DescentBB

This is another radio program by R.C Sproul.

Most of this is about the history of Greek philosophy. I've never had the chance to study this so I find it very fascinating. Give it a listen. It's about 25 minutes long.

This should work in Windows Media Player. I ran it at work on WMP 11.

HERE is a Real Media player link.

tell me more

Listen tomarrow. That was todays ...er... hm.. you're in NZ. sec...


I'll post the next show from work tomorrow ..er. today for you...I think.

no i mean... tell me more before i'll click it
You may \" \" to hear my concern, but i've been baited a bit lately into wasting my time listening to someone preach a Christian perspective to me - under the guise of something else. I'm not in the mood this time.
So i'm flat out asking

and i'm in AU not NZ (ur getting me mixed up with Mobius)

Not much more to tell. Sproul is a Christian apologist. This is a leadin for a history of ancient apologetics. It's pretty straight forward without heavy slant.

I posted the link the way i did so that WMP would pop up and you can FF over the ad in the front.

It's mostly just going over the development of Greek philosophy up until Christianity came on the scene.

Oh and sorry about where you live. I didn't think I got that right. i was way tired that day.

Lame. I was bored enough at work to listen to this. He seems to be well-enough informed at first, but then he pulls some absurd conclusions at the end out of nowhere. Greek stoicism and Epicureanism were harbingers of barbarism, but fortunately Christianity came and was the \"savior of civilization.\" Skepticism is bad. Americans are guilty of using \"might\" to establish moral authority (but isn't this how the Christians establish God's moral authority...). If you find this sort of thing ★■◆●ing hilarious, then it may be worth listening to, but I can't seem to find humor in it unfortunately.

Learn about Greek philosophy here.

ah, so my spidey sense was picking up something

it might be good to put a \"as a Christian i approve this message\" disclaimer in these things Duper. If that is indeed why they are posted

lol, you coward. Listen to it yourself. It won't KILL you and I seriously doubt it will convert you.

I found it interesting and thought some would also. but.. this IS the DBB. NOW I'll \" \".

i've spent the past week watching creationist/evolution debates on youtube.

i'm more just complaining about bait and switch, which as i indicated - you've done this before.
Just introduce the topic properly, i could accuse YOU of being the coward here if you're not willing to let your viewpoints stand on their own without having to TRICK people into sitting through them - disguising them as something else.

When i watch something i want to know what it is - so i know if i've seen it before. And when it comes to this Christian stuff - I GENERALLY HAVE.

So introduce it properly otherwise you're just Rickrolling people.

trick? ok whatever. And I meant \"coward\" tongue-in-cheek. I don't REALLY think you're a coward.

Yawn.
Someone call me when we start discussing non-religious philosophies.

that's called modern science Tiger. There technically is no such thing as \"non-religious\" philosophies. Christian or otherwise. In philosophy, a person examines they're continuity with and/or within the universe (ultimately). Every philosophical school of thought eventually address the idea of god, or the lack there of as they view it.

For those of us that are Christian, we can not Help but come to the table but with that bias. It's who we are, and if we really are indeed Christians (as earlier discussed this last year) then it should permeate every corner of our lives. We could try to approach the table with neutrality, but that would be paradoxical to the topic and ultimately disingenuine.

You beat me to it Duper, I was about to say something similar.

Thanks for the link Duper, I look forward to listening to it later - when I have my non-mac.

I'm curious to hear what he says about Epicureanism and it's relation to later Christian thought.

Although if he purports that Epicureanism is evil and no part of Christian philosophy I might stop listening. Did he go much into this?

Listen anyway, your ears won’t burn…

Oh, Roid. I wasn't tricking anyone. I first off mentioned that this is \"another radio program by R.C Sproul.\" I posted something by this guy several weeks ago. I'm guessing you missed that. no worries.

...

Hedonism and Stoics are mentioned but I don't think that Epicureanism. I'm re-listening now out of curiosity. Yes, he talks about them about 16 minutes into it. I wasn't pronouncing it right. Gotta love the word: \"imperturbability\". He doesn't call them evil, but addresses their attempt at defining truth and what life is about. But from his definition it has no place in Christian doctrine. I did some reading of my own also. Whiles Sproul's definition is a generalization and skips over the finer points, it's concise enough for the point he's making. Wiki link

lol.. i'm really getting lazy gong to wiki for info.

ok no prob

He makes a specific claim somewhere in the clip, that they were leading civilization to barbarism. And that Christianity stepped in just in time and was the savior of civilization. That's a fairly strong claim, much stronger than \"oh these happen to disagree with Christian doctrine btw.\"

I love Epicureanism, and many of its tenants are alive and well in the Christian belief.

We could all use a little epicureanism in our lives I think.

The best way to learn philosophy, even Plato, is in a high standing liberal arts college. Otherwise, it can be interpreted very badly. If you are interested in philosophy, take some classes.

While I don't personally agree with Aggressor, to add to his post, anyone can download podcasts off Itunes U from some of the top schools on many subjects, including philosophy. They're all great.

BigSlideHimself wrote:While I don't personally agree with Aggressor, to add to his post, anyone can download podcasts off Itunes U from some of the top schools on many subjects, including philosophy. They're all great.

A big part of philosophy is asking questions. It is not like a history class in high school in which you can just absorb information. And the best people you can ask questions to are professors, not people on forums who may or may not be qualified to answer such questions.

I agree that people on forums aren't the best go-tos for answers. Which is why it's great there are so many avenues to learn about philosophy. I disagree that the best way to learn philosophy is to go to a top liberal arts school. If someone has a true passion for philosophy it is incumbent on them to pursue the subject outside of a curriculum. There is simply not enough time in any class to A) ask all of the questions you have and B) cover enough material to get a fair view. Albeit a philosophy class is a great starting point, it isn't the only, or best (IMHO) one.

BigSlideHimself wrote:I agree that people on forums aren't the best go-tos for answers. Which is why it's great there are so many avenues to learn about philosophy. I disagree that the best way to learn philosophy is to go to a top liberal arts school. If someone has a true passion for philosophy it is incumbent on them to pursue the subject outside of a curriculum. There is simply not enough time in any class to A) ask all of the questions you have and B) cover enough material to get a fair view. Albeit a philosophy class is a great starting point, it isn't the only, or best (IMHO) one.

You are right that the university is not the only means, but Socrates saw the university as a necessary foundation for philosophy. In order to learn philosophy properly, students need a solid foundation, and a good liberal arts university ensures that solid foundation. The university, according to Socrates, is the way out of the cave. Of course once you are out of the cave, then you can work on your own doctoral work in philosophy if you so choose to go that far. But you need guidance at the beginning or you will end up like a sophist who makes up truths on his own.

Also, it is the responsiblity of those who go out of the cave, who learn philosophy, to teach it to those in the cave, therefore the mention of doctoral status I gave. According to Socrates, the people who study philosophy (and only a few can understand it), study it to teach the next generation of those who can understand it.

Descartes takes a different view by thinking his method will allow anyone to examine philosophy, although his philosophy acts more in a scientific basis than a metaphysical one. I don't really see Descartes method working for metaphysical philosophy until perfect learning systems are installed thanks to technological breakthroughs in mind-computer transfers, allowing people to communicate complete thoughts without misinterpretation.

Aggressor, I like the things you're saying. Just to be sure of where we disagree, I don't believe the best way to learn philosophy is to go to a top liberal arts school. But, like you hinted at, all of this depends on what your purpose in this study is. I like to think a state school will do, or seeking out works of the venerated professors you speak of. There are just so many options in this age that weren't available during Plato/Socrates time.

I do like what you say about a university as a starting point. I can't say I disagree. My focus tends to be on the lifelong pursuit.

Similarly, the Academy, and Aristotle's Lyceum had a completely different sensibility than today's universities. European schools, more specifically the French, are more akin to the Academy than those found in the US. Not to mention the technology and ready availability of these great works is a little different now than then.

Sometimes I think something has been lost in the transition, and I lament not being able to follow Socrates or Aristotle about through those hallowed halls. However, I do agree that Socrates - as told through Plato, placed great emphasis on education, in fact, to help your point along, there are actually better passages in the Republic, less ironic or allegorical dealing with education as a way out of that cave. When I get home I'll post one of them.

But beyond that, we are talking about one school of thought. My beloved Epicureans existed on the fringe, and I tend to think I'd find my place better in the Garden than the Academy. With all of this said, there is one constant, some mentor is invaluable in this pursuit of truth.

Since my first love wasn't philosophy, I speak from a hobbyist philosopher perspective. Perhaps this too is where our notions diverge.

BigSlideHimself wrote:Aggressor, I like the things you're saying. Just to be sure of where we disagree, I don't believe the best way to learn philosophy is to go to a top liberal arts school. But, like you hinted at, all of this depends on what your purpose in this study is. I like to think a state school will do, or seeking out works of the venerated professors you speak of. There are just so many options in this age that weren't available during Plato/Socrates time.

I do like what you say about a university as a starting point. I can't say I disagree. My focus tends to be on the lifelong pursuit.

Similarly, the Academy, and Aristotle's Lyceum had a completely different sensibility than today's universities. European schools, more specifically the French, are more akin to the Academy than those found in the US. Not to mention the technology and ready availability of these great works is a little different now than then.

Sometimes I think something has been lost in the transition, and I lament not being able to follow Socrates or Aristotle about through those hallowed halls. However, I do agree that Socrates - as told through Plato, placed great emphasis on education, in fact, to help your point along, there are actually better passages in the Republic, less ironic or allegorical dealing with education as a way out of that cave. When I get home I'll post one of them.

But beyond that, we are talking about one school of thought. My beloved Epicureans existed on the fringe, and I tend to think I'd find my place better in the Garden than the Academy. With all of this said, there is one constant, some mentor is invaluable in this pursuit of truth.

Since my first love wasn't philosophy, I speak from a hobbyist philosopher perspective. Perhaps this too is where our notions diverge.

Yeah, I was using The Republic as the source of my argument.

As for where I am coming from, I am working on my philosophy major and am planning on using it as part of my career.