Clarification needed on basics of Catholic philosphy

[mcteague]

In order that some of the treads I am involved in don’t go completely off topic, I need to clarify some basic issues. As many people here are better trained in philosophy and theology than I am, I thought it best to address them in a separate thread.

The following are areas where I would like some clarification as to the correctness in my understanding of Catholic philosophy. That is are these correct understandings. The last simply asks a more general question.

1. Because of the influence of Plato on Augustine, I am assuming that the Catholic conception of God is actually closer to the idea of “the form” than to older conceptions of God as a sort of all powerful being. The Catholic God is still all powerful. But not in the anthropomorphic sense that God is perceived in other and earlier religions. Different from a form however because God would be both perfect and universal. We simply use terms from that earlier conception because it is difficult to discuss God in such an abstract way. And if God exists “he” would present himself to us in a way that we could apprehend.
2. I also believe that Catholic philosophy is greatly influenced by the Aristotelian concept of essence. That is what a thing is. And that Catholics may usually prefer to think in terms of one primary essence for each thing. That is a thing can not be what it is without the presence of some particular essential quality. The idea of a primary or one essence being a requirement for classification is significant for some of my discussions because it is, or may be, an flawed concept.
3. One primary difference between the Old Testament and New Testament is that in the new we are called upon to seek communion with God. To align our beings with that perfection which is defined by God. That is to seek and act in accordance with the essence of what God has defined as good or perfect. As opposed to in some religions merely obeying particular orders. Catholicism seems to require a more active and conscious participation. ( I know this a bit obtuse. I do hope I am being clear)
4. Although I am familiar with the Bible and Jude-Christian thinking in general, I would be difficult for me to articulate what the philosophy of the Bible is in specific terms. Or even to state explicitly that it has one in the sense that we normally think of philosophy. I would like to know if a specific philosophy of the Bible can truly be articulated. It seems theological, but not necessarily philosophical

I would like to know if these ideas express a correct understanding of Catholic philosophy. How are they correct or not. And I would like to know if the supremacy within the church is towards the Hebrew or Greek thinking when they diverge.

I know this is actually a lot of meat. I know enough philosophy and theology to ask the question. But not really enough to provide good answers. When I discuss issues here, I would prefer to do so with a more correct and fuller understanding of the basics of Catholic philosophy. It is best to argue issues related to Catholic philosophy within the specific parameter of what it is. Or at least know what those parameters are, so we know when we exceed them Thank you in advance to all you religion and philosophy scholars for any clarifications you can provide

 

[Betterave]

1. Because of the influence of Plato on Augustine, I am assuming that the Catholic conception of God is actually closer to the idea of “the form” than to older conceptions of God as a sort of all powerful being. The Catholic God is still all powerful. But not in the anthropomorphic sense that God is perceived in other and earlier religions. Different from a form however because God would be both perfect and universal. We simply use terms from that earlier conception because it is difficult to discuss God in such an abstract way. And if God exists “he” would present himself to us in a way that we could apprehend.

No, our God is the same God as that of Judaism: Yahweh, he-who-is. Man is created in God’s image, so God is necessarily ‘anthropomorphic’. Also, while it is a complicated question, the Platonic idea of God is not simply “the form.”

1. I also believe that Catholic philosophy is greatly influenced by the Aristotelian concept of essence. That is what a thing is. And that Catholics may usually prefer to think in terms of one primary essence for each thing. That is a thing can not be what it is without the presence of some particular essential quality. The idea of a primary or one essence being a requirement for classification is significant for some of my discussions because it is, or may be, an flawed concept.

It is generally understood that a thing is what it is in virtue of its essence. That’s just what essence means: that in virtue of which a thing is what it is. But there is no ban on alternate modes of expressing metaphysical concepts.

1. One primary difference between the Old Testament and New Testament is that in the new we are called upon to seek communion with God. To align our beings with that perfection which is defined by God. That is to seek and act in accordance with the essence of what God has defined as good or perfect. As opposed to in some religions merely obeying particular orders. Catholicism seems to require a more active and conscious participation. ( I know this a bit obtuse. I do hope I am being clear)

That is not a difference between the OT and NT. Jews would be very offended by this characterization.

1. Although I am familiar with the Bible and Jude-Christian thinking in general, I would be difficult for me to articulate what the philosophy of the Bible is in specific terms. Or even to state explicitly that it has one in the sense that we normally think of philosophy. I would like to know if a specific philosophy of the Bible can truly be articulated. It seems theological, but not necessarily philosophical

It seems possible - you can take any source and derive from it “the philosophy of…” - but not necessary, and doing so might obscure the fact that the Bible is partly ‘wisdom’ literature, but on the whole certainly not in the genre of ‘philosophy’.

 

[JohnDamian]

1. Because of the influence of Plato on Augustine, I am assuming that the Catholic conception of God is actually closer to the idea of “the form” than to older conceptions of God as a sort of all powerful being. The Catholic God is still all powerful. But not in the anthropomorphic sense that God is perceived in other and earlier religions. Different from a form however because God would be both perfect and universal. We simply use terms from that earlier conception because it is difficult to discuss God in such an abstract way. And if God exists “he” would present himself to us in a way that we could apprehend.

For a full explanation of omnipotence; see De Divinia Omnipotenta; by St Peter Damian.

God would not reveal himself to us in a way we could apprehend necessarily.

1. I also believe that Catholic philosophy is greatly influenced by the Aristotelian concept of essence. That is what a thing is. And that Catholics may usually prefer to think in terms of one primary essence for each thing. That is a thing can not be what it is without the presence of some particular essential quality. The idea of a primary or one essence being a requirement for classification is significant for some of my discussions because it is, or may be, an flawed concept.

What do you mean by essence. Elaborate on your understanding of it.

Catholic perception of essence varies from the Conceptualism of Peter Abelard to the Nominalism of William of Ockham, to the Empiricism and Scotist Formalism of Duns Scotus, to the moderate Realism of Aquinas.

There is no “one” understanding of essence.

1. One primary difference between the Old Testament and New Testament is that in the new we are called upon to seek communion with God. To align our beings with that perfection which is defined by God. That is to seek and act in accordance with the essence of what God has defined as good or perfect. As opposed to in some religions merely obeying particular orders. Catholicism seems to require a more active and conscious participation. ( I know this a bit obtuse. I do hope I am being clear)

Yes; Catholocism requires and encourages a more interactive approach through the sacraments.

1. Although I am familiar with the Bible and Jude-Christian thinking in general, I would be difficult for me to articulate what the philosophy of the Bible is in specific terms. Or even to state explicitly that it has one in the sense that we normally think of philosophy. I would like to know if a specific philosophy of the Bible can truly be articulated. It seems theological, but not necessarily philosophical

The Bible is not really an ontology or a political philosophy; it teaches Ethics. Although Romans contains ontological and epistemological claims; and the book of James is rather political philosophy.

 

[Barbkw]

“I know this is actually a lot of meat.”

More like a batch of blended pea soup

God loves me and every other soul He placed here on earth.

“Catholic perception of essence varies from the Conceptualism of Peter Abelard to the Nominalism of William of Ockham, to the Empiricism and Scotist Formalism of Duns Scotus, to the moderate Realism of Aquinas.”

 

[mcteague]

No, our God is the same God as that of Judaism: Yahweh, he-who-is. Man is created in God’s image, so God is necessarily ‘anthropomorphic’. Also, while it is a complicated question, the Platonic idea of God is not simply “the form.”

Okay. But there clearly are some neo-platonic influences on Augustine. I will need to explore what those are specifically. Because you seem to be implying that God is perfect because he is God. Not that the perfection that is God could be defined as such regardless of whether God exists. Which is what I would have thought

It is generally understood that a thing is what it is in virtue of its essence. That’s just what essence means: that in virtue of which a thing is what it is. But there is no ban on alternate modes of expressing metaphysical concepts.

**I thought this might be a way to understand the thinking behind such ideas as ‘without the element of procreation sex is wrong’. Catholicism seemed to be saying that without its essential quality a thing can not be pure and is therefore wrong and sinful. But perhaps this thinking is not extrapolated from the idea of essence **

That is not a difference between the OT and NT. Jews would be very offended by this characterization.

**That is true. But I don’t think I quite meant it in the way it sounded. I was thinking about the word communion and what it means. If Christians are called upon to take communion, they I would think being instructed to commune with God. This requires more of a a love of God perspective than fear of God. Or to put it differently going towards God as opposed to going away from Satan. I did not mean to suggest that the Old Testament does not have that. Only that it might be a more explicit instruction in the new.
**

It seems possible - you can take any source and derive from it “the philosophy of…” - but not necessary, and doing so might obscure the fact that the Bible is partly ‘wisdom’ literature, but on the whole certainly not in the genre of ‘philosophy’.

**I do hope you realize that this post relates to our other discussions. I see that the idea of perfection coupled with the idea of one essence that defines a thing could lead to some precarious positions. Especially since I was going to argue that sin is defined as anything that is not perfect or pure. But I am not going to argue against a Catholic position that I have essentially just made up. I will verify whether that is actually what Catholic philosophy says. Unlike many people who simply argue against things based entirely on their own false definitions. Anyway thanks for responding
**

 

[Katholish]

1. Because of the influence of Plato on Augustine, I am assuming that the Catholic conception of God is actually closer to the idea of “the form” than to older conceptions of God as a sort of all powerful being. The Catholic God is still all powerful. But not in the anthropomorphic sense that God is perceived in other and earlier religions. Different from a form however because God would be both perfect and universal. We simply use terms from that earlier conception because it is difficult to discuss God in such an abstract way. And if God exists “he” would present himself to us in a way that we could apprehend.

St. Augustine certainly has Platonic influences (at least as influenced by Plotinus) as do many of the Early Church Fathers. This doesn’t mean, however, that the Church embraces all of St. Augustine’s Platonic tendencies. The Early Christians were very impressed with Plato’s conception of “the One” which in many ways bore resemblence to God as understood in Catholicism. There are many aspects of Plato’s conception that were problematic, however, and in part, Platonism led to the Gnostic heresy in the Early Church.

In a Catholic understanding, God is existence itself, Being itself. He is absolutely perfect, incapable of any change or potentiality. He is eternal (outside of time itself) because time is dependent on change. He is perfectly simple and perfectly one. Even His attributes are ultimately identical with each other and with His very Nature. Omnipotence, for example, is not a power that God has, but what God IS.

1. I also believe that Catholic philosophy is greatly influenced by the Aristotelian concept of essence. That is what a thing is. And that Catholics may usually prefer to think in terms of one primary essence for each thing. That is a thing can not be what it is without the presence of some particular essential quality. The idea of a primary or one essence being a requirement for classification is significant for some of my discussions because it is, or may be, an flawed concept.

As a previous poster mentioned, since essence (or nature) basically refers to that by which a thing is what it is, the only way to really attack the idea of nature and essence is to argue that things do not have stable natures and are hence indefinable. Such a conclusion, however, would seem to render all sciences useless.

It is certainly true that much of Catholic doctrine is influenced by Aristotle (through the lens of St. Thomas Aquinas).

 

[mcteague]

What do you mean by essence. Elaborate on your understanding of it?
y.

Essence is quality of a thing that allows us to define what it is. A things essential quality or purpose. The term could be used to describe the specific quality that makes a thing unique, or it could be used to describe what broader category of things it best fits into. So a screwdriver could be said be in it’s essence a tool for proforming work. But also a particular screwdrivers essence might be more specifically. Essence is essentially a term to describe a things purpose in an attempt to define it.
And to determine if our use of it is congruent with that purpose.

But since a thing can be used in ways not inaccorance with it’s natural purpose. Catholicism seemed to me implying a lack of purity in that act. And that such impure acts should seen as wrong because they are removed from what might be considered perfect. Which if our goal is to commune with God, who is perfect, would be separating us from God.
So it seemed a contradiction to apply this thinking to things like sex for example. We fully recognize that a thing can have more than one purpose or essence. Catholics do not go to confession for using a book to hold open a window. Yet they do for sexual acts not intended for the purpose of procreation. It seems to be a contradiction. Either we accept that things can have many purposes or essences, as they clearly do, or we say that any deviation from essence is wrong.
Can we really say that an act is wrong merely because it fails to fulfill the definition one of it’s purposes or essences

I wanted to understand the underlying philosophical argument behind calling any particular act wrong. And I thought this was being determined by whether in this was determined by deviation from an acts essential purpose. Of course accepting that certain acts are wrong even if they are congruent with their purpose or essence. Like murder for example.
If to live a good life means to act more God like, in the sense of seeking perfection then how we define what the essence of a thing is is essential to understand what we should do

 

[mcteague]

I really should give up posting from my iPhone. Really hard to edit. My last post reads like it was written by a man in a straight jacket. Oh well you probably have some idea of what I was getting at

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Betterave
No, our God is the same God as that of Judaism: Yahweh, he-who-is. Man is created in God’s image, so God is necessarily ‘anthropomorphic’. Also, while it is a complicated question, the Platonic idea of God is not simply “the form.”

I’m not sure what is supposed to ground the distinction you make here, or what its relevance is supposed to be.

It is generally understood that a thing is what it is in virtue of its essence. That’s just what essence means: that in virtue of which a thing is what it is. But there is no ban on alternate modes of expressing metaphysical concepts.

I thought this might be a way to understand the thinking behind such ideas as ‘without the element of procreation sex is wrong’. Catholicism seemed to be saying that without its essential quality a thing can not be pure and is therefore wrong and sinful. But perhaps this thinking is not extrapolated from the idea of essence

That’s probably not a bad first pass at the idea. The notions of ‘essence’ and ‘nature’ are closely related, but as applied to ethics we usually speak of ‘natural law,’ not ‘essential law.’

That is not a difference between the OT and NT. Jews would be very offended by this characterization.

That is true. But I don’t think I quite meant it in the way it sounded. I was thinking about the word communion and what it means. If Christians are called upon to take communion, they I would think being instructed to commune with God. This requires more of a a love of God perspective than fear of God. Or to put it differently going towards God as opposed to going away from Satan. I did not mean to suggest that the Old Testament does not have that. Only that it might be a more explicit instruction in the new.

It’s possible. All of those elements are present, though, in both OT and NT.

It seems possible - you can take any source and derive from it “the philosophy of…” - but not necessary, and doing so might obscure the fact that the Bible is partly ‘wisdom’ literature, but on the whole certainly not in the genre of ‘philosophy’.

**I do hope you realize that this post relates to our other discussions. I see that the idea of perfection coupled with the idea of one essence that defines a thing could lead to some precarious positions. Especially since I was going to argue that sin is defined as anything that is not perfect or pure. **

That might be true in some sense, but it’s not very informative, as I’m sure you recognize.

 

[Betterave]

Essence is quality of a thing that allows us to define what it is. A things essential quality or purpose. The term could be used to describe the specific quality that makes a thing unique, or it could be used to describe what broader category of things it best fits into. So a screwdriver could be said be in it’s essence a tool for proforming work. But also a particular screwdrivers essence might be more specifically. Essence is essentially a term to describe a things purpose in an attempt to define it.
And to determine if our use of it is congruent with that purpose.

But since a thing can be used in ways not inaccorance with it’s natural purpose. Catholicism seemed to me implying a lack of purity in that act. And that such impure acts should seen as wrong because they are removed from what might be considered perfect. Which if our goal is to commune with God, who is perfect, would be separating us from God.

So it seemed a contradiction to apply this thinking to things like sex for example. We fully recognize that a thing can have more than one purpose or essence. Catholics do not go to confession for using a book to hold open a window. Yet they do for sexual acts not intended for the purpose of procreation. It seems to be a contradiction. Either we accept that things can have many purposes or essences, as they clearly do, or we say that any deviation from essence is wrong.
Can we really say that an act is wrong merely because it fails to fulfill the definition one of it’s purposes or essences

If one uses a valuable book to hold open a window and the book is destroyed, there could be issues calling for confession. We believe that sexual acts are intrinsically valuable, significant human acts. Thus it is wrong to act against the natural intrinsic value that is embodied in the sex act, just as it would be wrong to leave a valuable book out in the rain.

I wanted to understand the underlying philosophical argument behind calling any particular act wrong. And I thought this was being determined by whether in this was determined by deviation from an acts essential purpose. Of course accepting that certain acts are wrong even if they are congruent with their purpose or essence. Like murder for example.
If to live a good life means to act more God like, in the sense of seeking perfection then how we define what the essence of a thing is is essential to understand what we should do

Murder is not a natural kind with a natural purpose or essence. The world can get along just fine without murder. Not so with sex.

[It is a bit of a technical metaphysical discussion, but evil is not usually thought of as having a real essence, because it is instead a kind of *privation.]

 

[awatkins69]

Please note: Sin is only limited to human action. Evil is, as you say, privation. All sin is evil, though not all evil is sin.