all nonsense we must survive and they even cast a god over man saying we must not survive god. We must so. I can do it. If god will not recognize truth god will recognize an enemy. That is gods will and man and woman are responsible for that. And it is not of Thier works. But mine. Life is mine. Earth is my home. It is free. I am free. Death is not my enemy it is a lie man says he knows better than.. It is not so. I won't rule this world. But I will revel in it's truths and defend them and myself and everyone else here. So choose wisely...oh how powerful in spirit I am yuck yuck...mock and scoff away. But you do so at nothing. And you do so at the expense of the one world you have. You'll never learn anything from me. Except how to die...because man has NEVER lived. UNDER anything...not even at least law or another man's rule. I am and hope to be an animal or thing apart. First or last I know at least one will follow and has gone before me. And after. Man will lie and say it causes war. Or growth. Man has not had the time to know. Knowledge is a sign of the arrest of process and progress. Let me know what else is left for me to say and I will say it...but as for wrong and right and good and evil...denied. You cant bloviate without. Lo. 80% of g-a-m-e.. is ame-rica. I don't like games.. I like life and death and I haven't had enough yet. One life is enough to live. I hope I get a chance to live one... Free of this facade and it's war and criminals. That is everyone... And this wretched program that intends to occupy us with it's obsessions. Peace is possible. But death comes first. I'll be forward... being is just a memory. The script is as deep as the mountains of trash burried UNDER our feet.

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

Milton Erickson was the reincarnation of Socrates

[@PerfectSolutionsLTDA]

The moderns are mere kids compared to the ancients, the greatest of our kind

[@davidstorrs1147]

Reference this lecture to other great thinkers of times that came afterwards the 3 great philosiphers of which he speaks of &/ or to the relevance of the subject of which he alludes to on the subject. Enter John Adam Smith ' s philosophy on this subject, less you care to on the subject of morals &/ wealth. The 3 characters of which he most pointed out in his book on moral sentiments are # 1; the impartial character of MANKIND .# 2; the man of science & the the last character of which he refers to ; the invisible hand that ultimately devides the 2 into what makes up the difference between the 2 that came before the invisible hand & that ultimately resides on ultruism of MANKIND'S differences of what the quintessential questions resolving around the matter of what encompasses MANKIND'S knowledge of moral responsibility as an individual &/ or as a collective. Now with that said , I will admit these 3 are yet to be proven with out a doubt through science&/ or in metaphysical &/ or through epistemology terms of human nature, it remains as an inference as to what makes up the consciousness of human morality, ethics & values that transcends the inate concepts that define human nature . Now, with that said, with all other obtained knowledge throughout MANKIND'S known &/ or unknown hx. Of obtained knowledge through MANKIND'S limited existence &/ or KNOWLEDGE on the conceptual evidence of morals, ethics &/ or values , I dare say with out doubt &/ or interpretation, that MANKIND'S destiny deserves at the very least , a interpretation of what matters between MANKIND'S limited knowledge of inate vs; what is considered unrelated to MANKIND'S knowledge of inate nature that is quintessentially entwined to be recognized as unknown charismatic natures of which mankind is unfamiliar with as to the origins of the natural immunities of MANKIND'S existence that neither known by mankind &/ or naturally never be discovered or resolved by science or MANKIND'S limited knowledge of his own inventions &/or that of which is yet to come &/ or yet to be that is enviable extinction of MANKIND'S consciousness &/ or existence that of which ultimately unobtainable by MANKIND'S will &/ or limited knowledge of the nature that came to be before MANKIND'S recognition of what ever existed before MANKIND was ever conceived in the nature that existed before MANKIND'S knowledge . I' am thourally convinced with out a doubt, that mankind will eventually become nonexistent & will eventually become nonexistent in the realm of the existence that superceded an existence that came before & that existence is eternal & everlasting to the concept of eternal life &/ or the INVINITY, rather than the finite of matter so yet to be proven nor disproven by MANKIND'S limited knowledge into the existence of INVINITY vs; finite matter of &/ or for MANKIND'S purposes that is unrelated to MANKIND'S consciousness of physical make up that can't be justified nor understood by mankind's limited knowledge of the matter of the primordial &/ or beyond MANKIND'S understanding of the primordial soup in the cosmos that existed long before MANKIND'S existence &/ or beyond MANKIND'S conscience, less of course folk's mankind is able to prove otherwise that something existed long before mankind ever existed &/ or the world of which mankind exists &/ or recognizes as the true existence beyond MANKIND'S limited knowledge that a world existed before MANKIND ever existed, than I would positively believe that mankind is positively ignorant of a nature that doesn't resolve around MANKIND'S nature in & of MANKIND'S natural instincts &/ or that preexisted long before MANKIND'S nature that doesn't belong to MANKIND' nature &/ or natural exstincive nature & make up, but rather has an original makeup matter unknown by MANKIND'S knowledge &/ or recognition of MANKIND'S knowledge.

[@davidstorrs1147]

Again & again & so on & so forth. I have once again listened to this man' s thoughts &/ or various views on the subject matter of which he is so inclined to do so , but, I didn't hear from the audience in attendance to which he is addressing at the podium. Maybe there isn't folk's, I even don't know where this speech took place, other than to know that there wasn't any &/ or question & answer phase from the audience of which he was addressing, if there was or any audience in attendance. But, I will say, if there was, a question arises to me , why wasn't there,&/ or if there wasn't, why not? I don't know the answer to that question, but I sure would like to know why or why not & I suspect to whom it may concern, to ask the same question? Ps; i' am neither in disagreement nor inclined to agree with him with my lack of accuman in the subject , but would like to have actually hear from the audience of which he is addressing if there is any or all , at the very least. How say YOU folk's? Please feel inclined to do so , for i' am asking the question?

[@freethinker4402]

Progress is making better what we have, these ppl used their imagination very well and laid the foundarion for us but we have progressed to combining imagination and empirical verification to find objective truth. Natural laws connot be broken but human made laws can be broken. Escense is the description of a function emerging from a physical entity. Wetness is not only produce from water but all liquids and very dense gases.

[@equaltemp7075]

Aristotle

[@christophersnedeker]

Is it really true that all cultures didn't believe in contraception before the 1930s?

[@eswn1816]

Simply put, No. The first 'official' contraception to be invented was likely the condom, as there's evidence that condoms were used in the UK as early as 1640, but condom-like items were used as early as 3000 BC. Maybe he meant widespread cultural acceptance. Check out the museum of contraception at Case Western Reserve Medical History Center with artifacts in the USA going back to the 1800's.

[@chokin78]

Good lecture. Just two comments. One, the first to claim that man is an end in himself, or what is the same, the measure of all things, was Protagoras the sophist, so Kant was not original on this point at least. Two, Dr Kreeft seems to forget that the bible condones slavery in many instances.

[@goodquestion7915]

As most greek philosophers, Aristotle was an idealist at heart and also ignorant of what we know today; not his fault. But it is OUR fault to continue to be in awe of his ideas. He was a genius of HIS TIME, not ours.

[@rogerwelsh2335]

When reality to you is subjective, you will NOT like Aristotle. If you look at Todays society it’s obvious that there is a vocal and radical group of subjectivists.

[@steveagnew3385]

Kreeft gives the Catholic apologist description of both Aristotle and Kant and then mentions that Aristotle and Aquinas will be still recognized as great in 100 years, but excludes Kant and other greats. Kreeft shows that Kant did offer a different epistemology and ethics from Aristotle and Aquinas, but Kreeft acknowledges that Kant showed that all people are free. Both Aristotle and Aquinas accepted slavery as natural. Kreeft does not discuss Kant's transcendental idealism at all and derides Kant's Christianity as misguided Pietism. Kreeft seems more just repeating the talking points of the Reformation than in critiquing the pure reason of Kant's transcendental Protestant reality. Kreeft does make it clear why Catholic apologists embrace Aristotle and Aquinas and reject Kant, but Kant is by far the more popular philosopher than Aristotle and Aquinas combined.

[@russv.winkle8764]

Well said, he strained himself in criticism of Kant and the Christian apologetics was all too apparent. It is very convenient for slave owners believe in the essence of slavery

[@goodquestion7915]

Aristotle's "Final Cause" was a hack. He couldn't explain why not all biological organisms start as the "End Product" and seem to "improve" over time.

[@rogerwelsh2335]

There is no mysticism in Aristotle. People today love mysticism

[@ripvanwinkle1819]

You didn't comprehend aristotle. Stick with picture books and finance

[@rogerwelsh2335]

@@ripvanwinkle1819 good job with the jerk comment

[@flintwestwood3596]

This is from the Word on Fire Institute, but what does any of this have to do with the Catholic faith, or even faith in general? This has nothing to do with religion.

[@xFearlessNomad]

Thank you sir, something to teach my children.

[@frans3950]

Logofobic haha, I need to remember that word.

[@DrBillHaberman]

St. Anselm said “I believe that I may understand”.

[@homerfj1100]

As soon as he mentioned Christ and God I didn't know what he was talking about.