Philosophers outside of Catholicism: A Question of Semantics (?)

[futurtheologian]

First and foremost, any thoughts would be appreciated.

I am a Catholic who is considering the study of theology and or philosophy. I know the two can be interrelated but there are serious differences between the two disciplines. Irrespective of this, I have always considered the place of Kierkegaard in philosophy as a prime example.

When you read Fear and Trembling, I believe in Problemata 2, it is stated that the world is similar to a sphere. In a sense, there is the inside of the sphere and the outside; it is finitude vs infinity or infinitude. We all makes “movements” of finitude, since we are purely finite humans who live in a state of sin; God is clearly outside of the sphere, due to the omnipotence and infinity of God. In effect, anyone who attempts to make a movement outside the sphere is completely false since they are attempting to imitate the infinity of God without realizing there respective finitude and possible lack or misunderstanding of faith. If one makes a leap of faith in one sense, by placing total trust in the infinite or outside of the sphere, then they will ultimately achieve more than the latter individual. Faith is clearly very important to Kierkegaard.

Now my question: Kierkegaard was a Protestant. How should a Catholic appropriately approach his work? I mean this approach to understanding God has influenced me very much, if this interpretation/understanding is correct. My professors seem to believe this is the proper view of his work. Yet, I also believe that the Bible is the true Word of God. I do not equate Kierkegaard with God obviously (just making that clarification for a lack of ambiguity); so, how do I discern this philosophical work from simply being another interpretation of God from the perspective of finitude rather than an actual work of faith devoted to God? All works outside of God cannot be considered false, since the Church accepts the work of the Doctors to be integral to Church teachings.

Kierkegaard was highly religious and almost puritanical. Yet, how does the Church approach authors of religious writers who are of other Christian denominations? Obviously, I would not want to look to a false writer. I would put my trust in Augustine and Aquinas and Bonaventure, the latter two as Doctors of the Church, in greater faith than in Kierkegaard. And another factor which probably weighs against my case is that Kierkegaard was the original Christian existentialist. But can “Christian existentialism” truly exist? Can a Christian or Catholic in right mind truly accept this philosophy as some sort of truth without committing a sin? The Word of God obviously towers over this, but there is some very interesting aspects of Kierkegaard and a variety of other Christian philosophers such as Descarte and Leibniz.

Maybe this is just a question of philosophy, maybe semantics, or something related to Church Cannon and Dogma. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Sorry for the multiple questions, but I just love thinking about these odd and sticky questions which probably have little answers. I have heard conflicting views from different priests regarding Kierkegaard specifically.

 

[JohnDamian]

Kierkegaard was highly religious and almost puritanical. Yet, how does the Church approach authors of religious writers who are of other Christian denominations?

Of course Catholic Philosophers refer to those “outside” of the Catholic faith - the main four examples of these are Avicenna, Plato, Averroes and Aristotle.

The majority of work throughout the middle ages in Philosophy was at least connected to these people; even if not in total agreement.

For example; Thomas Aquinas and Alexander of Hales were particularily influenced by Aristotle; Duns Scotus and Albertus Magnus were influenced by Avicenna, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Augustine were influenced by Plato; and Averroes influenced Siger of Brabant.

When you read Fear and Trembling, I believe in Problemata 2, it is stated that the world is similar to a sphere. In a sense, there is the inside of the sphere and the outside; it is finitude vs infinity or infinitude. We all makes “movements” of finitude, since we are purely finite humans who live in a state of sin; God is clearly outside of the sphere, due to the omnipotence and infinity of God. In effect, anyone who attempts to make a movement outside the sphere is completely false since they are attempting to imitate the infinity of God without realizing there respective finitude and possible lack or misunderstanding of faith. If one makes a leap of faith in one sense, by placing total trust in the infinite or outside of the sphere, then they will ultimately achieve more than the latter individual. Faith is clearly very important to Kierkegaard.

This seems to reflect Catholic philosophers who advocate equivocacy or analagorical predication for God; such as Alexander of Hales, and Thomas Aquinas; against Catholic philosophers such as Francis Maryone and Duns Scotus; who argue for univocity.

With the prior; it is argued that those things “outside” the “sphere” cannot be comprehended in the same manner as things “within” the “sphere”; wheras with the latter philosophers; it is argued that those things inside the “sphere” and outside the “sphere” are identical in terms of their meaning (ie; univocal).

So Catholic philosophers can be divided on the issue without heresy; however in general terms it would certainly be more common to see people arguing for equivocity or analagorical predication of Thomas Aquinas. It seems to myself at least that univocity is necessary for a critical philosophy; however I would be in the minority.

NB; if you are interested in studying Catholic philosophy/theology I can give you a short list of about 15 books that are handy in getting a rounded understanding.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

NB; if you are interested in studying Catholic philosophy/theology I can give you a short list of about 15 books that are handy in getting a rounded understanding.

John,

I’m interested in the list, if you have a chance. I’m studying philosophy at a secular school, so I’d like to beef up my Catholic curriculum.

Peace,
Daniel

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Kierkegaard was highly religious and almost puritanical. Yet, how does the Church approach authors of religious writers who are of other Christian denominations? Obviously, I would not want to look to a false writer. I would put my trust in Augustine and Aquinas and Bonaventure, the latter two as Doctors of the Church, in greater faith than in Kierkegaard. And another factor which probably weighs against my case is that Kierkegaard was the original Christian existentialist. But can “Christian existentialism” truly exist? Can a Christian or Catholic in right mind truly accept this philosophy as some sort of truth without committing a sin? The Word of God obviously towers over this, but there is some very interesting aspects of Kierkegaard and a variety of other Christian philosophers such as Descarte and Leibniz.

Can Christian existentialism truly exist? Hmmmm. It depends on what you mean by existentialism.

Sartre’s slogan for existentialism, which is a good starting point, is that Existence precedes essence. I first find myself existing, and then I “make” my own character/essence/meaning. Kierkegaard would agree, I think. But how does this square with the Christian idea that God creates my essence?

The Christian must say that my essence *ought *to line up with God’s plan. Thus, I am not entirely a free agent; if I am to be fully human, I must define myself in accordance with my nature. Sartre would be disgusted by this. Maybe Kierkegaard would too, although I doubt it. However, if they think it’s wrong, so much the worse for them.

Personally, I am a Catholic philosopher, and I LOVE Kierkegaard. He has all of the best qualities of Nietzsche and Kant, without Nietzsche’s nihilism and without Kant’s didacticism.

(Side note: Was Descartes really a Christian thinker? Pascal thinks he was a poser, and Pascal has been right about a lot of things?)

 

[JohnDamian]

Sartre’s slogan for existentialism, which is a good starting point, is that Existence precedes essence. I first find myself existing, and then I “make” my own character/essence/meaning. Kierkegaard would agree, I think. But how does this square with the Christian idea that God creates my essence?

You don’t make your own essence; all the things which are voluntary in you are formed as accidents; which are not elements of your haecceity; nor are they things which individuate you. You can by voluntary actions modify yourself or your thought; or acquire knowlege of this or that object; but such actions do not essentially change what you are; as they were voluntary actions; they were accidental actions; and as such are not essential to your essence; whilst according to Aristotle in Metaphysics VIII “act determines and distinguishes” the accidental act distinguishes accidentally; against the essential act distinguishing essentially; thus; when you distinguish yourself accidentally you do not per se distinguish yourself in an essential manner - thus; your essence is unafflicted by your accidents. It is only if by an act that is essential that you distinguish yourself that you will distinguish yourself according to your essence; such an act as (for example) as the ultimate act of actual existence; which per se is posterior to the whole of a categorical heirarchy; and this act distinguishes ultimately; but this distinction is outside the whole per se of categorical heirarchy (being it’s posterior). Unless one where to argue that per se this ultimate act is the prior of a categorical heirarchy (being as first); in which case it would still follow that this ultimate act distinguishes ultimately; even being in a categorical heirarchy; in each case; being acts essentially; for the substance of a thing is contingent upon Being.

Also; how can you have existence without essence; that is impossible; thus we can see that essence and existence are really identical yet formally distinct. Whilst we might agree that being is the first in existence; it cannot exist without an essence which is really identical.

The Christian must say that my essence ought to line up with God’s plan. Thus, I am not entirely a free agent; if I am to be fully human, I must define myself in accordance with my nature.

A Christian should say that the essence of a person essentially follows God’s plan; as the essence of an individual follows naturally from an act of God (ie; being) which is instilled at the moment of Conception; it follows from this that despite our essences following God the act’s posterior to our essences may elicit a contradiction with natural law; as according to the concupiscence and volition predicated of our essences; we may in act voluntarily elicit contradictions with natural law. However; this does not impugn that our essence is from God; even if our acts form part of an accidentally ordered sequence resting in our volitions to create such a contradictions through praxis; wheras if we are to say that all our acts are essentially ordered we must view that volition is prior in the heirachy of our acts to natural law; and thus concede that God accepts this; as his act composes our essences in such a manner; thus volition must be prior to an act of law; following from this then we can see that in an essentially ordered sequence (ie; God as first principle) natural law cannot be essentially predicated of ourselves; for else we violate the law of noncontradiction – so whilst a Christian may break the natural law; our acts should be congruent with natural law; and our acts must be congruent with our essences.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John Damian

So Catholic philosophers can be divided on the issue without heresy; however in general terms it would certainly be more common to see people arguing for equivocity or analagorical predication of Thomas Aquinas. It seems to myself at least that univocity is necessary for a critical philosophy; however I would be in the minority.

I cannot resist comparing the above prose to that of Professor Irwin Corey, who is still going full throttle. Lots of fun, but what in God’s name does it mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw&feature=related

 

[JohnDamian]

John Damian

So Catholic philosophers can be divided on the issue without heresy; however in general terms it would certainly be more common to see people arguing for equivocity or analagorical predication of Thomas Aquinas. It seems to myself at least that univocity is necessary for a critical philosophy; however I would be in the minority.

I cannot resist comparing the above prose to that of Professor Irwin Corey, who is still going full throttle. Lots of fun, but what in God’s name does it mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw&feature=related

The above prose means; in simple terms;

Aquinas and many other philosophers believe that we can say something such as “being” or “goodness” can only exist in God in an equivocal or analagorical way compared to us. Ie; the existence of “Good” in God is different from us; and is similar to an analogy. When we say “God is Good; JohnDamian is Good” we mean a different “Goodness” for God; and only comparable to that of an analogy; wheras…

… Philosophers such as Scotus; Mayrone etc.; would argue that the “Goodness” we have is the same “Goodness” God has. This is what “univocal” means, UNI-(One)-Vocal (Voice); we use One word; Goodness (or being; etc.) - in the same way for humans as we do for God.

People who prefer equivocal or analagorical terms are in the majority; ie - the majority follows Aquinas; however to have a philosophy of univocity is not heretical or contrary to Church teachings; although it is in the minority. For myself; if we are to have a critical and practical philosophy; we must use a word univocally.

 

[futurtheologian]

Okay a few things if anyone is still reading this thread.

First, John that list would be quite intriguing and I would appreciate if you could post/send me an email or private message with the list.

Second, question pertaining to the sphere. Can we truly know that this representation of our place within the universe and context of God be an absolute truth or the transcendent knowledge which Plato refers to? I totally believe in equiovacy, as in Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers (and I would agree that Kierkegaard probably held a similar view). Yet, can we TRULY know that this is total truth? I am not doubting it, but God is omnipotent and clearly the infinity of God outweights us as humans who are finite creatures. That is accepted, as in my agreement with equivocacy. Yet, if God is infinite, outside of the Word of God, can we truly know if our theories are correct? I am going to answer in the negative at the moment, but thoughts would be appreciated.

Also; how can you have existence without essence; that is impossible; thus we can see that essence and existence are really identical yet formally distinct. Whilst we might agree that being is the first in existence; it cannot exist without an essence which is really identical.

This is quite true at least according to the semantic range (a useless term probably) of existence and essence. I mean there are no limits imposed upon anything unless there is an essence; an essence is necessary for existence and thus limits are formed in the sphere itself. Once outside of the sphere, there are no limits. I feel like this is somewhat like the Continuum Hypothesis (possibly another number theory type proof) if anyone is aware of that. This is related to my thread on the “State of Nothingess” which I would like to explore further. I feel like Nothingness is something that can be explored in the affirmative to try to understand existence on a totally philosophical level. Again, totally a philosophical undertaking for pure intellectual enjoyment (and to escape the aesthetic a bit more…)

Kierkegaard is cool, but I feel much of his “algebraic” or dialectical work is way too rigorous and contains excessive verbosity (i.e. Sickness Unto Death). Fear and Trembling is really his only work that caught my attention very much. Lyrical>Dialectical

And Prodigal Son:

Personally, I am a Catholic philosopher, and I LOVE Kierkegaard. He has all of the best qualities of Nietzsche and Kant, without Nietzsche’s nihilism and without Kant’s didacticism.

How does it work out being a Catholic philosopher in this day and age? Assuming you are a teacher/professor by that definition, but could be wrong. I have heard a Priest (academic professor also) who said Existentialism is quite integral to some recent Church/theological developments (no proof/specifics) but my home priest kind of shrug off Kierkegaard/Existentialists as being useless or something to stay away from (and he does not appear to be very puritanical in some respects).

Maybe one can evaluate this, but I totally define existentialism as a disconnect from modernity and reason in modernity (yes very basic, there are many presuppositions to this definition also just not going to bother with them). I can go on for hours after taking so many classes on the subject of antiquity vs. modernity, but it is the question of existence in a particular context; in modern times, so few question existence, and would rather plug into the mass media that forms up the social consciousness (AKA Harold Bloom I believe). Lets face it—the baby not only derives nutrients from the Breast of his mother but also from the teaching of the screen; technology is like the new false deity of our time. It is a failure if you ask me and that is why I have dabbled with existentialism a bit. I don’t know if I would call myself an existentialist for a variety of reasons, but as per my definition from above, well I think any truly rational person would evaluate this in the negative. Anyone who agrees with the tenents of modernity would probably be labeled as the antithetical of the existentialists in my opinion.

Hope this stuff makes sense, would like to keep this conversation going; I am totally new to theology/philosophy and considering grad school for it to complement math studies.

 

[JohnDamian]

Second, question pertaining to the sphere. Can we truly know that this representation of our place within the universe and context of God be an absolute truth or the transcendent knowledge which Plato refers to? I totally believe in equiovacy, as in Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers (and I would agree that Kierkegaard probably held a similar view). Yet, can we TRULY know that this is total truth?

This is one of the problems of equivocity; it presents a challenge of practicality towards our predication of articles such as “being” or “good” to God; it is at the heart of the problem of universals; which was important in Scholasticism for a very long time; and is still relevant today. The question is; if we are only to predicate something such as being equivocally to God; how can we understand such a predication; wheras if we predicate univocally we accept an underlying universality towards the nature of certain predicates. We are taught that God is knowable through reason; and this is how we can have confidence in our philosophy to try and come to at least a general understanding of the nature of God.

Well; we can take the following position; as God is infinite; there is no reason in omina that he must have the capacity for bad (De Divina Omnipotenta - St Peter Damian); it follows from this that if we accept the premise of the Catholic God we must accept that God’s word is sufficient to justify the belief that he is both knowable through reason; and also the end to which our reason is functioning. Of course; critically speaking such a presupposition is hardly watertight.

However; even not accepting the premise of Catholocism we must accept the existence of God according to reason (Tractatus de Primo Principio, Proslogion, Summa Theologica); and thus have no reason to suppose an end beyond him. In either case; the sphere appears to exist as Kierkegaard describes it if you adhere to an Equivocal (rather than Univocal) understanding of God.

I mean there are no limits imposed upon anything unless there is an essence; an essence is necessary for existence and thus limits are formed in the sphere itself.

 

[futurtheologian]

Okay thanks for the clarification! My friend and I once considered this, and in the end, it is all a question of semantics if you take this from a secular path. That is the beauty of Catholicism, since the reason applied to God makes much more sense as in Summa by Aquinas. I often feel that as I hear more and more challenges to the Catholic faith, many of them falter on grounds of logic; there is so much Catholic theology that all points to the same direction. How wrong can some of the greatest and most learned truly be throughout history? That is why I love antiquity and the early medieval period. Yes, there were always challenges; however, modernity of today is a pathetic attempt at scholasticism from the lens of antiquity. Assuming the view of antiquity is probably the greatest method of reason than the view of modernity.