Is it a sin to read modern philosophy?

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Every ethics class I took pretty much started with saying relativism wouldn’t be accepted

That seems like a strangely dogmatic position to be taken by a university teacher. I wouldn’t have been happy taking a class with a professor who started out from the premise that any particular way of addressing a question would not be accepted. Of course, the professor is entitled to state his own position, and should do so, explaining why that is the position that he holds. But the student should be allowed to approach issues with an open mind. In a university ethics class there are surely no wrong answers, only answers that have not been supported with sufficient intellectual rigor.

My own major was history, not philosophy. Imagine, for example, taking a class on 17th-century British history in which the professor starts by saying that Whig historiography won’t be accepted. Or imagine taking a class on France during the Second World War in which the professor starts by saying that Marshal Pétain must be regarded as a traitor or else.

Just as in history one can defend any position provided it is supported by evidence and scholarship, surely in philosophy one can defend any position provided one is prepared to explain and justify one’s thinking. As I say, I think it sounds very strange for a philosopher to teach that certain ways of thinking are unacceptable. I would think that a brilliant student who is a relativist, and can defend relativism against accusations of illogicality, would be more satisfying to teach than a merely competent student who accepts the professor’s dogmatic pronouncements unquestioningly.

 

[otjm]

To be fair, all that means is that the Church still says “the stuff in these books isn’t all that great, from the perspective of building up your faith”.

However, “building up your faith” is only one aspect of studying philosophy.

I would not recommend studying philosophy on one’s own, as each philosopher has their ups, downs, interesting observations, and for a goodly number, a wandering off the common path - be that faith or other. Being able to understand where one philosopher lets off and another picks up and moves beyond he first one is an intellectual challenge. engaging in discussion of each philosopher is training in critical thinking, a mode of analysis which is too little taught and way too little practiced.

History of philosophy was a wonderful series of classes as no one was “pushing” a particular point of view. I also remember a class in Existentialism, which I thought was a bit overwrought; but interesting. It is easy to be swept up into whatever is the current hot topic/“in” philosophical approach to reality/life/etc. Having the ability to look and see without adopting is a better approach, as no philosopher encompasses all wisdom (even though some were/are sure they do).

 

[EndTimes]

Hi! I was researching some history and I found the list of books banned by the Church in the ‘Index Librorum Prohibitorum’ (index of forbidden books).

Some of them were expected authors, but I was surprised to find in it that thinkers like Maimonides, Montaigne, Kant, Rousseau, Locke or even Pascal and Descartes had books prohibited by the Index.

Thus, I want to ask: Is there something sinful with modern philosophy? Can we believe in principles of modern philosophy -or at least just even read them- and still be good catholics?

Don’t take me wrong, I’m just surprised by the fact.

I really like to read what Socrates has to say - as presented by Plato…

It’s not a sin - in my humble opinion

 

[blackforest]

From St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”

We’re a faith built on the backs of scholars and philosophers. Let’s not cower in the face of new ideas, people.

 

[EndTimes]

We’re a faith built on the backs of scholars and philosophers.

Genuine FAITH comes from the Grace of God…

_

 

[commenter]

Every ethics class I took pretty much started with saying relativism wouldn’t be accepted
End
That seems like a strangely dogmatic position to be taken by a university teacher.
End other post

Every teacher has to establish some ground rules. It is better if they are explicit.

This ground rule is reasonable. Suppose a student or teacher says “any word can mean whatever I want it to mean”. Then you enter an “Alice in Wonderland” type world where communication and learning cease.

Every college class I took in every subject had assumptions built in, usually implicit.

In an Ethics class that’s a reasonable assumption. Otherwise you are down the rabbit hole.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Every teacher has to establish some ground rules. …

This ground rule is reasonable. …

In an Ethics class that’s a reasonable assumption. Otherwise you are down the rabbit hole.

I cannot understand how this particular “ground rule” could be considered to be remotely “reasonable”. Within the academic discipline of philosophy, moral relativism is an approach to ethics that is supported by many professional philosophers. It is surely completely unreasonable for somebody to teach a course on ethics in which students are unable to advocate one of the main schools of thought within the subject. Moral relativism is not a crank or fringe theory. One can argue that it is wrong, but it is still very much a topic about which professional philosophers are arguing. To prohibit one’s students from arguing about it is to shut those students out from an important field of academic debate.

If you do not believe me, here are a few overview articles by perfectly respectable philosophers:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Emrys Westacott holds a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin and is Professor of Philosophy at Alfred University.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Christopher Gowans holds a PhD from Notre Dame and is Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University.

https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/Moral%20Relativism%20Explained.pdf

Gilbert Harman holds a PhD from Harvard and is Emeritus James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy at Princeton and an academician of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Accepting moral relativism is therefore not “down the rabbit hole”. It is not remotely similar to saying that “any word can mean whatever I want it to mean”. It is a major school of thought in the field of moral philosophy. @ZMystiCat’s professor’s dogmatic position that “relativism wouldn’t be accepted” does therefore seem perverse. A university-level course is supposed to allow the student to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject and to form their own ideas about it. It is not supposed to involve absorbing the teacher’s personal opinions to the exclusion of the opinions of other scholars.

 

[NoelFitz]

Thus, I want to ask: Is there something sinful with modern philosophy? Can we believe in principles of modern philosophy -or at least just even read them- and still be good catholics?

I think it would be a greater sin not to read modern philosophers and to rely on secondary, not primary, sources.

Also I believe better philosophy (in general) is studied in universities, not seminaries.

The general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism was in the index until 1758.

A work of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati was in the index and he was beatified in 2007.

 

[InThePew]

tried to read the Critique of Pure Reason a couple of times.

Needless to say I didn’t make it the whole way through.

Try Nietzsche - he’s far easier to read. Without an understanding of where Kant’s coming from (in other words, what went before him) reading his stuff is like trying to wade through knee-deep treacle on a very cold day!

 

[Thom18]

I tried to read the Critique of Pure Reason a couple of times.

Needless to say I didn’t make it the whole way through.

8/

That’s actually sitting on my desk right now. I need to get at it myself.

Kant is actually a really good philosopher. His moral philosophy is quite impressive. Nietzsche criticized his categorical imperative in his Genealogy of Morals as reeking of evil (or something along those lines) because it offers that one should only act as we would desire others to in the same situation, and a wicked society will act wickedly and desire others to do the same, but it would work well for a halfway decent society.

 

[Thom18]

PuerAzaelis:

tried to read the Critique of Pure Reason a couple of times.

Needless to say I didn’t make it the whole way through.

Try Nietzsche - he’s far easier to read. Without an understanding of where Kant’s coming from (in other words, what went before him) reading his stuff is like trying to wade through knee-deep treacle on a very cold day!

Meh. He has some interesting things to say but he’s one person I don’t think I’d want anyone but a philosopher to read. Read some Kant or Kierkegaard instead.

Or Wittgenstein if you’re looking for something morally neutral. The Tractatus transformed me as a philosopher.

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

My diocese requires our seminarians to study philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche, and I’m pretty sure that any other seminary will require it ever since JPII’s reform for seminary study.

Fair enough. But let us bear in mind that a seminarian is not the same as a vulnerable layperson. A seminarian is preparing the protect the flock.

Seminarians begin as (and are) laymen themselves, mind you.

Philosophy is merely natural theology. It would be robbing someone of the opportunity to learn about God’s Creation apart from divine revelation to try and keep them from exploring what people have had to say about it. It’s not as if Catholic theologians are the only people capable of interpreting the world around us. There’s plenty of secular figures who were able to lift the veil, so to speak.

 

[commenter]

moral relativism is an approach to ethics

No, it’s a denial of Ethics. Ethics assumes there are some absolutes, some standards applying to everyone. There is room for discernment about what those absolute should be, or how they should apply in a given situation.

There is room in Ethics class for shades of grey, or dissent from the popular opinions on what those absolute standards should be. But moral relativism is not a dissent, it’s a denial of the premises of Ethics.

If you disagree with the Scientific Method, and support the New Age or Witchcraft approach to matter, fine. Who knows, it may even be better than science. Pursue it if you like.

But the chemistry teacher is within his rights to limit the Science class to principles consistent with Science.

 

[ThomasMT]

Philosophy is merely natural theology. It would be robbing someone of the opportunity to learn about God’s Creation apart from divine revelation to try and keep them from exploring what people have had to say about it. It’s not as if Catholic theologians are the only people capable of interpreting the world around us. There’s plenty of secular figures who were able to lift the veil, so to speak.

Natural theology and study of God’s creation outside of the written word? Such as what? Determinism? Relativism? Gender “theory,” secular theories of evolution of religion? If one should be advised to entertain rotten fruit, a solid foundation in the faith is pretty important, in my opinion. Someone entering the seminary is likely to be a little more solid in faith and conviction than otherwise, I would speculate.

Yes, there is good philosophy as well… no doubt. But discernment is critical and, again, a good foundation is needed. I, at this point in my life, find enough fruit and variation in perspective within Catholic theology and tradition that I doubt I’ll go through it all before my hour is at hand. There is plenty enough in my own faith to keep me busy.

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

Philosophy is merely natural theology. It would be robbing someone of the opportunity to learn about God’s Creation apart from divine revelation to try and keep them from exploring what people have had to say about it. It’s not as if Catholic theologians are the only people capable of interpreting the world around us. There’s plenty of secular figures who were able to lift the veil, so to speak.

Natural theology and study of God’s creation outside of the written word? Such as what? Determinism? Relativism? Gender “theory,” secular theories of evolution of religion?

I was thinking more logic, natural law, language games, stuff like that.

Not everything outside of divine revelation is wicked. Discernment is crucial, but I don’t apply a special standard to philosophy which I wouldn’t also apply to divine revelation and what Protestants take it to mean.

 

[ThomasMT]

Fair enough, no disagreement there. You did initially cite Nietzsche, however, so my spidey sense tingled a little bit.

 

[Thom18]

Fair enough, no disagreement there. You did initially cite Nietzsche, however, so my spidey sense tingled a little bit.

Understandable. I offered him as someone I wouldn’t recommend (although, oddly enough, my seminary has a portrait of him and introduces the seminarians to his work). They want them to have exposure to his views, but at the same time they’re receiving other philosophical (and strictly theological) education to “cancel him out”.

I’ve had to read a bit of his stuff myself recently. He’s interesting, but is more a showcase of where not to go in philosophy. Even someone like Schopenhauer has some more questionable things to say.

I’d always recommend starting with the ancient Greeks, since Catholic philosophy is rooted in it, and then move on to more secular people like Kant, who crafted a very nice deontological ethic.

 

[commenter]

I would be interested in a book recommendation: something along the lines of
“Modern Philosophy (post 1900) as seen through a Catholic viewpoint, written for readers who know a little Philosophy but not Philosophy majors”.

 

[StudentMI]

Not Catholic but pretty sensible is Roger Scruton’s Modern Philosophy. The latter volumes of Coplestons History of Philosophy would qualify.

A non Catholic but good source is Modern French Philosophy by Vincent Descombes.

A good Catholic philosopher active today would be D. Q. McInerny.

 

[Maximus1]

It is insulting to think that someone is telling me not to read something. As if reading is going to just send me to pieces.