Descartes and the Beginnings of Modern Philosophy (Makers of the Modern World)

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This part of the Makers of the Modern World series is the beginning of a two part discussion on Rene Descartes and the beginning of modern philosophy.

[@augustinian2018]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="118">1:58</a> As far as folks other than the Descartes, Hume, and Kant that might receive coverage, if you’re gauging who else to cover on the basis of popular demand, consider this a vote in favor of Gottfried Leibniz-I’d love to hear your thoughts on him, particularly given his Lutheran heritage. While he’s not immediately as influential as others, Leibniz’s influence has been steadily growing since the 19th century as a result of his work in mathematics, logic, proto-computer science, and metaphysics, and his project to integrate scholastic metaphysics and early modern philosophy (along with his comparatively orthodox Christian faith among the early moderns) make him a fascinating figure.

[@Andrew-wo8ry]

Yes, this would be cool to see, even if a more mathematical figure.

[@flynn659]

Have you or will you ever consider doing a video on medieval nominalists?

[@Acek-ok9dp]

This is a suggestion which I think is important that confessional Protestants engage. It is the Roman Catholic mantra that modernity, liberalism and scepticism started with the Protestant Reformation, which in my view is not only wrong but dishonest to say the least. I think the thought patterns and the humanism emerging in Renaissance Italy have to be given more consideration. Rene Descartes got his scepticism from a Jesuit college not from the Reformers.

[@sierragrey7910]

Very helpful. Thank you.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

I hope you do a series on the history of Roman Catholic/Lutheran polemics.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Hi, thank you for these, a suggestion, would you be able to create a second podcast dedicated to historical topics like this, your Lutheran political philosophy series, non trinitarian historical groups and so on? Not moving those episodes, but copying them.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts do you mean a separate KZbin channel? Or audio podcast?

[@1994ZBO]

Could you re-do or rather supplement your material on classical philosophy in this format?

[@tychonian]

Regarding the medieval nominalist I'm curious what on Earth caused them to come up with that idea in the first place.

[@p.h.magelssen9633]

True that you are going to debate John hoyum?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

No.

[@p.h.magelssen9633]

@@DrJordanBCooper Dang. Will it be scheduled?

[@chahuncoller]

Spinoza defines fate without using the word fate, that is, without knowing it. But right after the definition, he says that there is no such thing as fate. For example, he says: "Whatever happened had to be the way it was, it couldn't have been otherwise." Moreover, he slightly curses those who think that it could have been otherwise. This is the definition of fate. We call everything that has happened fate. It is the task of philosophers to explain why it is so and why it cannot be otherwise. Religious people partially realized that everything that happened had to happen, and they called it fate. The religion founders could not make a definition because they could not grasp this difficult issue. There is no definition of fate in religion, so no reference can be made to religion for fate. Although religion does not have a fixed definition of fate, the word fate is excluded as if it excludes religion. Read this book for more information. The title of the book is The Structure of the Self. You can find it on amazon.

[@wenmoonson]

Look up the Christian definitions of the terms predestination and providence, then get back to us.

[@chahuncoller]

@@wenmoonson I think your definition of destiny is better than Christianity.