Did God intentionally create the philosophers of antiquity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bohm_Bawerk

Guest
For instance, look at Plato and Aristotle and the profound impact that they had on the entire body of philosophy. Let us narrow in on Catholic theology. If Plato and Aristotle did not exist, then chances are, St. Thomas Aquinas would not have become a philosopher, and even if he did, his philosophical views would be incredibly devoid of what they are today.

As we know that Thomist philosophy has had a profound impact on Church teaching, did God intentionally/positively create Plato and Aristotle for the fullness of Catholic teaching that was to come several years later?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
I may be mistaken but I think it is more likely that God inspired Plato and Aristotle (and other great thinkers, artists and composers) rather than created them. You need to specify in what way(s) they were made differently from others because they were to a large extent the products of their ancestry and culture.
 
I may be mistaken but I think it is more likely that God inspired Plato and Aristotle (and other great thinkers, artists and composers) rather than created them. You need to specify in what way(s) they were made differently from others because they were to a large extent the products of their ancestry and culture.
Woops, apologies 😊

I meant inspired. This is what studying all-day Chemistry does to you :p.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
No.Plato,ect. were just normal human beings the same way Einstein was a normal human being.They were just in a position where they were able to devote their time to study.If their parents were slaves and they’d been brought up in different circumstances they would nnot have become the philosophers as we know them today.They were intelligent men and probably been exceptional in any occupation they found them selves in.
 
I don’t think God EVER does anything unintentionally, otherwise his omniscience would be in question, surely?
 
But perhaps God made sure their parents were not slaves and education was available. I doubt it is pure chance that civilizations rise. Yes, God creates us and gives us gifts.
 
For instance, look at Plato and Aristotle and the profound impact that they had on the entire body of philosophy. Let us narrow in on Catholic theology. If Plato and Aristotle did not exist, then chances are, St. Thomas Aquinas would not have become a philosopher, and even if he did, his philosophical views would be incredibly devoid of what they are today.

As we know that Thomist philosophy has had a profound impact on Church teaching, did God intentionally/positively create Plato and Aristotle for the fullness of Catholic teaching that was to come several years later?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
I’ve actually heard it debated both ways by members of your sect. Traditionalist accounts point to the idea that some of the Church Fathers felt a heavy resonance toward Plato and wondered if the Holy Spirit had come a bit early to pave the way.

To the Orthodox Church, who shares a theology in some respects with you folks, such an opinion can border on sacrilege in some circles.

A more modern Catholic approach i’ve seen is simply stating that your Church used whatever was available at the time. As Plato/Aristotle’s philosophy was in its ascendancy as being “right” - the Church had to conform to some of their speculations or risk looking backward.
 
As Plato/Aristotle’s philosophy was in its ascendancy as being “right” - the Church had to conform to some of their speculations or risk looking backward.
The Church was not concerned with how it looked but with the quest for truth. It wouldn’t have outlasted all other institutions if it was concerned with being up to date with the latest fashions in philosophy!
 
The Church was not concerned with how it looked but with the quest for truth. It wouldn’t have outlasted all other institutions if it was concerned with being up to date with the latest fashions in philosophy!
It was concerned with the relationship between Greek Philosophy and your beliefs - Very concerned. Tertullian was of one opinion, Augustine of Hippo was another…
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
From De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, written by the man himself.
 
It was concerned with the relationship between Greek Philosophy and your beliefs - Very concerned. Tertullian was of one opinion, Augustine of Hippo was another…
That is quite different from believing the Church had to conform to some of their speculations or risk looking backward.
From De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, written by the man himself.
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics”:

These topics are not Greek philosophy but:

“something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth”

In other words general knowledge…
 
That is quite different from believing the Church had to conform to some of their speculations or risk looking backward.
Tony, how else could they possibly even verbalize their conception of God without accepting Categories and Assumptions built into Greek Philosophy? That was the most advanced version of knowledge at the time in their region of the world.

: pointing east: Daoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism drink from a very different well in regards to how a Supreme Being would look like. Because they grew up in a very different philosophic environment.

Let me emphasize this: This isn’t simply a matter of Identity (ie: God is Jesus, God is Vishnu, God is Laozi, etc). That’s requires revelation. What is different is Conception - especially in regards to Change. The Greek Conception of a Prime Mover is Changeless because that’s what their view of Perfection was. Not so when you step out of the region.
These topics are not Greek philosophy but:
“something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth”
In other words general knowledge…
You do realize Augustine of Hippo wrote De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim in an attempt to show the value of a particular segment of Greek Philosophy - ie: Natural Philosophy.

General “Learned” Knowledge = Greek Philosophy at the time. Again, of course, within a specific region of the world.

Give a little more credit to the men who started the project of knowledge in Western civilization. 😃
 
Tony, how else could they possibly even verbalize their conception of God without accepting Categories and Assumptions built into Greek Philosophy? That was the most advanced version of knowledge at the time in their region of the world.

: pointing east: Daoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism drink from a very different well in regards to how a Supreme Being would look like. Because they grew up in a very different philosophic environment.

Let me emphasize this: This isn’t simply a matter of Identity (ie: God is Jesus, God is Vishnu, God is Laozi, etc). That’s requires revelation. What is different is Conception - especially in regards to Change. The Greek Conception of a Prime Mover is Changeless because that’s what their view of Perfection was. Not so when you step out of the region.
All this is still different from believing the Church had to conform to some of their speculations or risk looking backward. The Church could have suspended judgment if the categories had been regarded as inappropriate. You are also neglecting the disagreements among, and original contributions by, Christian philosophers and theologians. It took five hundred years to establish the main doctrines and further doctrines have been formulated ever since.
You do realize Augustine of Hippo wrote De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim in an attempt to show the value of a particular segment of Greek Philosophy - ie: Natural Philosophy.
General “Learned” Knowledge = Greek Philosophy at the time. Again, of course, within a specific region of the world.
Give a little more credit to the men who started the project of knowledge in Western civilization.
I am not underestimating the value of Greek philosophy but rejecting your contention that Church **had to conform **to some of their speculations or risk looking backward as if appearances were more important than the quest for truth and fidelity to the teaching of Christ…
 
All this is still different from believing the Church had to conform to some of their speculations or risk looking backward. The Church could have suspended judgment if the categories had been regarded as inappropriate. You are also neglecting the disagreements among, and original contributions by, Christian philosophers and theologians. It took five hundred years to establish the main doctrines and further doctrines have been formulated ever since.
First - if you are really really bothered by it - well there’s a pack of liberal Catholic theologians who you are more than welcome to argue with (remember - i’m just relating opinions here. )

Second - But this happened to Paul himself!

You cant simply roll into Athens as a simple Semitic believer and expect everyone else to turn over without being able to answer some very basic ontological questions. Otherwise your going to get demolished by the Epicurean or the Stoic et al the minute you hit the debating floor.

you’ve gotta be able to talk the lingo or else your going to look like an uneducated oaf in front of the fast-talking free-wheeling Greeks.

But to talk the “lingo” is more than just the study of logical form and rhetoric - you accept certain epistemological/ontological propositions bounded by a cultural horizon. you find philosophers in the other person’s culture whom they find respectable and who happen to have viewpoints similar to yours - that’s the best way to translate your ideas.

And you do adapt. Case in point between the shift in emphasis on Resurrection vs. Going to Heaven. A soul traveling to Heaven isn’t even in your book, that’s Plato’s Myth of Ur.

Its one of the reasons why certain Protestants castigate you Church for “selling out to Greek Philosophy” (incidentally some radical Orthodox christians make the same claim - although if you really read what they have to say it looks like Classic Plato me).

And you can’t suspend judgment on an issue or a category - cause every school in the Late GraecoRoman World possess an opinion on every issue and category of import.

Gotta keep up with the Jones’, or they won’t even give you the time of day.

And with that i’ve said all i wanted to say - you may have the last word if it gives you some peace of mind. 👍
 
The Church was not concerned with how it looked but with the quest for truth. It wouldn’t have outlasted all other institutions if it was concerned with being up to date with the latest fashions in philosophy!
From what I’ve read, this is quite true. St. Thomas Aquinas believed truth was true wherever you found it and was influenced even by some Islamic philosophers (after all, does being Muslim make truth any less truthful?)

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
LemonLime:I’m happy you’ll be joining the Church.i feel good whenever i hear of a new member.So congradulations!
 
For instance, look at Plato and Aristotle and the profound impact that they had on the entire body of philosophy. Let us narrow in on Catholic theology. If Plato and Aristotle did not exist, then chances are, St. Thomas Aquinas would not have become a philosopher, and even if he did, his philosophical views would be incredibly devoid of what they are today.

As we know that Thomist philosophy has had a profound impact on Church teaching, did God intentionally/positively create Plato and Aristotle for the fullness of Catholic teaching that was to come several years later?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Eugen:

We can certainly say that anything that has to do with God’s Creation is intended by Him. Don’t you think? If I paint a picture, every jot of paint it intended. Right?

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top