The East frees us from Thomism?

[DL82]

I’ve always struggled with the way the Catholic Church seems to put all its’ eggs in one basket when it comes to philosophy, because of an over-reliance on neo-Aristotelian deductivism in all of its’ theological language. I was never a fan of Aristotle and his hair-splitting style when I studied philosophy at University, and am not a fan of Aquinas for the same reasons.

The first few sentences of the CCC make it clear though that any expression of the transcendant truths of the Catholic faith are imperfect because of their finite nature, and while the Church has never been comfortable with modernism, naturalism, pragmatism, analytical, positivism, deductivism, postmodernism, post-analytical or any other major recent trends in philosophical method, it’s not a foregone conclusion that Catholic=Thomist.

It seems to me that the mystical theology of the Eastern Catholic churches, particularly its’ linking of theological truths to the process of prayer and liturgy, opens an alternative way to view the same eternal truths. Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theologians seem to be more comfortable exploring psychology, phenomenology and post-analytic philosophy as ways of understanding and presenting the faith.

I’m not really sure where I’m going with this thread. I don’t want it just to turn into “Thomism - good or bad”. I guess I’m interested in any views on Eastern Christian theology and philosophy, and whether in fact I’ve completely misunderstood it?

 

[East_and_West]

No you are right. Because the East rejects thomism, they east tends to shy away from reason and logic, leaving its doctrines poorly defined and underdeveloped. I suppose some people relate to this ideology but I simply cannot.

 

[DL82]

No you are right. Because the East rejects thomism, they east tends to shy away from reason and logic, leaving its doctrines poorly defined and underdeveloped. I suppose some people relate to this ideology but I simply cannot.

The way I look at it, the reason philosophy or language of any kind fails to adequately grasp theological truths is the problem of the transcendant/eternal.

When we talk about the great truths of the Christian faith, incarnation, trinity, salvation, sanctification, sacrament, judgment, we are talking about ways in which the eternal touches the time-bound. Our language is time bound, you read the word language before you read the word time in this sentence, because we have to think in a linear, time-bound fashion as finite beings. This makes questions of cause and effect when the human meets the divine impossible to categorise. Aristotelian deductive syllogisms are one of the best ways of expressing these eternal issues, as they are less time-bound than experimental scientific inductive language, but they are still not ideal.

I would argue that the Western tradition stresses the specifics of the human side of the divine-human interaction, by trying to tease out precise definitions of particular aspects, while the Eastern tradition stresses the divine transcendant aspect of the same interaction, by showing the inadequacy of any such definitions to fully encapsulate the truth they attempt to define.

Without one, we fall into vague dreaming, without the other, into petty legalism. That’s why the Church breathes on two lungs - East and West.

 

[mschrank]

That’s probably why the east kept falling into heresy… almost all those weird “isms” you can name pretty much came from eastern Herisiarchs.

Less emphasis on reason, more “spiritual”.

Thomism never broke, I don’t see the problem.

 

[JimG]

I think that the first big synthesis of Catholic theological thinking occurred with Augustine, and the second with Aquinas. There may be a third synthesis taking place now.

Because Faith and Reason are not opposed, it is necessary that reason should be used to consider the truths of Faith. Every declaration of belief must of necessity take the form of ideas which are undergirded by some particular understanding of reality.

 

[cpayne]

I’ve always struggled with the way the Catholic Church seems to put all its’ eggs in one basket when it comes to philosophy, because of an over-reliance on neo-Aristotelian deductivism in all of its’ theological language. I was never a fan of Aristotle and his hair-splitting style when I studied philosophy at University, and am not a fan of Aquinas for the same reasons.

The first few sentences of the CCC make it clear though that any expression of the transcendant truths of the Catholic faith are imperfect because of their finite nature, and while the Church has never been comfortable with modernism, naturalism, pragmatism, analytical, positivism, deductivism, postmodernism, post-analytical or any other major recent trends in philosophical method, it’s not a foregone conclusion that Catholic=Thomist.

It seems to me that the mystical theology of the Eastern Catholic churches, particularly its’ linking of theological truths to the process of prayer and liturgy, opens an alternative way to view the same eternal truths. Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theologians seem to be more comfortable exploring psychology, phenomenology and post-analytic philosophy as ways of understanding and presenting the faith.

I’m not really sure where I’m going with this thread. I don’t want it just to turn into “Thomism - good or bad”. I guess I’m interested in any views on Eastern Christian theology and philosophy, and whether in fact I’ve completely misunderstood it?

You might check out a little book by Gerald Vann called “The Aquinas Prescription.” He offers somewhat the same critique you do, but argues that the problem is not actually with Aquinas but with some of the uses to which he has been put. He thinks Thomism and Eastern Orthodox thought actually could be synthesized.

 

[mathematician]

That’s probably why the east kept falling into heresy… almost all those weird “isms” you can name pretty much came from eastern Herisiarchs.

Less emphasis on reason, more “spiritual”.

Thomism never broke, I don’t see the problem.

Aristotlean philosophy broke long ago, but, being “infallible”, the Catholic church just can’t own up to the fact. Result: obscurantism - at least amongst its more conservative “Rome has spoken” members.

 

[Pondero]

Thomism makes more sense to me than any other philosophy. Its roots are in Aristotle not Plato, and Aristotle had his feet on the ground, unlike Plato. St.Thomas thought all things came through sense perception.

He was no starry eyed dreamer.

 

[mschrank]

Aristotlean philosophy broke long ago, but, being “infallible”, the Catholic church just can’t own up to the fact. Result: obscurantism - at least amongst its more conservative “Rome has spoken” members.

Some parts of it broke, yes- his Physics for example. However, great swaths of it are still valid and there really is not much to replace it out there.

If anything is totally discredited, it’s atomistic mechanism.

 

[mathematician]

Some parts of it broke, yes- his Physics for example. However, great swaths of it are still valid and there really is not much to replace it out there.

Nothing to replace Aristotlean physics with? Ever heard of Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac…?

 

[cpayne]

Nothing to replace Aristotlean physics with? Ever heard of Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac…?

I probably shouldn’t butt in on a private argument, but—Perhaps you should have read mschrank’s post before responding to it? He does, after all, specifically mention Aristotle’s physics as part of his philosophy that has been replaced, does he not?

 

[mathematician]

I probably shouldn’t butt in on a private argument, but—Perhaps you should have read mschrank’s post before responding to it? He does, after all, specifically mention Aristotle’s physics as part of his philosophy that has been replaced, does he not?

Problem is that mschrank doesn’t realise that modern physics hes extended its tentacles to encompass part of what Aristotle would have regarded as metaphysics.

Aristotle couldn’t settle questions about the nature of matter through empirical observation. Modern physics can. That is the difference.

 

[mschrank]

Problem is that mschrank doesn’t realise that modern physics hes extended its tentacles to encompass part of what Aristotle would have regarded as metaphysics.

Aristotle couldn’t settle questions about the nature of matter through empirical observation. Modern physics can. That is the difference.

I know you’re new here Mathematican, so I know you’re probably jonesin’ for some controversy, but this argument has been argued so many times (materialism vs. metaphysics) that I have absolutely no desire to start up another argument on it now.

I know what you guys think, having attended a decent college, personally don’t believe in it (I know, you guys put it down to ignorance or stupidity because it’s obvious to you). You know what we think, you personally don’t believe in it (we put it down to ignorance or stupidity).

 

[mathematician]

I know what you guys think, having attended a decent college, personally don’t believe in it

What don’t you believe in? The nuclear theory of matter? If I took away the sub-atomic particles this chair is made up of, and tried to sit on its “essence”, I have a feeling my bum might hurt when it hit the floor.

 

[East_and_West]

What don’t you believe in? The nuclear theory of matter? If I took away the sub-atomic particles this chair is made up of, and tried to sit on its “essence”, I have a feeling my bum might hurt when it hit the floor.

Physics has done nothing to destroy metaphysics. If I am wrong, then educate me.

 

[mschrank]

What don’t you believe in? The nuclear theory of matter? If I took away the sub-atomic particles this chair is made up of, and tried to sit on its “essence”, I have a feeling my bum might hurt when it hit the floor.

I’m just not biting. Go search this forum if you want to find the umpteenth time this “debate” has taken place.

 

[mathematician]

Physics has done nothing to destroy metaphysics. If I am wrong, then educate me.

I didn’t say it had destroyed metaphysics. I said that it had encroached on an area which Aristotle would have thought of as belonging to the realm of metaphysics. The boundaryline between the two is not fixed in cement for all time; it can (and has) changed.

 

[mschrank]

I didn’t say it had destroyed metaphysics. I said that it had encroached on an area which Aristotle would have thought of as belonging to the realm of metaphysics. The boundaryline between the two is not fixed in cement for all time; it can (and has) changed.

Ok, I thought you were going to do the whole “I’m an materialist and Aristotle and St. Thomas were Neanderthals!” argument you get so many times on here. That’s the one I’m bored with discussing.

I agree with your milder statement, just as some things 19th century rationalists thought to be physics, turned out to be metaphysics.

 

[mathematician]

I agree with your milder statement, just as some things 19th century rationalists thought to be physics, turned out to be metaphysics.

At the risk of this turning into a mutual admiration society, I would agree that the scientism of a Richard Dawkins is a non-starter. An obvious and gaping lacuna in the physical sciences’ understanding of the universe is the existence of conscious minds. In spite of much wishful thinking it is not exactly obvious how you get from the electro-chemical processes which accompany the sensation of (say) a pain to the subjective experience of that pain itself. That is not necessarily to say that science will never be able to solve the problem, but it does seem highly unlikely without some pretty fundamental rethinking.

Nevertheless, theology too has to be aware of its limitations, and, if the two do clash, the question has to be decided not on the basis of what the Vatican says is true, but on the basis of which seems to have the evidence on its side and which seems to be dogmatising.

 

[Hastrman]

At the risk of this turning into a mutual admiration society, I would agree that the scientism of a Richard Dawkins is a non-starter. An obvious and gaping lacuna in the physical sciences’ understanding of the universe is the existence of conscious minds. In spite of much wishful thinking it is not exactly obvious how you get from the electro-chemical processes which accompany the sensation of (say) a pain to the subjective experience of that pain itself. That is not necessarily to say that science will never be able to solve the problem, but it does seem highly unlikely without some pretty fundamental rethinking.

Nevertheless, theology too has to be aware of its limitations, and, if the two do clash, the question has to be decided not on the basis of what the Vatican says is true, but on the basis of which seems to have the evidence on its side and which seems to be dogmatising.

Yes, but empiricism is the dogmatic one–it’s an anti-rational dogma that arbitrarily decides some concepts are beyond the reach of reason.

Schroedinger, for instance, discovered he had to use Aristotelian terminology to discuss what was going on in quantum physics, you know.

Your little joke about trying to sit on the chair’s essence was, I feel, simply a rather displeasing way of making yourself sound like a moron. The forms of inanimates are non-subsistent forms that can only be actualized in particular individuals. You’re allowed to disagree with our philosophy, but not with your illiterate mischaracterization of our philosophy.