Good Catholic books debunking modern philosophy

[YehoiakhinEx232]

Hello, I’ve been meaning to ask this for sometime, I’m taking a course in philosophy at a secular college, and I was wondering if anyone can provide me with good books, Catholic or Protestant, debunking modern philosophy? I would especially like books that refute existentialism, that philosophy is extremely evil once you get a close look at it! And also the identity theory, I know there is a lot of good work proving the existence of the soul, but I would like work that addresses the identity theory in particular.

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hello, I’ve been meaning to ask this for sometime, I’m taking a course in philosophy at a secular college, and I was wondering if anyone can provide me with good books, Catholic or Protestant, debunking modern philosophy? I would especially like books that refute existentialism, that philosophy is extremely evil once you get a close look at it! And also the identity theory, I know there is a lot of good work proving the existence of the soul, but I would like work that addresses the identity theory in particular.

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

Most of the posters here probably have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you clarify what you mean by identity theory?

Below is Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft’s debunking of existentialist Jean Paul Sartre.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/pillars_sartre.htm

 

[YehoiakhinEx232]

Most of the posters here probably have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you clarify what you mean by identity theory?

This is an oversimplification but, identity theory is materialist view of reality that says that every function of the brain, regardless differences among groups or individuals, IS what one experiences and is basically what one is at that specific time and place (I could be mistaken about this part).

Here’s the wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism

By the way, Qualia is a good argument against materialism, but I’m a bit concerned because experiential knowledge is the type knowledge that was in the apple of the knowledge of good and evil. Am I right to be concerned about this?

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

 

[emsphydeaux]

Look into Etienne Gilson. He was a Thomistic historian of philosophy. His book on Being and Some Philosophers may be what you are looking for. I also found Thomistic Realism and the Critique of Knowledge to be great. It is also easier to read than most technical philosophy books. He puts everything in context of the history of how modern philosophers went astray, and how Thomism is a superior position.

 

[jlhargus]

Hello, I’ve been meaning to ask this for sometime, I’m taking a course in philosophy at a secular college, and I was wondering if anyone can provide me with good books, Catholic or Protestant, debunking modern philosophy? I would especially like books that refute existentialism, that philosophy is extremely evil once you get a close look at it! And also the identity theory, I know there is a lot of good work proving the existence of the soul, but I would like work that addresses the identity theory in particular.

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

Dis Orientation The 13 “ISMS” That Will Send You to Intellectual “LA-LA LAND” How to go to College Without Losing Your Mind. Edited by John Zmirak. Ascension Press

 

[Bradski]

This is just off the top of my head, a kinda shot in the dark, but it just might be worthwhile, seeing as you are doing the course to learn about philosophy, to understamd as much about the subject first rather than make your mind up about it in advance.

But maybe that’s just me.

 

[Vonsalza]

It would also behoove you to know beforehand that there are no impartial professors.

Exceptionally rare is the situation where someone within academia gives equal air to two opposing views without any detectable bias or attempt to “poison the well” for one.

Get an “A” in your course, by all means. But do not limit your education solely to the “divining” of one member of faculty. Rarely are philosophical issues ever conclusively “settled” as I’ve met both ardent utilitarians and ardent egoists with “Dr.” in front of their names in the employ of Philosophy departments.

So scrutinize before you internalize.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

This is just off the top of my head, a kinda shot in the dark, but it just might be worthwhile, seeing as you are doing the course to learn about philosophy, to understamd as much about the subject first rather than make your mind up about it in advance.

But maybe that’s just me.

If you’re referring to material to debunk what you’re learning in class, the time and place for that will be after you see what the class has to offer, if you care to be academically successful. Go to class to learn, not to teach/correct. If you’re gathering material for your own use outside of class to make your case, may the Lord bless.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It would also behoove you to know beforehand that there are no impartial professors.

Though every professor have you think he is impartial.

 

[Bradski]

If you’re referring to material to debunk what you’re learning in class, the time and place for that will be after you see what the class has to offer, if you care to be academically successful. Go to class to learn, not to teach/correct. If you’re gathering material for your own use outside of class to make your case, may the Lord bless.

To add a little more to what Cor has said…

If you are doing a course on philosophy then one might assume that you are doing it because you want to learn about philosophy. That is, your education in this particular area is currently lacking. It does, therefore, strike some people as being odd that you have decided that some aspects of it are wrong even before the introductory meet and greet with your teachers and a heads up on the material that you will be covering. It doesn’t strike me as being an auspicious start to your course.

There is something called the dialectic method in philosophy which consists of a back and forth discussion on the merits of a particular position to find out where any contradictions might be. If your course is any good, you will be expected to take either side in any given discussion (either verbally or more likely in essay form) and point out these contradictions as you see them. Whether you agree with them or not.

And that is an important point. Because you will find that you cannot argue your personal view on any philosophical matter if you don’t understand the opposing view. It’s often a good idea to play the Devil’s Advocate on occasion and argue specifically for something that you personally think is wrong. For example, I could mount a good argument for the existence of God if need be. I know all the arguments and I know where all the faults in those arguments lay (as I personally see them).

I couldn’t argue the ‘case for atheism’ if I could put it like that, if I didn’t know what the ‘case for God’ was (or ‘gods’ to be specific).

So buckle up, pay attention, listen and learn everything you can. Bear in mind what Vonsalza said that you will almost certainly get a less than unbiased view from anyone but don’t discount anything out of hand. Only that for which you have good arguments against.

Then, and only then, will you be in a position where you can expect people to listen to anything you might have to say.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Life is short and literature is long, somebody said.

Don’t listen to Bradski.

You can’t read all the cynical anti-Catholic modern philosophers without going bananas. You’ve already found that out just by reading Sartre.

Find your path. If I was young again, I’d hope somebody would ask me to find the library of titles by Peter Kreeft, a great modern philosopher (still living), from whom I think I could learn all the modern philosophies I’d want to know plus their refutations.

His book* A Refutation of Moral Relativism* would be a great place to start.

And since many modern philosophers not Catholic are usually atheist, his book Letters to an Atheist is another good read for a person with your particular needs.

 

[YehoiakhinEx232]

By the way, Qualia is a good argument against materialism, but I’m a bit concerned because experiential knowledge is the type knowledge that was in the apple of the knowledge of good and evil. Am I right to be concerned about this?

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

Actually, I guess it’s just experiential knowledge of evil that is bad, not experiential knowledge in general, that would be puritanical to think that. Still I plan on opening another thread sometime later, because non-Catholics and have been discussing these sort of things and I want to see how they square with Catholic philosophy.

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

 

[Bradski]

Or alternatively, you could go with Charle’s suggestion and decide in advance what is acceptable. Perhaps collect a few books by non-Catholic philosphers and burn them to prevent others from inadvertantly reading them.

 

[inocente]

Hello, I’ve been meaning to ask this for sometime, I’m taking a course in philosophy at a secular college, and I was wondering if anyone can provide me with good books, Catholic or Protestant, debunking modern philosophy?

If you’re concerned about protecting your worldview then maybe philosophy isn’t for you.

Here’s a playlist of lectures from Wheaton College, a Christian graduate school. Each lecture is on a different philosopher, and you can dip into whichever interest you. Lecture 67 introduces existentialism, 71 is on Sartre. The Christian professor teaches his Christian students as adults, free and able to make up their own minds about each of the philosophies, ancient and modern.

youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

 

[Neithan]

To add a little more to what Cor has said…

If you are doing a course on philosophy then one might assume that you are doing it because you want to learn about philosophy. That is, your education in this particular area is currently lacking. It does, therefore, strike some people as being odd that you have decided that some aspects of it are wrong even before the introductory meet and greet with your teachers and a heads up on the material that you will be covering. It doesn’t strike me as being an auspicious start to your course.

There is something called the dialectic method in philosophy which consists of a back and forth discussion on the merits of a particular position to find out where any contradictions might be. If your course is any good, you will be expected to take either side in any given discussion (either verbally or more likely in essay form) and point out these contradictions as you see them. Whether you agree with them or not.

And that is an important point. Because you will find that you cannot argue your personal view on any philosophical matter if you don’t understand the opposing view. It’s often a good idea to play the Devil’s Advocate on occasion and argue specifically for something that you personally think is wrong. For example, I could mount a good argument for the existence of God if need be. I know all the arguments and I know where all the faults in those arguments lay (as I personally see them).

I couldn’t argue the ‘case for atheism’ if I could put it like that, if I didn’t know what the ‘case for God’ was (or ‘gods’ to be specific).

So buckle up, pay attention, listen and learn everything you can. Bear in mind what Vonsalza said that you will almost certainly get a less than unbiased view from anyone but don’t discount anything out of hand. Only that for which you have good arguments against.

Then, and only then, will you be in a position where you can expect people to listen to anything you might have to say.

To the OP, this is great advice. Understand the opposition well, and you’ll see the weaknesses. Bradski somehow came up with a different conclusion, but none of us are infallible.

I don’t know if he was a Catholic or an atheist when he wrote it but Edward Feser wrote a pretty impressive overview of the Philosophy of Mind that I would recommend to you, which discusses physicalism.

As for existentialism, it’s not all bad. Some of it is rather compelling. I think you can be a Catholic existentialist, to an extent. Sartre’s version (existence precedes essence, or we decide what we are) is absurd nonsense, in my opinion. But I think that was his point.

Don’t be afraid of modern philosophy; get in there with the confidence that the church not only defends herself against antithetical ideas, she uses them, like raw material for doctrine, and contributes to the ongoing moral and intellectual development of modern man. Mortimer Adler had some great commentary about that.

 

[ChineseCatholic]

I would especially like books that refute existentialism, that philosophy is extremely evil once you get a close look at it! And also the identity theory, I know there is a lot of good work proving the existence of the soul, but I would like work that addresses the identity theory in particular.!

A small point of clarification - there really isn’t a “school” of Existential philosophy. Most of those grouped under the heading of Existentialism are philosophers with various conflicting ideas but with a small common theme of experience over theoretical categories.

By all accounts St Auguatine has often been called an existentialist.

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard built his Existentialism around his commitment to his reform of Christianity.

And while non-Western philosophy doesn’t really get much play around here, the Illuminationist Shi’ite philosopher Mulla Sadra articulated a technical existentialist viewpoint long before Jean Paul Sartre.

I bring up these three examples as a way of showing you the variety to be found beneath the label of “existentialist.”

Re: Philosophy of Mind question.

I’m definitely more with the “free your mind” crowd on this thread, kind of the point of the exercise of philosophy, but i also can understand wanting to start off in a situation that’s comfortable. In my case it’s was easy - you can escape Confucius where I’m from.

The Thomists I know seem to like Edward Fesner for his general readability - that or just making sense of Aquinas directly might be too much of a chore for the modern man.

But after that your going to make a decision - it’s really simple. People who imbibe a particular form of philosophy, especially if it’s done in defense of X (religion, nation, political views etc) just end up repeating the answers received.

I can show you Catholics, Communists, 3rd Wave Feminists, Ayn Randian types, Transgender advocates, Russian Slavophile nationalists, etc who all fit that mold.

Their engagement with philosophy becomes repetition and rote. There is nothing new under the sun…

Or you can just keep reading - ideas that are foreign, that may emanate from places that seem strange or odd, and make your own decisions about things

 

[emsphydeaux]

Or alternatively, you could go with Charle’s suggestion and decide in advance what is acceptable. Perhaps collect a few books by non-Catholic philosphers and burn them to prevent others from inadvertantly reading them.

The OP just asking for some books from the Catholic perspective. He isn’t claiming he will stop reading other forms of philosophy. I say reading books from both sides is a good idea.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Or alternatively, you could go with Charle’s suggestion and decide in advance what is acceptable. Perhaps collect a few books by non-Catholic philosphers and burn them to prevent others from inadvertantly reading them.

One gets the impression, reading Darwinists, that they would not just like to burn the Intelligent Design books, but also their authors.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

One gets the impression, reading Darwinists, that they would not just like to burn the Intelligent Design books, but also their authors.

Usually they just burn the authors in the courtroom.

 

[Hunho]

Hello, I’ve been meaning to ask this for sometime, I’m taking a course in philosophy at a secular college, and I was wondering if anyone can provide me with good books, Catholic or Protestant, debunking modern philosophy? I would especially like books that refute existentialism, that philosophy is extremely evil once you get a close look at it! And also the identity theory, I know there is a lot of good work proving the existence of the soul, but I would like work that addresses the identity theory in particular.

Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!

I highly recommend reading Peter Kreeft’s books. Kreeft is a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College and a Catholic Apologist. He has written a series of books “Socrates Meets …” where he examines various schools of philosophy. He has also written a number of books on philosophical subjects that are worth reading.
In particular, two of his books will be of interest in regard to existentialism, Socrates Meets Sartre and Socrates Meets Kierkegaard. While I tend to agree with your opinion of Sartre’s brand of existentialism, take careful note of Kierkegaard’s Christian existentialism. Sartre came a century later with atheistic assumptions and made a right mess of what Kierkegaard started.