On enchantment and disenchantment, Mammon, "Thomism," capitalism, Christian socialism, Ruskin and Morris and Tawney, Marxism, transhumanism, Romanticism, universalism...inter alia...
Thank you for putting this out. I’m increasingly excited for the eventual book on Christian politics/economics that I believe (maybe mistakenly) was alluded to in your recent speech about the future of Christianity.
This is the interview I’ve been waiting for - can’t wait to listen!
I was wondering if you could point me to a book or two in addition to "life itself" that would expand upon what you said about the sciences not being reducible to physics and/or math. I can understand this with regard to biology. As a chemist myself though, I don't see how this applies. Everything in chemistry seems to be straightforwardardly just physics. As for this reducing all physics to math, I'm not so sure, but to me I sort of glimpse something beautiful here in the idea that mind is so transparent to world that math is just another language describing fundamental structures of reality. But like Socrates in Gorgias I'd love to be refuted. Excellent discussion, I'd love to see more with him!
The comments on love near the end remind me very much of Solovyov's _The Meaning of Love_ (with its introduction by Owen Barfield).
Rich conversation indeed. I put the quote below together with your name and a lovely image of some stars. It’s generating some consternation:
“Dante got it right. The love that moves the sun and all the other stars is actually not a pious claim. It's not a metaphysical claim. It's actually a claim about physics.“
Thank you for this great conversation. Especially the absurdity of the integralist endeavor.
You have great friends Dr. Hart. I learn a lot from your conversations with them.
Dr. Hart, if I understand your comments on love towards the end correctly, are you suggesting that love could be a basic causal power binding causal relations (even those in basic physics) together? I have often speculated along these lines myself. Might it be that pleasure and pain didn't emerge out of nothingness during the course of animal evolution, but are actually fundamental properties of the world that were later co-opted by natural selection to motivate new fitness improving behaviours?
Wonderful interview! Thank you for sharing. I suppose there's something apropos about discussing re-enchantment and the fragility of the terrestrial biome with a voice made hoarse by wildfire smoke, but all the same, I hope you feel better soon.
There is indeed some resemblance to Ronald Colman, but would say that Mr McCarraher looks more like Charles Dance. All in all, not a bad-looking group of lookalikes.
Interesting conversation on Marxism. FWIW, I’m a student of Fred Jameson, and he holds there to be a perpetual relation between base and superstructure, but not a determination, and he certainly still considers himself to be a Marxist. I suppose it comes down to this label meaning different things to different people. Anyway he knows far more about this than either you or I do.