Good and not good
There’s some quality material here, but the religio-political perspective of this professor detracts from almost every statement he makes. For example, his hatred for Hegel (which he never tries to disguise) is delivered with incredible unfairness and total subjectivity. However he is mostly fair toward Kant, I suppose because Kant makes room for orthodox Christianity.Bottom line, this represents the problem with Christian philosophy today- the acceptance of Christian dogma as a trump card for any outlying philosophical thought. Unless you’re a Christian fundamentalist, these lectures will aggravate you. If you are a fundamentalist, these lectures will support your “faith” built entirely on your ability to reason (which I think is not faith at all).I HIGHLY recommend Christian and non-Christian listeners go instead to Dr. Arthur Holmes (Prof at Wheaton) lecture on history of philosophy which is available in its entirety. Holmes is much more fair.To all who say that this professor is simply giving the “Christian perspective,” that’s exactly the problem! Who says this is the Christian perspective? Also, by acting with such overt opinions, he seriously misses the impact and historical significance of many of these philosophers. It’s not as if “he was right” and “he was wrong”, it’s the culmination of humanity’s ideas and how they’ve changed overtime. The polemics are not right in this context and undermine the merit of the lectures. The notion of a single orthodox dogma that this prof reads into the history of philosophy results in mediocrity that most people interested in academic philosophy will dismiss.
Reviewed on Apple Podcasts