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

This episode is a discussion with philosopher Damiano Costa about his paper “An Argument Against Aristotelian Universals.” Costa examines the Aristotelian view that universals really exist, yet depend for their existence on being exemplified by particular things, and he explains why he thinks this position cannot be sustained.

The discussion focuses on two arguments against Aristotelian universals. The first targets the idea that the existence of a universal is grounded in exemplification. Costa argues that if exemplification is a relation, then exemplification would require the prior existence of the universal itself, making it impossible for exemplification to ground that universal’s existence.

The second argument considers whether grounding universals in states of affairs or facts, such as “the apple is red,” can avoid this difficulty. Costa argues that this strategy also fails, since such facts involve universals as constituents, where constituents partly ground the fact in the first place.

Against Aristotelian Universals: Two Arguments from Damiano Costa

In this episode, Sam Bennett speaks with Gyula Klima about the medieval problem of universals and the philosophical issues that arise when we try to explain how universal cognition of singular things is possible. Klima begins with his intellectual background and then walks through the problem as it develops from Plato’s ideal objects and the challenge posed by the Third Man argument, to Aristotle’s account of abstraction and universal concepts. He discusses Augustine’s placement of universals in the divine mind, Boethius’s and Abelard’s efforts to explain how features separable in thought need not be separable in reality, and Aquinas’s account of common natures and universal concepts as the shared objects of individual acts of understanding.

The Problem of Universals: A Conversation with Gyula Klima

In this episode, I talk with Dr. Christophe de Ray from Nanyang Technological University about his article “Corruptio Boni: An Alternative to the Privation Theory of Evil,” published in the journal Ratio: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy. Drawing inspiration from Augustine, Dr. de Ray argues that evil is not the mere absence of a good that ought to obtain, but rather the corruption of a good: something that harms, diminishes, or destroys it.

The Nature of Evil: Privation or Corruption? with Christophe de Ray

What kind of thing is evil?
If all being is good, where does disorder come from?
Can evil have reality without being a substance?

In this episode, we talk with philosopher Pierce Marks about his paper “Evil as Privation: Its True Meaning and Import.” We discuss the Platonic roots of the view that evil is a lack of the good, the distinction between “mere” and “depraved” privations, and whether natural evils like death or predation are genuine evils or part of the world’s perfection.

Evil as Privation: A Conversation with Pierce Alexander Marks

In this episode, Dr. Andreas Bergman joins us to discuss his recent open-access article, The Maximian Perspective on Paul: A Reconstruction of the Works of the Law and Maximus the Confessor. We begin by outlining the main features of the Old and New Perspectives on Paul, particularly the contested meaning of the phrase “works of the law” in Pauline theology. From there, we explore how Maximus the Confessor’s ascetical theology complicates and enriches this debate. Dr. Bergman explains Maximus’s tripartite division of the law (natural, written, and spiritual), his understanding of motivation in relation to justification, and how Maximus can, in different respects, be seen as aligning both with and against key elements of the major interpretive traditions.

Justification Revisited: Maximus the Confessor and the New Perspective on Paul

In this episode of the Dionysius Circle podcast, I explore with New Testament scholar Dr. Joshua Heavin his recent article on participation in Christ and divine and human righteousness. Drawing from both Paul’s letters and the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, we examine how righteousness is not merely a moral property but, at its deepest level, a person — Christ himself. We also unpack Gregory’s fourfold model of participation and how it offers a transformative vision of the Christian life.

Participation and Righteousness in Paul and Gregory of Nyssa – A Conversation with Dr. Joshua Heavin

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Clelia Attanasio about her recent work on Pseudo-Dionysius and the distinction between theurgy and hierurgy. We explore how Moses, as the paradigmatic hierurgist, models the human ascent through contemplation and the use of sacred symbols in response to divine action.

Moses the Hierarch: Theurgy and Sacred Imitation in Dionysius with Dr. Clelia Attanasio

In this episode of the Dionysius Circle Podcast, we’re joined by Rev. Dr. Kjetil Kringlebotten, a priest in the Church of Norway and author of Liturgy, Theurgy, and Active Participation. We talk about what it really means to participate in the liturgy, why God’s action is at the heart of worship, and how Christian Platonism can deepen our understanding of the Church’s rituals.

Liturgy, Theurgy, and Active Participation with Dr. Kjetil Kringlebotten

In this episode of The Dionysius Circle Podcast, Dr. Sam Bennett speaks with Dr. Stephanos Stephanides, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cyprus specializing in Platonic philosophy, about his article, "Reconsidering the Essential Nature and Indestructibility of the Soul in the Affinity Argument of the Phaedo." The conversation touches on the structure of Plato’s Phaedo, the Affinity Argument’s approach to the soul’s indestructibility, and the distinction between composite and incomposite entities, while reflecting on how later interpretations, including Neoplatonic perspectives, have engaged with these ideas.

Dr. Stephanos Stephanides on Plato’s Phaedo: The Soul’s Nature and Indestructibility

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/]. 

Samuel Bennett

Shows