# Philosophy Lectures?



## openairboy (Jan 16, 2005)

Does anyone have or have listened to some good philosophy lectures?

I own Bahnsen's, which I am currently listening to, but was wondering if there are some good series that should be listened to.

Thanks,
openairboy


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Jan 16, 2005)

Here you go pal, someone suggested this site to me before.

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/philosophy/frame.html


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2005)

Although they are not systematically arranged or presented in any topical fashion, go to www.sermonaudio.com and look for the sermons by Cornelius Van Til.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SoldierOfTheRock_
> Here you go pal, someone suggested this site to me before.
> 
> http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/philosophy/frame.html



WOW! That's a home run for FREE!!!!!!!!

Did you listen to them?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Problem is that it's given by Nash.



And why is this a problem?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'll let you figure it out



Because he doesn't like Van Til?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> no...



Humm, no clue your objection then. 

I would recommend the lecture set, until shown otherwise. He has written some good books.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> of course if you don't mind reading people that constantly misrepresent, or show a misunderstanding, of their opponants.... then recommend away



So you are willing to say "Don't listen to a course on the history of Philosophy" by an orthodox Calvinistic philosopher, who has the proper degrees, has put out a large amount of good work etc. because he has an improper perspective towards Van Til and his teachings? Yet you will recommend work by secular philosopher on the same subject?

Instead of doing all that, all you had to do was say "Take what he says about Van Til with a grain of salt".

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> p.s. I never said "don't listen to it." I said that the "problem" with the lectures is that it is given by Nash. I have read three of his books and so would be a hypocrit if I said not to listen or read him....
> 
> please pay attention to the specific words used. i usualy try and put some thought into them



Actually the issue was a lack of words in the first place. I asked you why you didnt recommend and you said, "I let you figure it out." If you had said, because of X, Y, and Z, then we would of had no need to go further.

Next, "no...." led me to believe that you were "against" him not due to his dislike of Van Til but due to his misrepresentation of Van Til.

I will attempt to be more careful with your careful wording, however it seems just a bit weird to first be purposefully obscure with your words and then later complain that someone did not read carefully.

CT


----------



## JOwen (Jan 18, 2005)

Nash rocks.


Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I think you just like debating me for some reason. If you're going to, which I don't mind, please read what I say previously.
> 
> [Edited on 1-19-2005 by Paul manata]



I dont really like debating all that much. It is just coincidence that you seem to be the person that I am talking to the most when I am debating 

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

Paul,
Which books of Nash, have you read?

CT


----------



## Presbyrino (Jan 18, 2005)

Paul & Hermonta,

For those of us who are not very philosopically astute, what would be the reasons you would either recommend or not recommend Nash's series on Philosophy? 

Not being philosophically trained myself, I'm afraid that I really couldn't judge whether this series is good or not.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Well, I can't say for sure, since I haven't listened to it, but my point is that Nash has misrepresented alot of philosophical positions, philosophers, and oponants, so I would expect the same... if I can reason inductively


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'm not saying don't listen to it, just cross check and reference, that's all....



I concur, especially since I have not listened to the lectures.

CT


----------



## JOwen (Jan 18, 2005)

> next time you read his work see how many immediate sources he cites vs. how many christian's who critique the position he's critiquing to get his explanations of the person he's critiquing. You can se this especiially in his critiques of naturalism and his constant equating them to materialists.




I just completed "Christianity and the Hellenistic World" and "Light of the Mind". In both cases his quoting of original sources are in abundance. Nash is a scholar par excellence with impeccable credentials. Which books do you think are weak on primary sources? What is the magic number?


----------



## JOwen (Jan 18, 2005)

Great. 
Seems to me this might be a preference thing not a scholarly thing. 


Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > next time you read his work see how many immediate sources he cites vs. how many christian's who critique the position he's critiquing to get his explanations of the person he's critiquing. You can se this especiially in his critiques of naturalism and his constant equating them to materialists.
> ...



I thoroughly enjoyed, Light of the Mind. It definitely makes Clark more understandable.

CT


----------



## Authorised (Jan 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> no, for exmple, in his chapter on naturalism, in the book by Habermas, Nash does not cite ONE naturalist. Nash's only non-christian source is from a 20 year old intro to science text book. Nash calls all naturalists materialists, which they are not. Nash says that naturalists hold to determinism, which not all do, especially when one reads the ideas of naturalists in the field of quantum mechanics.
> 
> So, this had nothing to do with Van Til....




He doesn't do any of this in the lectures concerning Naturalism. In fact, he gives of examples of two different naturalists who differed regarding determinism. I don't think the criticisms you offer occur in the lectures, though I have not yet read one of his books.


----------



## Evan Tomlin (Aug 20, 2005)

I know this thread has not been touched for quite some time but I have stumbled over quite the resource.

www.teach12.com

They have several different philosophy lecture sets ranging from Philosophy of Religion to an 84 lecture set on the History of Philosophy. All the lectures are done by notable professors at elite institutions. Obviously, it is not done from a biblical approach, but if you are looking for a bird's eye glimpse at the history of philosophy you can't go wrong with the "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition." I am 10 lectures through and the succinct and poignant manner in which they are composed is amazing. This will definitely hit the high points and all things considered, 44 hours of lecture for $99.00 (downloadable version) is not all that bad. I hope this is a valuable resource for someone.

God Bless,

Evan

[Edited on 8-20-2005 by Evan Tomlin]


----------



## Don (Aug 20, 2005)

Thanks for posting that Evan. Looks like a great site.


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Sep 4, 2005)

I'm aware that many people here dont like P. Andrew Sandlin, but I liked his lectures on philosophy. I believe they can be found on sermonaudio.com.

Mike


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 4, 2005)

evan,
Im actually quite interested since I do distance learning. Are there christian schools like this?

blade


----------



## Evan Tomlin (Sep 18, 2005)

I wouldn't call teach12 a school per se. There is a pluthra of long distance education out there...but I have not come across anything even NEAR this format and quality.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> of course if you don't mind reading people that constantly misrepresent, or show a misunderstanding, of their opponants.... then recommend away



I thought you were a bit harsh on Nash...until last night. I've been burning the Nash lectures (in Quicktime format) from the Christian Apologetics course to CD, and then encoding the CD into WMA vbr to transfer to my portable MP3 player and keep on my extra hard disk. So in the process of doing that, I decided to listen to the "Methodology" lecture from the Christian Apologetics course which I had not listened to in some time, not since becomming a hardcore Van Tillian presuppositonalist. Nash said the following; 

"...because I think, there isn't a whole lot of difference, between Gordon Clark and Corneilus Van Til...."

"...on this particular point, there is little if any difference between Gordon Clark in his latter years and many of Van Til's disciples, not necessarily those on our present facuilty, but people like Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, the whole group of...Theonomists, yeah you mouthed the words too, this is a group that's really splittin' up the Church,..." 

"...but Gary North holds to a system of economics, that is almost identical with mine, in case you care alright."

"Gordon Clark believes that the laws of logic, are necessary and essential laws, without which, sound Theology and sound Philosophy are impossible. On the other hand, Van Til taught, or so I think, you gotta understand, they're are alot of ambiguities in Van Til, but Van Til taught, that God created the laws of logic. Now I know that's a controversial statement, and I don't know whether John Frame, would agree with that, but I do know that alot of Van Tillians, do think that's what Van Til meant."

Talk about poisoning the well...I mean misrepresenting. That's not what Van Til taught, neither have I heard such a thought come from a Van Tillian. 

When I heard that I thought, "whoa, that doesn't sound right!" So I did a little searching and did a little reading from: 

http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Pratt.VanTil.1.html
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Pratt.VanTil.2.html

Van Til say's; 

"œChristian theism should employ the law of contradiction, whether positively or negatively, as a means by which to systematize the facts of revelation. Whether these facts are found in the universe at large or in the Scripture. *The law of contradiction cannot be thought of as operating anywhere except against the background of the nature of God*" (IST 11).

and 

"œIt appears that there must seem to be contradiction in human knowledge. To this we must now add that the contradiction that seems to be there can in the nature of the case be no more than a seeming contradiction. *If we said that there is real contradiction in our knowledge we would once more be denying the basic concept of Christian-theism, i.e., the concept of the self-complete universal in God. We should then not merely be saying that there is no complete coherence in our thinking but we should also be saying that there is no complete coherence in God´s thinking. And this would be the same as saying that there is no coherence or truth in our thinking at all. If we say that the idea of paradox or antinomy is that of real contradiction, we have destroyed all human and all divine knowledge; if we say that the idea of paradox or antinomy is that of seeming contradiction we have saved God´s knowledge and therewith also our own*" (DOF 62).

and 

"œ*As Christians we say that this is a mystery that is beyond our comprehension. It surely is. God himself, in the totality of his existence, is above our comprehension. At the same time, this mysterious God is mysterious because he is, within himself, wholly rational*" (IST 230).

Either Nash's bias came through in his lecture, and or Nash learned more about Van Til through reading Clark than through reading Van Til, and or his misunderstanding is due to a lack of not paying close enough attention to Van Til when reading his books.


----------



## lycaphim (Oct 1, 2005)

> I've been burning the Nash lectures (in Quicktime format) from the Christian Apologetics course to CD, and then encoding the CD into WMA vbr to transfer to my portable MP3 player and keep on my extra hard disk. So in the process of doing that, I decided to listen to the "Methodology" lecture from the Christian Apologetics course which I had not listened to in some time, not since becomming a hardcore Van Tillian presuppositonalist.



How did you manage to do that? I had always thought that the lectures were streaming audio...so I didn't bother to burn it. Care to fill me in on how to accomplish that?


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lycaphim_
> 
> 
> > I've been burning the Nash lectures (in Quicktime format) from the Christian Apologetics course to CD, and then encoding the CD into WMA vbr to transfer to my portable MP3 player and keep on my extra hard disk. So in the process of doing that, I decided to listen to the "Methodology" lecture from the Christian Apologetics course which I had not listened to in some time, not since becomming a hardcore Van Tillian presuppositonalist.
> ...



I don't know if they're changed it so that what I'm about to tell you is not possible, but I allowed each lecture to play while I waited for each stream to finish downloading, and then dug the Quicktime files out of my temporary internet files, by clicking Start---->All Programs----->Accessories------>System Tools, and selecting the program "Disk Cleanup". I selected "Temporary Internet Files" from the menu and clicked "View Files". There were several folders, and the files would download into various temp folders. I created a folder (on my desktop) named "Biblical Training" and sub folders for each class, using the name of the lecturer and class. I hope this helps. God bless


----------

