Greek Philosophy - Basis of Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trickster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

trickster

Guest
It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?
 
Your premise is incorrect therefore what follows is not worthy of argument.
God bless you.
 
trickster said:
It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t we naturally be more open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to the philosophy that influenced the early Church fathers?

Do you see any similarities between Christian and Asian philosophy?
 
trickster said:
It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?
Click to expand...
Augie - Plato

Aqui - Aristotle

See “Scholasticism”
 
Kismetji said:
This comment is really ‘joyful Catholic’ of you.
Click to expand...
Yes, looking at it later I felt it was abrupt, and owe apology for that. I admire his resilient persistence. Bruce does have a theme and stated it in threads soon after becoming a member. Generally I sympathize with his need to combine his culture with Catholicism but as he knows I sometimes think he goes too far.

However in this particular thread, in my view he comes close to stating as fact and as a premise to argue from, that which undermines the divine origins of Christianity. In my view he has not proved that Socrates and Aristotle share the origins of the church and development of doctrine. Therefore to argue from that base is not acceptable. He may be more learned than we are? Than I am, but as an ordinary Catholic I can’t accept that premise without doubt.
 
Trishie said:
Yes, looking at it later I felt it was a abrupt, and owe apology for that, however he is using a statement of origin as a premise. Bruce does have a theme and stated it soon after becoming a member. I admire his resilient persistence. Generally I sympathize with his need to combine his culture with Catholicism but as he knows I sometimes think he goes too far.
However in this particular thread, in my view he comes close to stating as fact and as a premise to argue from, that which undermines the divine origins of Christianity.
Click to expand...
And I suppose the name “trickster” doesn’t help much either, does it?
 
Kismetji said:
And I suppose the name “trickster” doesn’t help much either, does it?
Click to expand...
He has acknowledged that. He has a deep concern relating to his Aboriginal culture and Catholicism, a natural desire to reconcile them. He knows I do sympathise though I argue with him. On-line, so I’m no betraying secrets! Even so, this time I might have been gentler. I regret he’s off-line so can’t see that comment. Not wishing to hurt him personally. I studied logic when taking philosophy, and when some trace of it appears…logic and even pseudo-logic has a sharp edge. I shouldn’t allow it to submerge compassion even rarely.
 
trickster said:
It seems that Socrates and Aristotle are the two philosophers that early Christian fathers (and mothers I guess) took from in developing their doctrines which the church adopted and trusted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question is why would we not be as open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to other philosophical reference points (i.e. Asian philosophy, etc.)?
Click to expand...
We are open. It will take centuries to held on.
 
AitchB said:
Wouldn’t we naturally be more open to looking at catholic teaching in relation to the philosophy that influenced the early Church fathers?

Do you see any similarities between Christian and Asian philosophy?
Click to expand...
Hello AitchB, that is my question…yes, we obviously are interested in the teaching of the church as seen and influenced by the early church fathers BECAUSE I think we can reasonably assume that these fathers (the early ones) may have been more in touch with the historical Jesus through the oral culture of the times…but when we get to medieval philosophers like Aquinas (he is brilliant - but removed from the early oral traditions of the church).

Whether I see similarities between Christian and Asian philosophy (and I do) is not the central point of my question. My questions assumes a borrowing of early church fathers (theologians in their day) from a particular cultural philosophy…why can’t that borrowing of philosophical principles be borrowed from other cultures with equal validity in order to produce different ways of deepening the voice, message and work of Our Lord? etc.
 
Kismetji said:
Augie - Plato

Aqui - Aristotle

See “Scholasticism”
Click to expand...
Kismetji, I will look up scholasticism for sure…and get back to you…is there anything in that school of thought that limits the process to Greek philosophy?

I’m just asking because I don’t know.

Bruce
Trickster
 
Trishie said:
Yes, looking at it later I felt it was abrupt, and owe apology for that. I admire his resilient persistence. Bruce does have a theme and stated it in threads soon after becoming a member. Generally I sympathize with his need to combine his culture with Catholicism but as he knows I sometimes think he goes too far.

However in this particular thread, in my view he comes close to stating as fact and as a premise to argue from, that which undermines the divine origins of Christianity. In my view he has not proved that Socrates and Aristotle share the origins of the church and development of doctrine. Therefore to argue from that base is not acceptable. He may be more learned than we are? Than I am, but as an ordinary Catholic I can’t accept that premise without doubt.
Click to expand...
Hi Trish, no apologies required! I always appreciate your straightforwardness and yeah I was wondering where you were going with that initial response…let me put it this way…I am not trying to prove what seems to be a common source of theological development in the Catholic Church. St. Augustine borrowed largely from Plato because that was the only source of Greek philosophy available at the time…and then in the 1200’s Christians found the work of Socrates…I believe Socrates was the elder Greek philosopher and Plato was his students (I could be wrong on that)…so I am assuming (and yes you are right to state that as a premise) but I wasn’t trying to actually form a logical arguement, was just reflecting on an understanding I had and asking a quesition.

I think you were reading too much into my question as I was not even thinking about the Divine Origins of our faith…of course I believe the early church fathers were led by the Holy Spirit in the devleopment of their thinking AND that Greek philosophy (in a Greek cutlurally dominated world at the time of the early church) was the tool in which God worked with the fathers and mothers of the church. It is equally valid to say that the value of both saints (Aquinas and Augustine) in themselves were not infallable and perfect in their arguements,… in fact both making an arguement for truths contradicted each other…that is where the common sense idea of bishops and shepherds come into play, it is their job to discern the Spirit’s work amongst the thinkers and writers in the church and the church still does that today…

I agree with you on your statement that the Greek philosophers may have not been the only philosophical base from which the fathers worked from…that is part of the unspoken question…if people disagree with my statement then correct me by letting me know other philosophical sources that the church used to develop its teaching.

(And a note on that…the fathers did not develop the church’s teaching, Jesus, the Hebrew Bible, the events of the incarnation, Jesus’ life and his resurrection, and the apostles both developed and articulated the church’s teaching)…Augustine and Aquinas like any theologian simply tried to find ways to clarify, bring into clear focus and deepen our understanding adn appreciation of a teaching…the only tools available it seems to me and that is my question is the greek philosophies…)

Remember I am trying to find ways to re-invite my own people back into the church by finding ways in which we can understand the many questions of the church’s reality from a perspective that makes sense to us…I am not trying to create new doctrine (as nothing new is under the sun - or something like that)…I am simply trying to find words to help our people reconcile two world views and the tension therein…part of that is understaniding how the church’s teaching became what it was…no deconstruction or hermeneutics of suspician here…

Bruce
Trickster
 
Kismetji said:
And I suppose the name “trickster” doesn’t help much either, does it?
Click to expand...
Hi Kismetji. Yeah “trickster” as a handle has proven more problematic than I had thought it would…you see I am American Indian (we say Aboriginal Canadian) and the trickster archetype is often associated with transformation. Transformation to me is also conversion and life - long conversion. Example of trickster figures include coyotes and ravens…that is what the handle wanted to innocently portray.

However, people have been very uncomfortable with it because in many other cultures (i.e. Norse, Celitic), it is not such an innocent or well meaning archetype and I was not aware of that.

Since I don’t know how to change my handle to coyote or trickster I have started to sign my regular name and people seem to appreciate that…because I honestly believe and am at peace about my calling and I don’t mind if people connect my name with what I say.

Hope that is helpful…and I look forward to your thinking as we get to know each other more.

Bruce
Trickster (Aboriginal concept/symbol of Transformation)
 
Trishie said:
He has acknowledged that. He has a deep concern relating to his Aboriginal culture and Catholicism, a natural desire to reconcile them. He knows I do sympathise though I argue with him. On-line, so I’m no betraying secrets! Even so, this time I might have been gentler. I regret he’s off-line so can’t see that comment. Not wishing to hurt him personally. I studied logic when taking philosophy, and when some trace of it appears…logic and even pseudo-logic has a sharp edge. I shouldn’t allow it to submerge compassion even rarely.
Click to expand...
Like I said in a response elsewhere, please no need for worries! I am happy that you stated it the way you did, as I didn’t realize that it came out as a logic or philosophical; if a =b and b= c then b =c ? or was that a =b? 🙂 Trust me you will have a blast at trying to understand my logic, wasn’t the greatest of my subjects in school!

So I hope that I have clarified my question a bit better…and in fact your authentic talk and challenges I appreciate, I learn from and I think that I am getting better at trying to say what I think…so do carry on Trishie!

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster
 
trickster said:
Hi Kismetji. Yeah “trickster” as a handle has proven more problematic than I had thought it would…you see I am American Indian (we say Aboriginal Canadian) and the trickster archetype is often associated with transformation. Transformation to me is also conversion and life - long conversion. Example of trickster figures include coyotes and ravens…that is what the handle wanted to innocently portray.

However, people have been very uncomfortable with it because in many other cultures (i.e. Norse, Celitic), it is not such an innocent or well meaning archetype and I was not aware of that.
Click to expand...
I myself am pretty uncomfortably attuned to the fact that Christians tend to latch onto a mere term and make it the all - as though you were an associate of Satan or something.

Well, I’ll one-up that one. I think “trickster” should be an honorary title. This is because God is the Ultimate Trickster. No one can Deceive as good as Him.
 
Thank you, Bruce. There is something rather nice but also amusing about your patience with me. Every now and then I get in a blow and you forgive me.
I’m not much in the mood for arguing right now, Bruce…because I understand the desire you have expressed in various ways since you came here, and because I have a strong sense of symbolism and links myself. While my ancestors long ago dealt with what you are struggling with in various ways, (in this thread, more obliquely), and if they struggled to relinquish what did not comply with Christianity, all traces of that are lost… And here in Australia we have our own indigenous Australians who are now respectfully acknowledged when Parliament sits, and in public events, and in parish bulletins.There is a respect that wasn’t always there for these ancient people who have inhabited this land for 30,000 to 40,000 years, no one is quite sure.

However in your expanded explanation I don’t see much to argue with at this time.

So, no sparring this evening. This instead :coffee::coffee:
Someone else can take up the thread.

By the way, my discomfort with “Trickster” wasn’t nearly as erudite as the one you suggest, just its similarity with trickery, a trickster, one who tricks, deceives. But I know that’s not your meaning. Anyway why would someone with a serious concern or agenda use a name that might undermine his authenticity? I’m accustomed to it now.
 
Trishie said:
However in this particular thread, in my view he comes close to stating as fact and as a premise to argue from, that which undermines the divine origins of Christianity. In my view he has not proved that Socrates and Aristotle share the origins of the church and development of doctrine. Therefore to argue from that base is not acceptable. He may be more learned than we are? Than I am, but as an ordinary Catholic I can’t accept that premise without doubt.
Click to expand...
You should inform yourself better and be more ‘learned’ indeed. Divine inspiration and use of classical philsophical sources do not exclude one another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top