Explaining David Bentley Hart's 'All Things are Full of Gods' (Part 2)

In this series, we'll attempt to distill the essential ideas and arguments from each chapter of David Bentley Hart's new book "All Things are Full of Gods."

This episode focuses on Chapters 2-3.
For Part 1 on the introduction and Chapter 1:

Tell me in the comments what you thought about this chapter!
Ask questions! Share counterpoints! Let's get our own dialogue going.

To support on Patreon:

For the audio-only Deep Talks podcast:

[slorbitify]

The philosopher who Hermes' argument reminds me of most is the sphota tradition of Hindu philosophy, specifically starting with Bhartrihari. In Hinduism it is said that all of reality is "word", language, eminating from the primordial word of Aum (Om). Given that Hart is very fond of Vedanta I would think he is directly inspired by this tradition, since it heavily influenced it. Some have noted that the theory of sphota which this tradition adheres to nicely could translate to "logos".

[ericparnell]

"The end goal is communion with God". Yes.

[willmcauliff]

Thank you for starting this series! I’d never heard of Hart prior to you talking about it here on your channel and I’m listening now through the audiobook.

[ehwbest]

Another author who appears to share a similar sensibility with Hart on the relationship between mind and matter is the late Canadian Zen teacher, Albert Low. His books are easier to read but lack Hart’s command of the Christian tradition and delight in detailed contention. Worth a read for those on a spiritual journey, I think.

[doug_sponsler]

Very well done. Please keep these going!

[englishlanguagewithnina]

I don't know anyone else reading this book. I'm barely smart enough to follow. I hope you'll keep making these videos, they are so helpful!!❤

[dionysian]

Thank you for this and the previous video. I subscribed and hope you continue the series. This is a helpful companion to the book.

[kylekloostra]

Loved the book integrates beautifully with the vipassana meditation practice. In fact, i’d dare say the most direct experience of what Hart writes about is through vipassana.

[J.Tom.S]

Lots to chew on. The irreducibility of language grabbed my attention as well. As I’ve thought more about it, I wonder if “meaning” might be a better word. It’s conceivable, in my mind, that language and even communication in general could emerge over time, but what I can’t conceive is how “meaning” or telos ontologically speaking could emerge. I need to think more on it, but my initial response is that meaning/telos is fundamental to the nature of reality. Language is a vehicle we use to distribute and share in meaning.

But with that said, my first thought from these two chapters was that I thought Psyche slipped into a bit of hypocrisy at one point when discussing the energy problem. In the first chapter she attacked Hephaestus’ argument against psyche’s infinite gap between consciousness/mind and the brain by (paraphrasing) “Oh, so many ‘what if’s.’” A chapter or two later she does the exact same thing when postulating her own theory in response to Hephaestus’ energy objection. Maybe Hart did this intentionally, because that is a very human thing to do in arguments, but still, it undermined her argument.

[MyLorica]

Will give this a look tonight. Thanks for this

[aaronkrohn]

Walker Percy - The Delta Factor
A sign/language centric reality idea

[SibleySteve]

Pseudo dualistic monism, prescriptively wholistic in essence, perceived as functionally dualistic. Our eyeballs are an example as the opposite, two different organs functioning synchronistically

[aswinunni]

For the Dam analogy to work shouldn't Hart explain the Dam itself? How is the energy being influenced without any other energy. I feel like the best way to understand it is by thinking of matter itself as mind and nothing else. Matter is simply the representation of mind when viewed from a first person subjective experience.

Also I think his position is basically Pan'en'theism or just Platonic Idealism.