Philosophy: What's the difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JMJ_coder

Guest
Hello,

What is the difference between the different Christian schools of thought? What is different between Thomistic, Augustinian, Bonaventurian?

I think the first question is - what are all the different schools of thought and what do they teach. And then we can compare and contrast.
 
I’m thinking the question is too broad to be answered in less than say an encyclopedia lenght disertation.

Chuck
 
JMJ_coder said:
What is the difference between the different Christian schools of thought? What is different between Thomistic, Augustinian, Bonaventurian?
Click to expand...
being a (poor) Thomist, I can’t resist responding a little to this. Thomas is based directly on Aristotle. So the Father of Philosophy gives the foundation of the Angelic Doctor’s thought. And with Aristotle, it’s all about “what is the nature of?” the object. To answer he always starts with what people commonly hold about the topic. He constantly refers to experience as to a touchstone. It’s all about confidence in the mind’s ability to know. Then he uses logic to sort the question out. Thomas does this in the theological arena. Grace building on nature.

Augustine’s thought goes back to Plato. Anybody want to do Plato?
 
Okay, here’s one general difference (and anyone more versed in Augustine can correct me): In his later thought, Augustine developed a view of original sin that was pretty comprehensive; in fact, the Reformers such as Calvin and Luther picked up this trend from him, which is where we get the concept of “Total Depravity.” Humanity’s fall was an “ontological” fall, in that it affected every aspect of the human being; thus, nothing within humanity, including natural reason and the will, is free from the corruption of sin. The will is bound; the reason is fettered.

Aquinas thought that original sin was a “moral” fall, not necessarily ontological. Humans have lost the gift of original innocence; also, humans now possess inclinations toward evil tendencies. However, the natural faculties of humans, including reason and the will, are preserved intact, just as are (for example) a human’s arms and legs. They are not “depraved,” any more than arms and legs are, but may easily be used for depraved purposes. Ontologically, they remain God’s good creation.

This carries some obvious implications for natural law ethical theory. Can humans know naturally the difference between right and wrong? Aquinas thought that not only COULD they, but they HAVE to, given the synderesis of the practical intellect. (A good short article on synderesis is at newadvent.org, the encyclopedia section.)
 
As Toaslan put it, “confidence in the mind’s ability to know.”
 
cpayne said:
…However, the natural faculties of humans, including reason and the will, are preserved intact, just as are (for example) a human’s arms and legs. They are not “depraved,” any more than arms and legs are, but may easily be used for depraved purposes. Ontologically, they remain God’s good creation.

This carries some obvious implications for natural law ethical theory. Can humans know naturally the difference between right and wrong? Aquinas thought that not only COULD they, but they HAVE to, given the synderesis of the practical intellect. (A good short article on synderesis is at newadvent.org, the encyclopedia section.)
Click to expand...
This makes sense. It makes all the difference between being lost forever or merely temporarily dislocated with a map home in our pocket. Wow, I love Aquinas. Thanks for this, cp.
 
toaslan said:
Augustine’s thought goes back to Plato. Anybody want to do Plato?
Click to expand...
Oh gosh. I’ll start and people can correct me. :blushing:

My understanding of Aristotle/Aquinas is that they proposed a trust in the senses; in the ability of human beings to observe nature. From that, we get science as we understand the term.

My understanding of Plato/Augustine is that they proposed a trust in ideas or ideals which were removed from nature. For Plato there is a world of ideas and a world of phenomena.

Hence we get his allegories of the Sun, the Line, and the Cave. I don’t remember if there were any more. But the world of phenomena is the world of shadows or reflections. The world of ideas is the ‘real’ world.

Plato posits that folks once lived in the world of ideas. From time to time, folks ‘awaken’ to those ideas: anagnoresis. This is an interesting concept in that it posits that we have the answers within us but have forgotten them. We only have to ‘unforget them’ (anagnoresis).

From New Advent:
  • Dialectic, the science of the Idea in itself;
  • Physics, the knowledge of the Idea as incorporated or incarnated in the world of phenomena, and
  • Ethics and Theory of the State, or the science of the Idea embodied in human conduct and human society.
Click to expand...
Plato thought ethics to be the highest pursuit of man because of its concern with ‘the good.’ Augustine was wrapped up in moral knowledge.

Augustine responded to two main heresies of his era: Manichaeism (a kind of gnosticism which posited a God of Darkness and a God of Light) and Pelagianism (which posited that virtue could be attained by man’s efforts). These two notions were corruptions of Platonic thought concerning the two worlds of the Ideal and the Shadow and concerning virtue (time).

Anyone want to do a compare/contrast with Plato on these scores?

OK, that’s it for now. I now invoke the Philosopher’s Motto: Those who know what I am talking about know that I don’t know what I am talking about.
 
Thanks, Ani Ibi and cpayne, for all of that. You guys are dead on! This is the stuff of life! As opposed to the Stuff of Life (I guess that would be Theology:) )

Great, great thinkers, and in the case of our saints, great warriors for God and Church.

Ideas Have Consequences!

As for Bonaventure, I’m not sure. Dominicans are (supposed to be) Thomistic, true to their greatest brother, Thomas Aquinas!
 
40.png
toaslan:
…This is the stuff of life! As opposed to the Stuff of Life (I guess that would be Theology:) )
Click to expand...
truth cannot contradict Truth. 😉
 
Regarding Bonaventure, I’m sort of embarrassed to admit: Not only have I never read anything by him, I have no idea what he thought about anything. Except that he was a Christian. Well, God bless him. 😃
 
cpayne said:
Regarding Bonaventure, I’m sort of embarrassed to admit: Not only have I never read anything by him, I have no idea what he thought about anything. Except that he was a Christian. Well, God bless him. 😃
Click to expand...
I read The Mind’s Road to God at university. Bonaventure was a mystic and I believe that Plato had some ideas on mysticism. Aquinas sure did. Chesterton says of Aquinas:
St. Thomas takes the view that the souls of all the ordinary hard-working and simple-minded people are quite as important as the souls of thinkers and truth-seekers; and he asks how all these people are possibly to find time for the amount of reasoning that is needed to find truth. The whole tone of the passage shows both a respect for scientific enquiry and a strong sympathy with the average man. His argument for Revelation is not an argument against Reason; but it is an argument for Revelation. The conclusion he draws from it is that men must receive the highest moral truths in a miraculous manner; or most men would not receive them at all.
Click to expand...
Ok, that’s enough for now. Anyone have any insights into Plato and mysticism?

I’m invoking the Motto. 😃
 
At lunch, I’ll have a hamburger and some plato chips. That should prepare me for further discussion.

Is a weakness for puns a symptom of a generally silly mind?
 
Dear John Doran: If you are out there, how are you? Did that whole nutty “Argument for God from Complexity” thread burn you out for a while? best, cpayne
 
cpayne said:
hamburger and some plato chips ?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Plato as a mystic is a new presentation to me.

But the thing he did in the Meno is amazing. He really did get that kid to disgorge that proposition without ever telling him anything, only asking the right questions all along the path.

It does prove somehow or other that we do have all knowledge within us (but not as Plato was trying to show).

Is this what you mean by Plato being mystical?
 
toaslan said:
Is this what you mean by Plato being mystical?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure anyone said Plato was a mystic on this thread. Only that Plato had some ideas on mysticism. Now there are folks who thought that Plato was a mystic. But hey that’s another thread. And if it’s going to be another philosophy thread then it is best posted in the Back Fence forum. Some folks on the Apologetics forum get all bent out of shape seeing philosophy thread on here.
😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top