reason, logos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benedict_Broere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Benedict_Broere

Guest
I wonder, is it possible here to ask for feedback on thought’s you’ve developed yourself concerning this reality and it’s meaning? It is namely such that in the past decades I have developed a philosophy that very much focuses on a subject – reason, logos – that might be of interest for catholic thinkers, especially because, to my surprise, Pope Benedict referred to the same subject in his speech in Regensburg and stressed the importance of considering it’s possible content. I would like to add to that, that in this philosophy I only speak on religion in it’s general appearance, while trying to base myself on scientific insights and philosophical concepts.
The speech in Regensburg: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
The website with a complete description of my philosophy:
members.chello.nl/b.broere/
 
I thought I would meet curiosity here. But let me try this:
“Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative
and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason.”
Pope Benedict XVI, speech at Regensburg. What would be meant here?
 
Interesting site, Benedict. From a brief reading, it seems you incorporate a lot of epistemology with existentialism.

There’s a lot that can be said with respect to the topics you raise, but for some reason it reminds me a lot of Lyotard’s The Differend. He questions the extent to which one can apply communication qua reason to great existential concerns. What does it mean, for example, to say that the Holocaust historically happened? Well, we could begin by saying that a group of people were subjected to a number of horrific events. But what kind of events? Gas chambers, medical experimentation… etc. What does this mean? Can it be communicated so that the receiver of the message actually comprehends it? This is the differend, in which so much is lost in the translation from experience to language. A more trivial example might be: can I experience your tooth ache? We may have both had tooth aches, but is it possible for me to know experientially what it’s like for you, since everyone has different levels of pain tolerance, etc.?

My thoughts on reason are that it can bring us to a portion of the truth, but some things cannot be adequately communicated by propositions. Truth in this regard is a lot like an asymptote, where we can get closer and closer, but can never arrive at it fully because of our finitude. Knowledge of God (qua reason) is available by remotion, whereas personal knowledge of God can be experienced.

Blessings
 
"The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith."
Due to his fallen nature, man’s reason could go astray. It is necessary therefore that in his use of his reason he has to be guided by some revealed truths.
 
Hello Punkforchrist,

I just have been watching this dvd ‘Nobelity’, really a must for anyone who isn’t completely engulfed by this Enron-like psychopath-egocentrism, and who therefore has a heart and a sensitivity for what is going on on this planet, and is able to grasp that the first much has to do with the main problem we face, and the latter with it’s solution. But anyway, thanks for your response.

Yes, I speak a lot about our cognitive abilities and the human existence. And yes, we only have an indirect, limited and subjectively coloured view on others experiences and on the world in general. But this doesn’t mean we are prohibited – as some postmodernists suggest - to try to connect the dots as it were. Science exists in meticulous and methodical research and in looking for patterns in the data we find. While philosophy takes a step further in reasoning and imagining what this world could be in general. Also by definition philosophy looks at revelation and mystical experience, though considering it as being part of the rich diversity of the human experience and trying to explain it in a very general way.

I think Pope Benedict is referring to this in criticising the more naturalistic scientific reason, that most of the time just is trying to explain away anything that has to do with religion and mysticism. Also I think he is referring to the deeper meaning of the word ‘reason’, you could say the Greek meaning, as a concept out of which the world can be thought. It seems it all has to do with trying to achieve a broader and deeper view on what is going on on this planet, with all these peoples, their religions and philosophies and the disturbing troubles we meet. We know that ultimately this universe is an enigma, and maybe only sometimes someone is able to peek through into ‘the real thing’ by mystical experience, revelation. But, as created co-creators, we can think, investigate, try. And I think we are obliged to do exactly that.

Regards,
Benedict
 
Hello Agengbern,
What you say might be true, but I feel a tension with: ‘as inquiry into the rationality of faith.’ Though I think there is a lot of rationality in the religious worldview, while the limited reason shows signs of irrationality - relativism, solipsism, scientism, etc.
 
Hello Agengbern,
What you say might be true, but I feel a tension with: ‘as inquiry into the rationality of faith.’ Though I think there is a lot of rationality in the religious worldview, while the limited reason shows signs of irrationality - relativism, solipsism, scientism, etc.
Oh, credit should be given to Pope Benedict. I simply quoted those words from him: “As inquiry into the rationality of faith.” The link could be accessed by clicking the word ethos in said quotation.
 
Well, I refer to the same - see the openingmail.
‘Revealed truth’, ‘stubborn science’, I think concerning reason, logos, it’s all in the game, not one of them excluded. And given the nature of the subject - reason, logos - there is no other possibility.
 
May I yet again try to generate curiosity for the content of my website, this time by quoting more extensively the professor in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, from his speech in Regensburg. He says:

“… not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.“

“Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.”

“From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.”

“… the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).”

“The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons.”

“Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.”

“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

I think I have discovered something that very much looks like this Logos and Reason, I have described it in a website, and well, I’m doing a bit of try out on the internet: Is it madness? Is it something? For myself I think it really is a deep pattern that connects, and I think it is useful for us to know it in general. But it needs reading, it needs the effort to understand.

members.chello.nl/b.broere/index.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top