Videos simplifying Aquinas for the layman

[hammiesink]

Hello!

I thought you might find my videos useful. I’m trying to bring philosophy to the layman, and I’m starting with Aquinas and other theistic arguments: youtube.com/user/Sinkh

 

[Windfish]

Excellent stuff. What is your experience in philosophy?

 

[hammiesink]

Hobbyist only. These videos are one way of learning for me, and helping everyone else in the process.

 

[Windfish]

Hobbyist only. These videos are one way of learning for me, and helping everyone else in the process.

Same. You do good work. What kind of video-editing program did you use?

Aquinas’ proofs are impeccable, and the only way to really doubt them is to doubt the possibility of a metaphysical demonstration proving the existence of anything at all. I have a lot of reading ahead of me to really address that doubt.

 

[hammiesink]

Chalk me up to agnostic. I just think it’s really hard to decide metaphysical problems. I mean, could I *ever *really decide whether universals exist or not? Seems like I have to be agnostic on a lot of these things.

However, it’s certainly telling that atheists have had to invent strawman versions of these arguments to knock down. Seem like the real arguments are almost unknown, outside of academic philosophy.

 

[hammiesink]

Oh, I just use Powerpoint and then use the free CamStudio to videotape the presentation.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Great stuff

Looking forward to the last two videos.

Are you going to do other videos as well? Such as the four causes (I know it’s Aristotle but Aquinas made it his foundation), essence and existence, etc…?

 

[Windfish]

Chalk me up to agnostic. I just think it’s really hard to decide metaphysical problems. I mean, could I *ever *really decide whether universals exist or not? Seems like I have to be agnostic on a lot of these things.

However, it’s certainly telling that atheists have had to invent strawman versions of these arguments to knock down. Seem like the real arguments are almost unknown, outside of academic philosophy.

I do not think you have to be agnostic. Perhaps you have yet to really hear a convincing presentation of the argument. If you are not already familiar with Ed Feser, I would definitely read his material, including his blog.

 

[Windfish]

btw, I do not think the argument from miracles gets enough credit. I can only guess that is the case because apologetics and philosophy in the west is dominated by Protestant Christians, many of whom believe that public miracles ended after the Apostolic Period and do not have the miraculous history that the Catholic Church has. I have been trying to find a well-constructed generic argument from miracles that I can supply with specific examples as needed. Maybe you should give it a shot. Based on your videos, I think you have the chops. And I can also supply you with what I have researched.

 

[hammiesink]

I do not think you have to be agnostic. Perhaps you have yet to really hear a convincing presentation of the argument. If you are not already familiar with Ed Feser, I would definitely read his material, including his blog.

I’ve read both of Feser’s Aquinas books twice; that’s where I got most of my Aquinas information for the videos, including his interpretation of the Second Way.

I think the agnosticism comes because these arguments are about such general features of reality, it’s just really hard to tell if they have it right, and there probably is not good way to clinch it. It’s nice how timeless they are, though.

 

[hammiesink]

Great stuff

Looking forward to the last two videos.

Are you going to do other videos as well? Such as the four causes (I know it’s Aristotle but Aquinas made it his foundation), essence and existence, etc…?

Obviously, I’ll provide a quick intro to the four causes for the Fifth Way. After Aquinas, I’ll probably do Leibniz’s contingency argument, and maybe Kalam. Some atheist arguments. Then perhaps ethics.

 

[Windfish]

I’ve read both of Feser’s Aquinas books twice; that’s where I got most of my Aquinas information for the videos, including his interpretation of the Second Way.

I think the agnosticism comes because these arguments are about such general features of reality, it’s just really hard to tell if they have it right, and there probably is not good way to clinch it. It’s nice how timeless they are, though.

I think what clinches it for me is that the opposing view simply cannot get around universal without presupposing universals! Feser went into this, if you remember. Most of the time, the other side has nothing to show for it besides a presumption of naturalism.

hammiesink:

Obviously, I’ll provide a quick intro to the four causes for the Fifth Way. After Aquinas, I’ll probably do Leibniz’s contingency argument, and maybe Kalam. Some atheist arguments. Then perhaps ethics.

Nice. I’ll look forward to the atheist arguments. As far as I can tell, the only argument they have on their side is the argument from evil, but Feser, if you remember, addressed that as well.