Philosophy learning - past and present

[anonymous1995]

Hi, I’m very curious about the ‘traditional’ way Philosophy and Theology were learnt as compared to the present.

The following is my imagined curriculum of a medieval or pre-Vatican II seminarian, which basically follows the Trivium and Quadrivium approach and places heavy emphasis on Thomism.

This is a more ‘modern’ scheme of work:

Latin, Greek >> Classical Logic >> History of Philosophy >> Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology, Ethics (with heavy emphasis on Thomism, Scholasticism and Aristotelian Philosophy) >> Biblical Exegesis, Liturgy and Sacraments, Ecclesiology, Trinity, Patristics, Christology, etc…

Any idea?

By the way, in order to profit the most from the study of the Catechism, should I first approach introductory works on Thomism and St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica before reading the CCC, GIVEN THAT I have already had some grasp of Latin, Classical Logic and various introductory Philosophy works as well as History of Philosophy?

 

[Rhubarb]

I had a post written, but what ideas are you looking for? In that, I mean to ask what is the goal of this program you laid out - is it just for personal religious leisure study?

My first reaction is to say that there are plenty of Catholic and other religious philosophers who can discuss their faith philosophically using current analytical philosophy. I think you’re shooting yourself in the foot by not taking advantage of more current ideas and methods. Classical logic just doesn’t handle arguments and our use of language as well as contemporary logics do, for instance.

 

[anonymous1995]

I had a post written, but what ideas are you looking for? In that, I mean to ask what is the goal of this program you laid out - is it just for personal religious leisure study?

My first reaction is to say that there are plenty of Catholic and other religious philosophers who can discuss their faith philosophically using current analytical philosophy. I think you’re shooting yourself in the foot by not taking advantage of more current ideas and methods. Classical logic just doesn’t handle arguments and our use of language as well as contemporary logics do, for instance.

Yes, my goal is for personal enrichment. I am very curious about how to build up a solid foundation upon which I am able to assimilate and judge more contemporary ideas.

 

[Rhubarb]

Yes, my goal is for personal enrichment. I am very curious about how to build up a solid foundation upon which I am able to assimilate and judge more contemporary ideas.

My only concern, if an undergrad came to me with this thread, would be that the goal of Medieval education was to entrench the ideas of what came before rather that critically analyze and seek new ways of thinking. I think it would be more valuable to learn about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic, language, etc. as a subject and then look at classical thinking on them, rather than start from the Medieval mindset which takes the above subjects for granted.

Again, though, that would be my advice.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My only concern, if an undergrad came to me with this thread, would be that the goal of Medieval education was to entrench the ideas of what came before rather that critically analyze and seek new ways of thinking. I think it would be more valuable to learn about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic, language, etc. as a subject and then look at classical thinking on them, rather than start from the Medieval mindset which takes the above subjects for granted.

Again, though, that would be my advice.

I don’t agree with any of this, coming as it does from an agnostic. Modern philosophy is rife with errors, blind alleys, agnosticism and atheism The untrained novice does well not to be badgered by modern philosophy without first having acquired the basics on how to refute the errors of modernism.

My advice, read St. Thomas and his interpreters so that you will be better prepared as a Catholic to understand how modern philosophy went bonkers.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t agree with any of this, coming as it does from an agnostic. Modern philosophy is rife with errors, blind alleys, agnosticism and atheism The untrained novice does well not to be badgered by modern philosophy without first having acquired the basics on how to refute the errors of modernism.

My advice, read St. Thomas and his interpreters so that you will be better prepared as a Catholic to understand how modern philosophy went bonkers.

See what I mean, about entrenching ideas rather than critically thinking?

But really, what does it matter that I’m agnostic? I don’t understand why that’s such a huge sticking point. I don’t push it on anyone, or fault anyone for their belief. I don’t even discuss my own beliefs unless directly asked.

That being said, I think it’s a huge misstep approaching any subject with your conclusions already settled upon. There was nothing I learned in my education in philosophy that undercut or otherwise contradicted Catholic theology - with the exception of problems with divine command theory in ethics. Though we also learned about the problems inherent with ethical relativism too. Catholic epistemology and metaphysics is perfectly defensible in modern philosophy. I don’t know what errors or missteps of modernism you mean, or even what you mean by ‘modernism’, but there are plenty of contemporary refutations of contemporary thoughts. Philosophy has no shortage of refutations.

Let me take another pass at this. I would advise any student in philosophy to approach topics in philosophy before they focus on any one philosopher. That way when Plato discusses the divided line, you understand what he’s saying about ontology, and what ontology is all about. Or when Aristotle discusses his ethics, you can see how teleology fits in. And also more importantly, when a snarky modern philosopher talks about Aquinas’ errors in the Five Ways on metaphysical and epistomological grounds, you can defend it because you’ve looked into those subjects.

Of course, take it with a grain of salt.