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

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

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