Philosophy and Catholicism

[blybly]

Today was the subject of philosophy in my high school, I initially regarded this skeptically - each philosopher I saw arbitrary relationship to God and being surrounded, the rise of man before God, the comparison with human and other animals, of course in my country still remains that an atheistic background philosophy. Lecturer said that she believes in God, but noticed that no one will ever know God. Stupidity, but I have expressed this lecturer that I have the world view and what I have come to know myself already (at 19 years, lol sure). Of course it was the emotion, God teaches us every day and we can not know ourselves or God (in the fullness for sure only God knows everything). But the phrase about God that no one will ever know me is introduced into shock.

For me, it means that people no longer seek God and only in the subconscious mind knows that God exists. But no one sees Christianity as the house of God on earth. She called Antiquity and the Middle Ages the two extremes/irrationalism: antiquity - extreme ruling body of the soul, and the Middle Ages - the power of the soul over the body. The ideal Age is the development of philosophy she called the Age of Enlightenment. Well, I unwittingly agreed, saying about the body and should not be forgotten and well-being is not a sin, but if it is done with God. However, I feel that all this might lead me somewhere in the wrong direction. And my irrationality in life tossed me on the extremes and ideologies.

And when I started to learn about God and Christianity I began to realize that it is also a weapon against my irrationality and research in life. Lecturer filed a philosophy as rationality and irrationality, and here is something possessed me. I certainly understand that my denial of philosophy (Nietzsche, etc.) is not entirely correct protects my faith.

Should i done this way through Nietzsche and other not-really-catholic-guys and other philosophy stuff or should i just lie to lecturer that i understand philosophy just for getting good grade of this subject? I’m confused I feel great about this and badly aswell, at the same time.

 

[edward_george]

Today was the subject of philosophy in my high school, I initially regarded this skeptically - each philosopher I saw arbitrary relationship to God and being surrounded, the rise of man before God, the comparison with human and other animals, of course in my country still remains that an atheistic background philosophy. Lecturer said that she believes in God, but noticed that no one will ever know God. Stupidity, but I have expressed this lecturer that I have the world view and what I have come to know myself already (at 19 years, lol sure). Of course it was the emotion, God teaches us every day and we can not know ourselves or God (in the fullness for sure only God knows everything). But the phrase about God that no one will ever know me is introduced into shock.

For me, it means that people no longer seek God and only in the subconscious mind knows that God exists. But no one sees Christianity as the house of God on earth. She called Antiquity and the Middle Ages the two extremes/irrationalism: antiquity - extreme ruling body of the soul, and the Middle Ages - the power of the soul over the body. The ideal Age is the development of philosophy she called the Age of Enlightenment. Well, I unwittingly agreed, saying about the body and should not be forgotten and well-being is not a sin, but if it is done with God. However, I feel that all this might lead me somewhere in the wrong direction. And my irrationality in life tossed me on the extremes and ideologies.

And when I started to learn about God and Christianity I began to realize that it is also a weapon against my irrationality and research in life. Lecturer filed a philosophy as rationality and irrationality, and here is something possessed me. I certainly understand that my denial of philosophy (Nietzsche, etc.) is not entirely correct protects my faith.

Should i done this way through Nietzsche and other not-really-catholic-guys and other philosophy stuff or should i just lie to lecturer that i understand philosophy just for getting good grade of this subject? I’m confused I feel great about this and badly aswell, at the same time.

I’d say you should try to understand philosophy, knowing that philosophy in and of itself is not a bad thing. There are philosophers who wind up with bad conclusions, and there are others who do not–Christianity actually preserves philosophy throughout the centuries and is still one of its biggest promoters. There are other philosophers than Nietzsche, of course, although to hear some academics tell it, this isn’t the case. You should read the ancient Greeks or Thomas Aquinas or Anselm–these will show you the foundations of Christian philosophy and the form it took by the Middle Ages.

Perhaps you could, in your course, learn the arguments Nietzsche puts forth, and then figure out what’s flawed with them. You don’t have to pretend you understand something you don’t agree with just because you don’t want to understand it–you really ought to try to understand it, and perhaps offer an alternate viewpoint. Too few people in the schools these days are willing to attack the propaganda–perhaps you could step up.

-ACEGC

 

[catholictiger]

Today was the subject of philosophy in my high school, I initially regarded this skeptically - each philosopher I saw arbitrary relationship to God and being surrounded, the rise of man before God, the comparison with human and other animals, of course in my country still remains that an atheistic background philosophy. Lecturer said that she believes in God, but noticed that no one will ever know God. Stupidity, but I have expressed this lecturer that I have the world view and what I have come to know myself already (at 19 years, lol sure). Of course it was the emotion, God teaches us every day and we can not know ourselves or God (in the fullness for sure only God knows everything). But the phrase about God that no one will ever know me is introduced into shock.

What it sounds like is that this teacher is letting his/her personal view influence the presentation of the material. If the teacher is doing a broad overview of philosophy he/she shouldn’t put forward a biased opinion of it. Actually I think instead of giving the history of philosophy try and explain what philosophy is and mention some of the basic questions philosophers have asked for hundreds of years. Is there something that all things are made up of? Does life have meaning/purpose? Is there a God, if yes who is he and what is he like? What is man, does he have a soul, or is he just a collection of cells? What type of ethical system should man live by? etc.

For me, it means that people no longer seek God and only in the subconscious mind knows that God exists. But no one sees Christianity as the house of God on earth. She called Antiquity and the Middle Ages the two extremes/irrationalism: antiquity - extreme ruling body of the soul, and the Middle Ages - the power of the soul over the body. The ideal Age is the development of philosophy she called the Age of Enlightenment. Well, I unwittingly agreed, saying about the body and should not be forgotten and well-being is not a sin, but if it is done with God. However, I feel that all this might lead me somewhere in the wrong direction. And my irrationality in life tossed me on the extremes and ideologies.

your only mistake in this is saying it is philosophy in general. This thought comes from post empiricism thinkers starting with descartes.

Bellow are philosophers who make me sick

descartes (he isn’t bad)
Kant
Nietzsche
Freud
others I can’t remember right now.

And when I started to learn about God and Christianity I began to realize that it is also a weapon against my irrationality and research in life. Lecturer filed a philosophy as rationality and irrationality, and here is something possessed me. I certainly understand that my denial of philosophy (Nietzsche, etc.) is not entirely correct protects my faith.

don’t deny philosophy it is a beautiful thing and the foundation of the Churches theology. Its just the problem is that main stream modern and contemporary philosophers are very heavily anti catholic so it can be difficult to find good philosophers after descartes, but they are out there.

but go into the pre descartes time when Thomas and Aristotle dominated philosophy much more pro Catholic philosophers. (yes Aristotle even though he was dead before Christ is a pro catholic philosopher, Thomas’ philosophy is very much based in Aristotle philosophy.

you must notice that modern philosophy and contemporary philosophy is a rejection of long standing philosophy from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that is why you see it as so negative.

Should i done this way through Nietzsche and other not-really-catholic-guys and other philosophy stuff or should i just lie to lecturer that i understand philosophy just for getting good grade of this subject? I’m confused I feel great about this and badly aswell, at the same time.

don’t lie for a grade talk to the teacher and tell the teacher your thoughts about your negative view of the philosophy he/she presented. Your example is just one of the many examples secularism in the culture.

Simple question for you

did your teacher cover Aristotle, or Plato, what about some medieval philosophers like Thomas or Anselm. Would you mind listing some of the philosophers he/she mentioned.

if he/she didn’t talk about one of the ancient guys ask him/her about them and see what he/she says, it may add some interesting discussion to the class.

 

[catholictiger]

one more thing to add please feel free to ask me anything you like I’ll do my best to answer, I just graduated with a degree in philosophy so I have a very good background in this stuff.

also bring this to the philosophy board if you have specific questions there are some good smart people over there.

 

[L_Marshall]

Philosophy is important to the Catholic faith, because it is the foundation of Theology. This is why every priest is required to complete studies in Philosophy before beginning his education in Theology.

Many modern and post-modern philosophers disagree with the Church on some level, but many do not. I’d encourage you to look at the basics– Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, et c.

 

[blybly]

I’ll try to add some new discussions when the time of study Medieval is come near, and thank you all for your help, maybe it would be great for my faith, especially for my lifetime problem - irrationalism

one more thing to add please feel free to ask me anything you like I’ll do my best to answer, I just graduated with a degree in philosophy so I have a very good background in this stuff.

also bring this to the philosophy board if you have specific questions there are some good smart people over there.

Okay! If something would happen i’ll ask you immediately, God Bless

 

[St_Francis]

One way of putting forth answers in a way that shows you understand the arguments is to make sure to attribute the thoughts to the philospher: instead of saying God is dead, be sure to write Nietsze wrote that God is dead. That way you show you understand the material, without saying that you agree with the material.

For yourself, keep notes on your thoughts as they come along. Like upon reading Nietsze where he says God is dead, you might think: How can God, an eternal Being, be dead? What does Nietsze mean by this, why does he say it? And later, yes, Nietsze says X, Y, and Z, but I see that he is wrong here and here, so he is wrong when he says God is dead.

And keep those notes for your self.

One interesting thing I find while learning philosophy is that I can see how it works out in practice all around me! Keeping those notes and adding to them will, I think, help you in your dealings in life.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Today was the subject of philosophy in my high school, I initially regarded this skeptically - each philosopher I saw arbitrary relationship to God and being surrounded, the rise of man before God, the comparison with human and other animals, of course in my country still remains that an atheistic background philosophy. Lecturer said that she believes in God, but noticed that no one will ever know God. Stupidity, but I have expressed this lecturer that I have the world view and what I have come to know myself already (at 19 years, lol sure). Of course it was the emotion, God teaches us every day and we can not know ourselves or God (in the fullness for sure only God knows everything). But the phrase about God that no one will ever know me is introduced into shock.

For me, it means that people no longer seek God and only in the subconscious mind knows that God exists. But no one sees Christianity as the house of God on earth. She called Antiquity and the Middle Ages the two extremes/irrationalism: antiquity - extreme ruling body of the soul, and the Middle Ages - the power of the soul over the body. The ideal Age is the development of philosophy she called the Age of Enlightenment. Well, I unwittingly agreed, saying about the body and should not be forgotten and well-being is not a sin, but if it is done with God. However, I feel that all this might lead me somewhere in the wrong direction. And my irrationality in life tossed me on the extremes and ideologies.

And when I started to learn about God and Christianity I began to realize that it is also a weapon against my irrationality and research in life. Lecturer filed a philosophy as rationality and irrationality, and here is something possessed me. I certainly understand that my denial of philosophy (Nietzsche, etc.) is not entirely correct protects my faith.

Should i done this way through Nietzsche and other not-really-catholic-guys and other philosophy stuff or should i just lie to lecturer that i understand philosophy just for getting good grade of this subject? I’m confused I feel great about this and badly aswell, at the same time.

Catholictiger has given good advice. Avoid the philosophers he mentioned, no truth in them or very little. Stick to Thomas Aqinas as your guide. A good book for you to read, if you can get it, is Aquinas by Dr. Edward Feser. He is very popular in the English speaking countries and is a solid Thomist and explains some of Thomas’ basic concepts about as simply as it can be done.

Above all hold to the Faith. Nothing takes presedence over that. Philosophy should be guided by Faith and should be the servant of Faith.

Linus2nd

 

[St_Francis]

One way of putting forth answers in a way that shows you understand the arguments is to make sure to attribute the thoughts to the philospher: instead of saying God is dead, be sure to write Nietsze wrote that God is dead. That way you show you understand the material, without saying that you agree with the material.

For yourself, keep notes on your thoughts as they come along. Like upon reading Nietsze where he says God is dead, you might think: How can God, an eternal Being, be dead? What does Nietsze mean by this, why does he say it? And later, yes, Nietsze says X, Y, and Z, but I see that he is wrong here and here, so he is wrong when he says God is dead.

And keep those notes for your self.

One interesting thing I find while learning philosophy is that I can see how it works out in practice all around me! Keeping those notes and adding to them will, I think, help you in your dealings in life.

 

[catholictiger]

Catholictiger has given good advice. Avoid the philosophers he mentioned, no truth in them or very little. Stick to Thomas Aqinas as your guide. A good book for you to read, if you can get it, is Aquinas by Dr. Edward Feser. He is very popular in the English speaking countries and is a solid Thomist and explains some of Thomas’ basic concepts about as simply as it can be done.

Above all hold to the Faith. Nothing takes presedence over that. Philosophy should be guided by Faith and should be the servant of Faith.

Linus2nd

I agree with this mostly.

there is nothing wrong in reading people like Descartes Kant ect. but it is good to have a good Christian philosopher who can shed Catholic truth on these positions. If you are to study philosophy seriously in any way knowing some of the main stream philosphers like Descartes Kant, Hume, Freud, etc. is important but you must keep the light of Christ shining while you read them.

Many times you will encounter people who buy into their philosophies understanding how they think may help you minister to them. So don’t avoid them completely but read them in the light of truth.

But as a high schooler I would stay away from many of the moderns, get the basics of the subjects down and then start with ancient thinkers and medieval thinkers before getting to modern and contemporary.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your lecturer says that “no one will ever know God.” I wonder what possible justification she has for that claim. Perhaps she means that no one currently knows for sure that God exists. That’s not an awful claim. But if she means that God cannot reveal Himself to people, that doesn’t make any sense. If God exists, God can relate to us. You know, that whole omnipotence thing.

I would encourage you not to be defensive, in this class. No one is attacking you. And you probably do not have the resources to defend your ideas against the teacher’s ideas. That’s OK. You’re there to learn. If all you learn is ideas that go against Christianity, that’s simply information. But I imagine you’ll learn more than that, even if the teacher is somewhat confused about some things.

 

[blybly]

Friday would be first philosophy-seminar and my question that i chose includes some faith themes and i would like to answer to it (already done with this, just waiting for the day i can repeat it in class)

Can’t wait

 

[wsm]

.

Philosophy obviously does not involve the Catholic ideals, but it involves humanities own research into why we were created. This substantiates why information shared in the Catholic ideals are similar in text to other religious ideals.

Philosophy substantiates that it was a thought involved process that questioned how we were involved in a life that lived through a process of light and darkness, why the circle O became part of the Holy teachings, and why it substantiated a relationship to the Sun.

Theology then questioned why we were conscious, who were we exactly, how did we ourselves get created. This involved spiritual wisdom and spiritual information, which can only imply that we had light spirit contact. This is the only way that we could have been informed of our Father in the Light.

Using Philosophy and Theology was how religious ideals were altered due to personal interpretation of both substantial scientific study and also personal experience involving light spirits. This is still proven in today’s society, for why would this system change, we are part of this natural system, therefore for the Catholic Church to ignore this fact proves that they themselves are being dishonest about how this information had and has been correlated.

Therefore updating of the Theology can only become apparent through those who truly do have spiritual experiences with light beings. We have always called these light beings angels, only because we use the communication method we have self applied regarding a human being’s ability to speak a language for a greater extensive expression.

Angels in Philosophy were originally factored as an informed process of astronomical studies to prove that the Earth was round O, and that it involved a precise calculation of light upon her and darkness upon her. Therefore the biblical beginnings discuss how a Theologist determined Philosophy via PHI star (dot points) of watching star movement and angles.

This is how light and darkness were calculated as a separate creative feature involving the creative act of a Sun shining light upon the face of the Earth.

Therefore the description of the Theologist described the Philosophy that in the beginning light was separated from the darkness…as he began to calculate Time in a Circle.

This was how a clock was created to quantify time counting.

Therefore the philosophy of an “angel” as a star point to Earth’s own trajectory movement created a line, forming an “angle”, hence angel-angle was part of a philosophical theosophy regarding time itself. They used this information to inform themselves of Alchemy or timed intervals that caused reactive states in chemistry or chemical reactions.

This form of teaching has nothing to do with the actual spiritual realizations of what we called the Light Beings from which we knew we evolved. As we knew that the real Light Beings had lost sound out of their own bodies, we placated that Stars represented these angels own lost sound. Yet this is only a placation, not a reality.

Therefore we have called the stars angels, we have called the atmosphere angels and we also call the true Creators of our organic materialized self an angel only because we chose to call them this name.

For a human being to try to imply that what we name as a subject in creation is a reality of the Creator itself has been an egotistical reminder to us all. Even the holy documents advise that the name of the Creator could never be quantified and that only the sacrificed sound body could be quantified as a Holy reactive outcome forming OXYGEN or what they identified represented a total journey through the historical recounting of a pre existing Earth, the destruction of this Earth into a new creation saved as the ACT OF THE CHRIST (OX), the Spirit of our Salvation our Saviour and our life spirit or life force.

To imply that Healing has taken place and that it involved the Christ represented that the atmosphere had been replaced and the spirit Saviour became our saving grace or the spiritual paths we follow = OXYGEN, the breath of life. Without oxygen we have no life.

 

[wsm]

The Philosophy of the theology therefore proved that human beings had been involved in a pre existing Earth creation and that they destroyed it. That the holy sanctity of life enabled us to regain our spiritual healing of our own light being only because the act of OXYGEN was replaced in the atmosphere, because it CROSSED back by sound to reconnect to our Father’s origin Light Heaven.

Hence Heaven Earth reconnected with Earth Heaven via the OXYGEN of the life spirit as the Christ over view of the total creative condition involving the Sun, the Dead Earth Stone Body and why the dead spirit is entombed…how the Christ spirit OXYGEN gave its life to heal the STONE by cooling it, keeping the dead spirits (devils) of the burnt cell inside the stone. That the OXYGEN of the life spirit is also involved in the Sun attacking us, forming Satanic sound cells/images on the outside of the atmosphere. That OXYGEN keeping the atmospheric signals cool, cause the Satanic devil sounds to be stopped and then released into the DEEP of space where it is supposed to be ejected.

Because Scientists such as at NASA have been test studying the cell creation, they have purposely been sending and using these radiated signals on the outside of the atmosphere and transmit them into our life. This was why cows cells began to explode as if attacked by a UFO incident. It was the reason why human beings began to be possessed and altered by cell information as NASA test studied our cellular pathways regarding the Christ information of OXYGEN.

Therefore as the Philosophers and Theosophers identified, transmitting or causing an anti SION as a transmisSION involving the Christ, would cause identifiable reactive states as an act against our Father’s holy creation who keeps our life safe by ejecting these signals off the face of the outside of the atmosphere.

 

[thomas_yo]

Every Catholic with concerns or interest in philosophy should at least read the encyclical *Aeterni Patris *, “On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy” by Pope Leo XIII.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris_en.html

 

[opusAquinas]

You should read St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle.
I would read Aristotle and Plato.
Everything else is really derivative, rehashed, repackaged & just hype.

The book by the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell is not great but it will give you a basic overview of some perennial issues.
amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0671201581

If you want Catholic philosophers: there’s Me, Charles Taylor, G.K. Chesterton, G.E.M. Anscombe, Jacque Maritain, Alaster MacIntyre(?)… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_philosophers_and_theologians.



Practical advice: You don’t have to agree with your teacher. You can rationally critique her position. If you can only get a good grade if you agree with her she is not a good teacher. You should follow your intellect and your conscience.