Does existentialism conflict with Christianity?

[reggieM]

Even psychoanalysts have realized that they could not claim full understanding of the human mind without incorporating psycho-spiritual dynamics. By that criteria alone, existentialism cannot claim integral truth.
Just my opinion, though.

I fully agree. I can’t see how it is possible to have a “Catholic Existentialist” view. Existentialism is based on alienation of the individual whereas the Catholic truth brings a person to integration with God, himself and as a member of the Kingdom (the Church). Existentialism drives a person farther from wholeness - the completeness which is the spiritual-natural union we find in the Incarnation.

I could see some reason to use some aspects of Existentialist alienation as a model or tool for Catholic purposes. You could think of the alienation of the individual as “penitential” or something like “the desert experience” where you are stripped of everything. But that simply cannot work if its only on the natural level. We empty ourselves not to be empty, but to be filled with God. Existentialism teaches that we embrace emptyness and meaningless for its own sake – with no redemption or fulfillment in Christ possible.

I believe tdgesq said that he was coming from an extreme Calvinist background. So I could understand how even atheist philosophy could be a help in getting away from that distorted theology, perhaps. But I would hope only as a temporary measure as a “ramp up” into Catholic fullness and truth.

There is also a humanist idea that could help us appreciate human life and choices more, but I don’t think Existentialism offers anything unique or original in those areas. It juststresses those concepts more (to the point of exaggeration). The idea that “everything is a choice” is sort of inspired by Existentialism. But that was always part of ancient Catholic teaching.

The other contradictory point (part of the paradoxically absurdness of Existentialism) is that “nothing is a choice, we are psychologically pre-conditioned to do everything”, or that “everything is fate” is also not really unique. But even if it was it’s definitely a false teaching at conflict with Catholic truth.

But it’s the logical consequence of materalism (Darwinism) that teaches we are nothing but molecules and matter which have evolved by accident to be what we are today.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

The whole discussion depends on what definition you are to take for “existentialism”.

If you would take the human pre-philosophical notion as the primary starting point (stating that metaphysics preceeds epistemology) as being of the existentialist framework, or if you were to treat the ideas of Aquinas on the divine essence-as-existence as pre-existentialist, then it is quite easy, even natural, for Catholics to be existentialists.

Jacques Maritain and Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) could both be considered existentialists by some definitions of the term, or at least sympathizers to existentialism, though not if it includes the situationalism described by then-Wojtyla, that rejects an authentic freedom of the will by rejecting the importance of virtue in the human life (Love and Responsibiilty, tr. 1981, 119-120).

 

[tdgesq]

I’ve been thinking about your post, tdgesq. I think the most important thing for me to understand is what you are seeking in your philosophical interest.

Don’t get me wrong, I was just interested in the topic because of some of the contemporary Christian/Catholic writings that utilize existentialist principles. Primarily I wanted to learn more about those and whether one must answer the question “does existentialism conflict with Christianity” in the affirmative.

What does this tool help you understand? Perhaps something about yourself, your own decision-making process, how you’ve travelled on your faith-journey – or something else.

Primarily it was the existential categories used in Rahner’s writings as an ontological starting point of the human person in doing philosophy. Those considerations include the totality of human history, freedom of choice, and what he calls “radical questioning.” Beginning with these “facts” about human existence he concludes that there is an absolute mystery that exists which we call God. He then posits the supernatural existential which seeks to explain God’s grace. I think it is a method that would very much appeal to younger folks. I know it appealed to me. It is true that he takes much of this from Heidegger who stated that he wasn’t an existentialist. Despite his protestations though, he still gets labeled as one.

Again, that is true by judging them according to their own era and historical position. But it is strange also that if a person today embraced the same belief that the patriarchs of the Old Testament had (as some Jews do today) then the same belief would be judged a heresy.

Yes - it is a function of revelation and access to it. Otherwise all we have left is natural theology. Yet if the early Greeks had access to the religious content of Judaism (and I don’t know whether they did or not - they very well may not have) how would that change the truth or usefulness of the “natural theology” they did develop? Just because somebody rejects revelation as revelation it does not entail that their philosophical system lacks truth.

But again, the question is “motive”.
. . .
If a person wants to use non-Catholic philosophy today to further explicate the truths of Christianity – then the motive for that needs to be spelled out more clearly.

What you say could be true if someone explicitly set out their motive as attempting to disprove God’s existence, but rarely will you find that. Why? I believe it is because most philosophers are seeking the truth, whatever it may be. They might be wrong. They might conclude that God does not exist using their system. Judging motives is rarely a useful tool in my experience in separating a sound philosophy from a poor one, particularly since discerning motives accurately is so difficult. I would rather judge the system based upon its content.

Additionally, as I mentioned elsewhere, both Augustine and Aquinas were steeped in Christian thought to a very high degree. Pagan philosophy was of secondary value to them.

Mmmm… I don’t think I would go that far. Distinctions between essence and existence, substance and accidents, various causes - efficient, formal, final etc. These are all Aristotelian at base.

For today’s Catholics, who are very commonly ignorant of the basic teachings of the Church, studies of non-Christian philosophies are a serious waste of time at best and most often a very dangerous practice.

My purpose here is not to recommend a philosophy to neophytes that come to conclusions at odds with Christianity. In my previous post I affirmed that it could be dangerous. Nevertheless, many who are inexperienced will be introduced to these systems.
I don’t think it would be accurate to tell them that there is no truth to be gained from them.

But as I look at it, Kierkegaard, like all modern philosophers spent a significant amount of time pondering philosophical questions. It is unreasonable to expect him to spend an equal amount of time pondering the origin of his own faith-system?

Who is to say he didn’t and came to the wrong conclusion? This is why I don’t find the motive inquiry useful. I will take what he writes at face value and discover for myself if it comports with experience and logic. I very much disagree with Kierkegaard’s conclusion that some of the biblical stories are absurd; however, I do agree with his conclusion that a world without God is absurd.

If the point is that we can always find “some value” in any philosophical writings, then this is true in any human endeavor. We are created in such a way that it is impossible for a human being to create something that is “pure evil”, no matter how hard one may try. We are created good, by God. Thus our philosophical creations always have some measure of good mixed in – even in a blatantly atheistic model.

I agree with this, and I don’t think it can go any further than that when discussing a philosophy that at the outset presupposes there is no God.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

What payoff can a person gain by reading the collected works of Friedrich Nietzsche? We weigh some number of hours investment into that – and we look at a Catholic, perhaps, who has not read the works of St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross or of philosophers like Gilson, Pieper, Garrigou-Lagrange, Newman …

I’m not denying that time may be better spent reading something other than the works of the existentialists, or Sports Illustrated, or the Harry Potter series. I’ve made no such recommendations. On the other hand I recognize that people will in fact read these things. And when it comes to the existentialists, am I really in a position to say that they never should read Barth, Tillich, Kierkegaard because it conflicts with Christianity?

I think that the study of philosophical systems that come from a subjectivist, invidualistic, alienated model like existentialism would only have benefit in cases where there is some other philosophical error to correct and existentialism is a temporary remedy to prepare a person for a more solid Catholic conviction.

I know from experience that this is false. I started studying the Christian existentialists after I was already grounded in Thomism like I am to this day. If I had to choose I would say that Jacques Maritain is my all time favorite philosopher. It is interesting that at least one other poster here finds existentialist themes in his writings.

Catholicism is, in some ways, the end of philosophy since with the Incarnation, man cannot pretend that philosophy can find truths that are not possessed in Christ himself, and that “nature alone” is adequate in coming to a full understanding of reality. In this way, philosophy and theology have to work together.

Amen.

 

[reggieM]

Don’t get me wrong, I was just interested in the topic because of some of the contemporary Christian/Catholic writings that utilize existentialist principles. Primarily I wanted to learn more about those and whether one must answer the question “does existentialism conflict with Christianity” in the affirmative.

My question on “motive” was not with regard to the motive of the philosophers but of the student – in this case, yourself. I was wondering why you asked the question and what you were looking for.

I think it is a method that would very much appeal to younger folks.

This tells me that you were looking at the topic in order to reach younger people – so existentialism as an educational tool for teaching Christianity. Certainly, just about anything can be used as an educational tool, depending on the nature of the students. But “existentialism alone” would be inadequate for teaching the faith. The Catholic Faith requires more than what existentialism can provide as a philsophical foundation.

Yet if the early Greeks had access to the religious content of Judaism (and I don’t know whether they did or not - they very well may not have) how would that change the truth or usefulness of the “natural theology” they did develop?

They would have known the Creator through revelation instead of proposing ideas about the Creator. Actually, theology pre-supposes revelation to some degree – otherwise it is purely a human science.

Judging motives is rarely a useful tool in my experience in separating a sound philosophy from a poor one, particularly since discerning motives accurately is so difficult. I would rather judge the system based upon its content.

Again, I was trying to discern what your motives were. I didn’t know much about you – a neophyte, a lapsing Catholic, a faithful believer, a convert … as you explain later, you wouldn’t recommend the study of existentialists to a person not well-grounded in the Catholic Faith, and I think for good reason.

Mmmm… I don’t think I would go that far. Distinctions between essence and existence, substance and accidents, various causes - efficient, formal, final etc. These are all Aristotelian at base.

At the end of his life, St. Thomas dismissed all of his work as “so much straw”. The pagan writings that he used were secondary sources, at best – he was guided by revelation and even his philosophical texts include Scriptural analysis. St. Augustine put most of his focus on Scripture also.

My purpose here is not to recommend a philosophy to neophytes that come to conclusions at odds with Christianity.

That needed to be said more clearly, in my view. Again, I didn’t even know if you were a neophyte or seeker yourself.

I don’t think it would be accurate to tell them that there is no truth to be gained from them.

You’ve said this a couple of times and I think you’re exaggerating the point. I nowhere said that there is “no truth” to be found. One can find aspects of truth in the Satanic Bible. The question was, I though, is existentialism compatible with Catholicism and I think we answered that “the most common version of existentialism” is not.

Who is to say he didn’t and came to the wrong conclusion?

I think we could judge from his writings that he really didn’t grapple with the teachings of Catholicism. I think your point was that he innocently embraced a version of Protestantism because he had no choice, and therefore he could be compared to the “noble pagans” who didn’t have access to revelation.
But a philosopher who truly engages with the teachings of Catholicism and walks away in favor of the confusion of Protestantism cannot put together a coherent and valid philosophical system (and one might even question his capability with simple logic).

But I believe your point is that there is “some truth” to be found in any philosophical system and if that’s the focus of our discussion then there’s not much farther to take it because I agree. But should students study existentialist authors in favor of solidly Catholic teachers? I can’t see that at all. In fact, I would trace an enormous collapse in Catholic belief through the Western world to that very method itself – where Catholic realism was exchanged for the confusion of modern philosophy.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not denying that time may be better spent reading something other than the works of the existentialists, or Sports Illustrated, or the Harry Potter series. I’ve made no such recommendations.

Well, I made that point because you didn’t explain where you were going with the discussion. Were you going to embark on a serious course of study of the existentialists at the expense of scholastic philosophy? I think it’s enough to say that a diet of existentialism alone would not be healthy for anyone – and that is not true of classic Catholic philosophy.

And when it comes to the existentialists, am I really in a position to say that they never should read Barth, Tillich, Kierkegaard because it conflicts with Christianity?

Again, it depends on who “they” are and why you’re talking to them. This is the same as above – my answers to you depend on who you are, what you’re looking for, what your background is and what you want to do with the knowledge.

If I had to choose I would say that Jacques Maritain is my all time favorite philosopher. It is interesting that at least one other poster here finds existentialist themes in his writings.

Yes, but Jacques Maritain without St. Thomas as a foundation? Sure, if I found someone with the expertise in Thomistic thought that Mr. Maritain had and who was looking for new perspectives on the faith from various other sources, I wouldn’t have a problem with that person borrowing from existentialism, Buddhism or even rationalist thinkers, novelists or false religions like Islam.

But I wouldn’t say that such expertise can be found very easily.

What percent of Catholics is well-grounded in the great Catholic philosophers? If it’s 5% I’d be very surprised.

Therefore, 95% need to learn the basics (which are no longer taught in Catholic colleges or universities – instead, students read Sartre and Camus).

In your case, it seems that you’re already familiar with existentialist thought and you’ve found it a benefit. You have been able to reconcile some aspects with your Catholic Faith (I note that you were steeped in Thomism before you studied existentialism and that is an important sequence of study) and that seems fine with me.

The question on whether there is “some truth” or some value in existentialist writings is really not a question about existentialism but about the search for truth in any source that one may find.

 

[reggieM]

And when it comes to the existentialists, am I really in a position to say that they never should read Barth, Tillich, Kierkegaard because it conflicts with Christianity?

I think we have to point out that it conflicts with Christianity, contains heresies and serious errors, can easily be a danger to the faith, offers nothing by way of necessary truths that cannot be obtained through a study of Catholic theology and practice of spirituality, has lead many people astray, is built on false first principles and contains much that is offensive to God.

With a warning like that, we could then say that it is important to know about the false system of existentialism, just as it is important to know about the errors of Barth and Tillich.

After all of that, we could say that there are truths to be found, even in the writings of heretics and atheists.

 

[a_priori]

I don’t think existentialism had yet become existentialism from Kierkegaard’s frame of reference.

 

[tdgesq]

My question on “motive” was not with regard to the motive of the philosophers but of the student – in this case, yourself. I was wondering why you asked the question and what you were looking for.

You clearly referenced other philosophers - not me or some student. What are you talking about? Let’s take an example from your own post:

But again, the question is “motive”. They wanted to further explicate the truths of Christianity and used classical philosophy because it was familiar to the people of the time, it preserved many concepts which were compatible with and supportive of Christianity, and it provided a philosophical language that Christianity didn’t have at the time.

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?

This tells me that you were looking at the topic in order to reach younger people – so existentialism as an educational tool for teaching Christianity.

Your inferences are incorrect. Now you want to judge my motives? Believe it or not Reggie, some of us here are quite well acquainted with St. Thomas and the Neo-Thomists. What exactly is it that you are trying to do here?

They would have known the Creator through revelation instead of proposing ideas about the Creator. Actually, theology pre-supposes revelation to some degree – otherwise it is purely a human science.

It doesn’t matter whether the early Greek thinkers were aware of Judaism or not. We judge the merits of their philosophical system and not what their “motives” might have been. And no, natural theology by definition does not presuppose revelation.

Again, I was trying to discern what your motives were. I didn’t know much about you – a neophyte, a lapsing Catholic, a faithful believer, a convert … as you explain later, you wouldn’t recommend the study of existentialists to a person not well-grounded in the Catholic Faith, and I think for good reason.

This discussion is not about what we tell folks with varying degrees of sophistication about the Catholic faith. It’s about whether existentialism conflicts with Christianity. If you are here to try to convert me to some system of thought or the other, then good luck. I already hold to everything the Magisterium teaches. As such, I know that it does not elevate one philosophical school of thought over another.

At the end of his life, St. Thomas dismissed all of his work as “so much straw”.

Yes. And?

The pagan writings that he used were secondary sources, at best – he was guided by revelation and even his philosophical texts include Scriptural analysis. St. Augustine put most of his focus on Scripture also.

So it’s okay to use a pagan system of thought as a secondary source? This is getting ridiculous. Aquinas’ metaphysic draws primarily upon Aristotle, who he frequently calls the Philosopher, except when Aristotle is wrong of course.

That needed to be said more clearly, in my view. Again, I didn’t even know if you were a neophyte or seeker yourself.

What needed to be said more clearly? I was here to discuss whether existentialism conflicts with Christianity. This isn’t the apologetics forum. I don’t need to explain my background to you in order to discuss philosophy. Frankly, I’m of the impression that you haven’t studied existentialism, particularly the Christian variety, to the extent that I have. If so, please disabuse me. Go ahead, tell us in detail what you’ve studied about the subject.

The question was, I though, is existentialism compatible with Catholicism and I think we answered that “the most common version of existentialism” is not.

Ahhh… so you want to win. You want to be “the winner” on this subject. Well, I came here to learn something about existentialism - the Christian variety. I stated in my very first post that there were different varieties of existentialism. And btw, I think you haven’t studied any of these systems to the extent I have. Give me something that makes me believe otherwise please.

I think we could judge from his writings that he really didn’t grapple with the teachings of Catholicism. I think your point was that he innocently embraced a version of Protestantism because he had no choice, and therefore he could be compared to the “noble pagans” who didn’t have access to revelation.

Stop trying to interpret my point. You are inevitably incorrect every time you try. Just accept what I write at face value. You insist upon judging “motive” instead of what the philosopher actually states. Do you really know Kierkegaard espouses? Enlighten me.

But I believe your point is that there is “some truth” to be found in any philosophical system and if that’s the focus of our discussion then there’s not much farther to take it because I agree.

Yes.

But should students study existentialist authors in favor of solidly Catholic teachers?

The fallacy of false alternatives. And I never pointed anybody in this thread towards existentialist philosophy of whatever stripe.

But please - give all of us the “true philosophical system” that fits with Catholicism. I want to know. I mean, what is it? I guess it doesn’t have anything to do with Maritain.

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t think existentialism had yet become existentialism from Kierkegaard’s frame of reference.

From Kierkegaard’s frame of reference, you are correct. There was no such term as “existentialism” during his life. Yet he always gets thrown in with the existentialists as a forerunner along with others.

 

[reggieM]

You clearly referenced other philosophers - not me or some student. What are you talking about?

I was wondering what your motives were.

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?

I can see why you’re confused because you’re jumping to conclusions. I was wondering what your motives were and referencing philosophers who are most commonly atheistic.

Now you want to judge my motives?

Yes, exactly – for the same reason that you insisted that you wouldn’t recommend existentialist material to “neophytes”. How was I supposed to know what your background was or what you were trying to accomplish in this study without questioning your motives for pursuing this path?

Believe it or not Reggie, some of us here are quite well acquainted with St. Thomas and the Neo-Thomists. What exactly is it that you are trying to do here?

I was trying to be of assistance to you. Again, how was I supposed know that you knew anything at all about St. Thomas? Obviously, you also already know a lot about existentialism and you already have your mind made up about its value – so I was trying to avoid a waste of time and useless discussion on matters that you really didn’t need my help with.

This discussion is not about what we tell folks with varying degrees of sophistication about the Catholic faith.

I need to know that in order to talk to you about this topic. What degree of sophistication do you have? Once that is known, I can proceed appropriately.

It’s about whether existentialism conflicts with Christianity.

It does.

I already hold to everything the Magisterium teaches.

For all I know you could have been an atheist – you assumed too much.

I don’t need to explain my background to you in order to discuss philosophy.

Again, you already agreed that you wouldn’t recommend existentialism to neophytes so that is not correct.

Just accept what I write at face value.

I’ve argued with enough atheists and heretics to know that “face value” is not enough.

You insist upon judging “motive”

As above – yes, it is necessary because it is about salvatio.

 

[reggieM]

Well, I came here to learn something about existentialism - the Christian variety.

tdgesq, there’s no reason to get so defensive and I apologize if the tone of my posts caused that kind of response to you.

I do think, however, it would have been better if you stated this “motive” earlier since it seemed to me that you were asking about existentialism in general terms and not about “the Christian variety”.

Without wanting to argue much more, I would say that a reference to “the Christian variety” of this philosophical system contradicts the notion that it is merely natural philosophy which can be expounded equally by atheists or believers.

I was blessed to be taught by many excellent Catholic teachers in my life with over 14 years of Catholic education and some theology at the graduate level.

I am not attempting to provide original concepts here, but merely to reflect what those who taught me about existentialism have had to say. Fortunately, I have not found any reason to pursue that philosophical system since the study of Catholicism itself is a much broader and deeper topic than I have the time for.

So again, the “prioritization of time” is a factor here. It is not a false alternative to judge how to spend one’s time wisely since we will be strictly judged on that matter.

Should Catholics study the book of Koran because there are “some truths” that can be found there? That doesn’t seem to be a good reason – although there are qualifiers (if you live in an Islamic country, for example). But this is a question of “should” and it is judged on some subjective aspects.

If the question is “can” a Catholic study the Koran for good reason, then the answer is yes.

The same is true of Existentialism. The key point is “for a good reason” and that’s why I asked your motive (which you did explain and I appreciate that).

I think we are basically in agreement on the major points.

 

[reggieM]

The question on this thread is whether Existentialism conflicts with Christianity and I think we answered it. Yes, for the most part it does. But there are “some truths” which are compatible with Christianity. Can the existentialist-system as a whole be compatible with Christianity? If one asserts that there is a system called “Christian existentialism” then the answer is obviously yes, but as we saw in this discussion, it all depends on the naming convention used for this philosophy (is it existentialist or not)?

Do the writings of J.P. Sartre conflict with Catholicism? That’s an easier question to answer more definitively.

Do the writings of Kierkegaard or Barth conflict with Christianity? That’s more difficult because it depends on how one defines “Christianity”.

There are some Catholics who will argue that Karl Rahner’s theology is suspect or even dangerously wrong:

therealpresence.org/archives/Faith/Faith_006.htm

We get some idea of how deeply this error has penetrated Catholic thought, when we read what Karl Rahner writes about the Eucharistic consecration. Rahner therefore is the first of the two master teachers of profound error on the Real Presence. I will quote now from Rahner’s language, not always so clear, I chose the clearest part that I could find. Quote Karl Rahner, “the more recent approaches suggest the following considerations, one has to remember that the words of institution indicate a change. But not give any guiding line for the interpretation of the actual process. As regarding transubstantiation it may be said, the substance, essence, meaning and purpose of the bread are identical but the meaning of a thing can be changed without changing the matter. The meaning of the bread has been changed through the consecration something which served profane use now becomes the dwelling place and the symbol of Christ who is present and gives Himself to His own.” unquote Karl Rahner. From the Encyclopedia of Theology edited by Rahner and defining the meaning of transubstantiation. What takes place through the Eucharistic consecration the significance the meaning attached to the bread changes but the bread remains bread. Rahner’s ideas are permeating the Eucharistic theology of whole nations.

---

rtforum.org/lt/lt28.html

The late Father Karl Rahner, amongst other things, did not accept the Church’s Christology, but replaced it with a Teilhardian-based one that represents Our Lord as not being at all times a Divine Person, but merely as one ascending towards divinity.

---

The Collapse of the Church in the West – FATHER G.H. DUGGAN S.M.

Pope St. Pius identified the intellectual roots of Modernism as the gnosticism of Kant, the Evolutionism of Hegel, and the Rationalist biblical criticism of Strauss and Renan.

The predominant streams of thought in Neo-Modernism are the Kantian Existentialism of Karl Rahner, the Evolutionary Pantheism of Teilhard de Chardin, who doubtless owed an unacknowledged debt to Bergson, and the Existentialist exegesis of Rudolf Bultmann, which influenced the “scientific” biblical work of Raymond Brown and others.

The main cause is false teaching, propounded by such Neo-Moderrnsts as Fr.Karl Rahner, S.J., Fr.Bernard Haering, C…S.R., in Europe, Fr. Charles Curran, who taught moral theology for 20 years at the Catholic University in Washington and Fr. Richard McCormick, S.J., who for many years did the Moral Notes in the learned journal Theological Studies. Their views were echoed in such influential journals as the London Tablet, America and Commonweal.

These all rejected Pope Paul VI’s condemnation of contraception in his encyclical Humanae Vitae published in 1968. Many argued that because the Pope did not explicitly invoke his prerogative of personal infallibilty, the teaching was non-infallible, and therefore one could, for serious reasons, decide not to follow it. Rahner indeed dismissed the Pope’s argument from natural law as worthless, because it assumed that human nature does not change, whereas, like every biological entity it is subject to evolution (as his confrere Fr Teilhard de Chardin had shown).

There is much more like this.

But again, if you’re using the material to support your faith and it helps you have a deeper convictions in the truth that God gave us, then you’re free to pursue that path, even though ***in general terms ***(and that’s what I’d have to address on a web forum versus personal advice) it is not prudent or wise to study such things.

 

[tdgesq]

I was wondering what your motives were.

Motives of philosophers, including myself to the degree I am engaging in philosophy, are irrelevant. The only exception would be if the philosopher at the outset declares a motive that lies behind his philosophy. In which case it doesn’t look like that person is engaging in philosophy at all because philosophy is literally “love of wisdom.” Not even in apologetics is it valid to attribute a person’s system to motive, unless that person declares it or acts in such a fashion that warrants the inference.

Why do I say this? Because appeal to motive is a specious of ad hominem; a logical fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive That is why when you take your college courses on metaphysics, epistemology, etc, whether at a Catholic university or not, you don’t start by studying the philosopher’s motive. You start by studying the system they actually wrote about to see if it is coherent. It is knowledge we are seeking, not motives.

I can see why you’re confused because you’re jumping to conclusions. I was wondering what your motives were and referencing philosophers who are most commonly atheistic.

I was confused - and still am - as to why you want to look into my motives, Aquinas’ motives, the existentialists’ motives, instead of looking at the system of philosophy in question.

Yes, exactly – for the same reason that you insisted that you wouldn’t recommend existentialist material to “neophytes”. How was I supposed to know what your background was or what you were trying to accomplish in this study without questioning your motives for pursuing this path?

What I said was in answer to your post on the subject. I stated that existentialist systems that begin with a conscious rejection of God - and many obviously do not - are not necessarily devoid of truth, but we can go no further than that. You then wanted to know why it would be worthwhile to recommend such a system to a person. I made it clear that I wasn’t saying anything about recommendations, nor that I was advocating such systems to neophytes. Besides which, before one can give a recommendation they actually have to understand the philosophy in question, and not based upon motive.

I was trying to be of assistance to you. Again, how was I supposed know that you knew anything at all about St. Thomas? Obviously, you also already know a lot about existentialism and you already have your mind made up about its value – so I was trying to avoid a waste of time and useless discussion on matters that you really didn’t need my help with.

St. Thomas would matter if Thomism was the only Catholic philosophy available. Many Eastern Catholics operate under a totally different system. Thomism does not equal Christianity, or even Catholicism. I want to know the answer to the question of whether existentialism, particularly what is termed “Christian existentialism” in the vein of Kierkegaard, Barth, Rahner, Tillich can really be said to conflict with Christianity. To do that, we have to examine their systems first. I haven’t made up my mind about it. At this point I believe some things about Kierkegaard’s thinking conflict. I do not know yet about Barth or Tillich. I doubt it with Rahner, but I’m willing to discuss it so long as it is about the system and not about discernment of the individual philosophers’ motives.

I need to know that in order to talk to you about this topic. What degree of sophistication do you have? Once that is known, I can proceed appropriately.

You can ask me about my background with these philosophers in order to discuss those systems. I have no problem with that at all. Attempts to discern my “motives” is a problem, because it isn’t relevant to the discussion. You are just going to have to take at face value that I am here to determine if the content of existentialism conflicts with Christianity.

It does.

That existentialism does conflict with Christianity. I realize that is your conclusion. I think you have a good point with Sartre. I don’t know if you have a good point with the Christian existentialists because you haven’t provided what it is about their system that conflicts, other than to say that they start with an atheistic philosophy, which isn’t even really true.

For all I know you could have been an atheist – you assumed too much.

My profile indicates I am a Roman Catholic.

Again, you already agreed that you wouldn’t recommend existentialism to neophytes so that is not correct.

See above. That isn’t an accurate summary of what I said and it was in answer to your side-issue. Let’s just start with what the system itself declares and then decide how it fits into Christianity. Then we can start making recommendations.

I’ve argued with enough atheists and heretics to know that “face value” is not enough.

Then you cannot have a philosophical discussion with them, because you have already determined that they are exhibiting bad faith in discussing the subject. Pointing out to them what is wrong with their philosophy is philosophical discussion.

 

[tdgesq]

tdgesq, there’s no reason to get so defensive and I apologize if the tone of my posts caused that kind of response to you.

Hmm… an apology about my response. You have to understand, that when you question or try to interpret my motives in a discussion like this - it is an ad hominem - it is against the man. That causes many people to take offense. I’m over it though. I would like to know more about the Christian existentialists.

Without wanting to argue much more, I would say that a reference to “the Christian variety” of this philosophical system contradicts the notion that it is merely natural philosophy which can be expounded equally by atheists or believers.

Most do start with philosophy. I don’t think we can say Thomism doesn’t. The proofs for God’s existence are not in the first instance based upon revelation. Usually it is later on that we see why revelation must be accepted.

So again, the “prioritization of time” is a factor here. It is not a false alternative to judge how to spend one’s time wisely since we will be strictly judged on that matter.

It is a false alternative to give the choice between Catholic philosophy and existentialist philosophy without first demonstrating what is inconsistent between the two. After that we can start talking about reading recommendations.

I think we are basically in agreement on the major points.

On Sartre and Kierkegaard, I think we are.

 

[tdgesq]

There are some Catholics who will argue that Karl Rahner’s theology is suspect or even dangerously wrong:

There are some that will and some that won’t. Even Aquinas was wrong sometimes. I do not agree with everything that Fr. Rahner believed. He wrote a vast amount in the area of speculative theology. I obviously haven’t read it all, but I expect errors of thought to be made. He in partnership with then Ratzinger wrote much of what became the final draft of the Vatican II conciliar documents. He also uses Thomistic concepts along with existentialist themes. He actually attempted a synthesis between the two, which some accept and some reject. If you want to discuss his existentialist concepts here, I’m all for it.

 

[reggieM]

Motives of philosophers, including myself to the degree I am engaging in philosophy.

I didn’t realize that you consider yourself a philosopher.

 

[reggieM]

I obviously haven’t read it all…

Why do you think that is “obvious”?

 

[tdgesq]

Why do you think that is “obvious”?

Because I have already stated my experience is limited when it comes to the Christian existentialists.

Why do you ask?

 

[reggieM]

Because I have already stated my experience is limited when it comes to the Christian existentialists.

Why do you ask?

You think that I should know what you have or haven’t read and, in fact, it should be obvious to me.

I asked because I am trying to determine if I can have a discussion with you. Of the dozens of people I’ve discussed a variety of matters with on CAF, I have never seen the kind of reaction you gave when I “questioned your motive” (which is nothing more than asking why you’re interested in this topic). I clearly hit a nerve with you and I find that amazing and insightful because that is not at all what I was trying to do – but your response told me a lot. (Was this supposed to be a discussion or a debate? If debate – why not state that upfront instead of making me draw out the position you were arguing in favor of? That was very confusing).

The motive and intention of every Christian must be transparent and one should be glad to be asked why we are interested in whatever we’re looking into. But I won’t go on and I don’t want to insult you.

The bottom line is, I believe you’re looking for a discussion with someone who has a great deal of expertise in this area – someone who has studied Barth, Rahner and Kierkegaard (among whatever number of others), and all of that is good and to your credit.

For myself, I question even if the term “Christian Existentialist” can be used since it’s a different thing than “Existentialism”, and I do not think that Christianity merely is a modification of a philosophical system, but rather it transcends all such systems.

When one is a Christian, one can no longer be a Platonist or an Aristotelean – those systems are transcended by the Truth which is already found in Christianity. In the same way, when one is a Christian, one cannot be an Existentialist, but rather can only be a Christian (one can borrow aspects from philosophical systems to contribute to Christian life, but never can one place a philosophical system above the Christian revelation).

But I will expect that you do not agree with these views.

While you clearly misunderstood my line of questioning, I will say that one reason why I was asking about your “motive” (that is “interest”) in this topic was that I was wondering if I could discover some good reason to study more about it.

In any case, I’m very certain that there is really nothing that I can contribute to your quest for knowledge on this topic. I’m sure you have found others who are far more qualified and interested.

In spite of what it may seem, I did enjoy the discussion and I appreciate the time you have taken to explain your views. Again, I apologize for any unkind or thoughtless remarks I made during the exchange. I wish you well in your pursuit of wisdom and in your living the Faith.