Max Rohstock argues that, for Dionysius, evil arises when human freedom turns away from the Good itself and becomes fixed on finite goods (wealth, power, pleasure) as though they were ultimate. Yet the Good never ceases to sustain us or call us back. In that sense, even our return to the Good begins from a grace that is already present.

Max Rohstock on Dionysius and the Origin of Evil

In this episode, we talk about a puzzle in St. Maximus the Confessor. First, Maximus holds that every human being already participates in Christ: Christ is the source, ordering principle, and final end of human nature. Second, Maximus says that the virtues are, in some sense, natural to us, and that the virtues lead to deification So why do we need baptism at all? Why does Maximus hold that baptism is necessary for deification and salvation if every human being already IN SOME SENSE participates in Christ and already IN SOME SENSE possesses by nature, the potential for deifying virtue? Discussion is based on Andreas' article "Maximus the Confessor's Christocentric Cosmology and the Necessity of Baptism: Insights from Ad Thalassium 15 and 6"

Andreas Bergman: Why Baptism Is Necessary in St. Maximus the Confessor

Political philosopher Mark Blitz joins the podcast to discuss his new book, Aristotle’s Political Philosophy. We consider Aristotle’s account of the link between political life and human happiness, the regime as a way of life, the place of virtue in liberal democracy, and the tensions between politics, philosophy, and religion. Patrick Jones joins me for the conversation.

Mark Blitz on Aristotle’s Political Philosophy

In this episode, Sam Bennett speaks with philosopher Jakub Jirsa about his new Bloomsbury book, The Function Argument in Aristotle’s Ethics. They discuss Aristotle’s famous function argument, what it means to ask whether human beings have a distinctive function, and how this question shapes Aristotle’s account of virtue, happiness, and the human good.

The Function Argument in Aristotle’s Ethics with Jakub Jirsa

In this episode, I speak with Michele Pecorari about one of Aristotle’s arguments against Plato’s Form of the Good in Nicomachean Ethics 1.6. Aristotle notes that we call many different kinds of things good: God is good, as a substance; virtue is good, as a quality; the right amount is good, as a quantity; and the right time is good, as a time. We discuss why Aristotle thinks this creates a problem for Plato’s idea of a single Form of the Good.

The article discussed is Michele Pecorari’s “Goodness and Non-Univocity in Nicomachean Ethics 1.6,” published in Phronesis 71.1, pp. 25–51. The article is available here: https://brill.com/view/journals/phro/71/1/article-p25_2.xml

Aristotle’s Argument Against Plato’s Form of the Good - with Michele Pecorari

Gyula Klima discusses the medieval problem of universals, focusing on the divide between the via antiqua and the via moderna. The conversation centers especially on William of Ockham’s break with the older realist tradition, drawing on Klima’s article “What is Wrong with Nominalism?” (Divinitas, 2, 2025). Klima argues that the deepest shift is not simply metaphysical, but semantic: a new account of how words, concepts, and things are related.

Gyula Klima on Ockham, Nominalism, and the Via Moderna

Karsten Harries, emeritus Yale professor of philosophy, joins Dr. Sam Bennett for a conversation on Nicholas of Cusa’s On Learned Ignorance, the limits of reason, modern science, nihilism, Kant, Heidegger, beauty, and transcendence in human life.

Karsten Harries on Nicholas of Cusa, Modernity, and Nihilism

In this episode, philosopher Christopher Hauser of the University of Scranton joins Dr. Sam Bennett to discuss Aristotle’s epistemology, specifically his theory of essence and how we come to know essences. We begin by clarifying what Aristotle means by essence, including the distinction between individuals and kinds, and between essential features and merely necessary properties. The conversation then turns to a central question in Aristotle’s philosophy: how do we grasp the fundamental definitions that capture something's essence? Hauser outlines three major interpretations of Aristotle’s view, intuitionism, explanationism, and a Socratic approach, and explains why he favors an explanationist account. Explanationism holds that we come to know essences not by immediate intellectual insight, but by developing and testing definitions in light of what they explain about a kind.

How Do We Know Essences? Aristotle’s Answer with Christopher Hauser

In this episode, Dr Sam Bennett speaks with the Italian literary critic and poet Piero Boitani about his recent book Timaeus in Paradise: Metaphors and Beauty from Plato to Dante and Beyond, alongside his long poetic work Plato’s Poem. We begin with the remarkable story behind these works, including the unexpected emergence of poetic inspiration late in Piero's life. From there, the conversation turns to the enduring influence of Plato’s Timaeus, especially its reception in the Western tradition and its role in shaping reflections on beauty, order, and metaphor. A central part of the discussion includes readings from Boitani’s poetry. We recite and reflect on passages such as Jacob’s Song for Rachel’s Beauty, and Dionysius Sings of Beauty, which traces a metaphysical vision of beauty as both the origin and end of the universe. As Boitani writes, “Europe, listening, experienced fire,” capturing the transmission of the Timaean vision across the tradition.

Piero Boitani on the Timaeus, Beauty, and Poetic Thought

In this episode, Sam Bennett speaks with Dr. Rareș Ilie Marinescu about the depth of the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle. Rareș is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Classics at the University of Toronto and the author of Proclus on Aristotle on Plato: A Case Study on Motion. Do Plato and Aristotle merely disagree at the surface level, or do they diverge at the level of first principles? Is motion ultimately explained by a self moving soul or by an unmoved intellect? Can a self moving soul truly ground the motion of bodies, or must the ultimate source of motion be entirely unmoved? Is Aristotle’s unmoved mover only a final cause, or does it also produce being? Did Aristotle deny the existence of the One, and if so, what follows from that denial? If the highest principle is misidentified, does the entire metaphysical system shift with it? Through the lens of Proclus, this discussion moves from kinematics to psychology to theology, asking if Plato and Aristotle can be harmonized.

Plato vs. Aristotle: A Fundamental Divide? With Dr. Rares Marinescu

Samuel Bennett (@bennettsamuel84) · Zencastr

Samuel Bennett (@bennettsamuel84)

The Dionysius Circle Podcast focuses on Christian Platonism and the broader Platonic tradition. We study the integration of Platonism within Christian philosophy and theology, along with Plato himself and the later schools of Platonism. We also explore how Platonism developed in Jewish and Islamic thought. The project includes an ongoing interest in philosophical Platonism, both ancient and contemporary.

For more, visit DionysiusCircle.org [http://dionysiuscircle.org/]. 