The Fruitfulness of Philosophy

[levinas12]

Aristotle relied heavily on dialectic as the means of vetting premises. Syllogisms were not the main problem, as formal validity problems were tractable and fairly straightforward even in Aristotle’s day. The problem lay in vetting the soundness of the premises. Aristotle didn’t have the benefit of our modern knowledge or methods, and he relied on dialectics as a way to stress and test as best he could the merits of the premises being invoked for arguments. That’s not a mathematical approach, and while dialectics do afford a context for examination and consideration, they are not by nature instruments suited to effective discrimination between myth and fact.

Well, some part of philosophy, yes. But science is philosophy, and it eschews the concept of such foundationalism.

Dialectic is really rational conversation, dialogue. Plato (or Socrates) was the first to turn to conversation, to logoi, in opposition to the Pre-Socratics who wanted to go straight to nature.

Dialectic is not only at the heart of jurisprudence, hermeneutics, historiography - none of which are “mythological” - but also at the foundations of the hard sciences where concepts (of space, time, matter, energy, particle, field, etc) become important.

Again, with respect to the hard sciences, experiment and mathematical equations depend upon the concepts (or what the variables stand for). The goal of science is not prediction, engineering, technology but creating new concepts which lead us to a better understanding of the way things really are. And this is where dialectic, or, as Einstein might say, thought experiments come into play - this is the creative aspect of science.

An example of this is Einstein’s continuing conversation with Kant about space and time. For Einstein, space and time were “palpable”, “real”, “material”, affected by bodies. On the contrary, Kant’s space and time were “pure”, “ideal”, “a priori”, uncontaminated by things outside human consciousness.

“Conceptual” physics is not reducible to constructing mathematical equations which can be experimentally verified (although that is also necessary). Without the new concepts, there is no great science.

With respect to the Prime Mover. I don’t think this falls into the category of myth. Aristotle provided rational arguments for such a mover and for the motions of the heavens. The embedded spheres represented a good faith effort given the impossibility of actually obtaining a sample of quintessence.

And I think the jury is still out whether the philosophical argument for a prime mover collapses in the absence of the spheres. But this is another matter.

In any case, Aristotle’s physics and astronomy is a far cry from the world of the gods and goddesses of Homer.

Fundamentum inconcussum is Descartes’ phrase. His quest for certainty launched modern mathematics and science. The quest continues under his aegis. Note that I say “quest”. Maybe there is a TOE; maybe not.

 

[catholictiger]

Yes! Reason isn’t some capacity by which we metaexamine reality. I won’t get into the nitty gritty here with you, because I believe in myth; my only point is that there is no such thing as justification simpliciter (justification=reason where there should be one), so as long as you have the right premises, reason can prove anything. This is the most frustrating point to argue to Catholics.

I’ll say this reason is something that comes after faith. Actually the ONLY thing in the Catholic faith that can be come to known without faith is the existence of a god. But everything else can’t be proved by reason alone. But once we get to faith then we go to reason.

I agree with the pope that God can be known by reason, but reason cannot mean argument because of the very thing argument is. From ‘God exists’ you can very easily prove ‘God exists’. To say God can be known by reason, if you mean argument, is a trivial statement (at best- in truth it is probably meaningless), since argument first depends on what you take as your starting points. And those, by definition, don’t have reasons for them.

ok I kinda get what your getting at but what is your whole objection to arguments?

a better way to explain this reason and know God without faith is to think of it logically. You can logically explain your way to the existence of a God. If it is logical that God exists then there is a possibility that God exists. I don’t see any problem with logical arguments. They are the foundations of our own experience. You couldn’t form any coherent statement without some type of logic. You don’t have to understand logic to use logic, but you can’t be illogical and expect to really communicate much with people. Think about someone who is illogical if you can thing of one. Imagine someone coming up to you and saying I believe that there is a God in heaven above, but I don’t believe that God’s can possibly exist. No sane man could ever make a statement like this. That is illogical at the most basic level. Violates the principle of non contradiction. No human will knowingly contradict himself and not correct himself. People may not know the principle of non contradiction but they practice it every day.

As for the previous comments in defense of philosophy, I’d just like to say there are prominent enough Catholic philosophers that would disagree with the strength of your statements (Newman for one, Anscombe in some ways, Giussani, and definitely the pope).

Could you please show me where these people have said that philosophy isn’t the foundation for theology, theology can be understood with absolutely no philosophical thought. Any other things we brought up.

If God can’t be understood without philosophy then ordinary people who are too dumb to understand metaphysics don’t have access to God.

I know I’m not saying this, and you don’t have to understand philosophy to access God, but if you have any understanding of God it is based on philosophy. If you know God is a trinity Father Son and Holy Spirit, that concept while it does come to us through divine revelation we are able to study it only through philosophy.

But that’s an awkward conclusion just because according to the Christian conception of sanctity some of them seem to be closest to him. As to your comment on body and soul, every thomist agrees we have a body and soul. That’s not philosophy, until you actually say something substantial about them. And that’s where all the thomists diverge.

philosophy is more than just the thomists I can should you examples of philosophers who didn’t believe in a soul who said we are purely body and nothing else. Lets start with Nietzsche.

**had to remove this quote post got to long. **

Nietrzsche, doesn’t believe in a soul I just made it philosophy.

Kant believed in a soul but he said it couldn’t be proved, this opened up the possibly for people to say there is no soul. PRetty much people took it a step further than Kant did.

that’s all I can come with at the moment, because its tough to remember names that were only brought up a couple times in class next to the guys who were talked about almost daily.

If you’re interested you should look into the problems sometime, such as e.g. what the resurrection of the body actually means and whether or not the soul is immortal.

oh I’ve studied this stuff, and it is a very philosophical debate, while that for the average person I would agree doesn’t really mean anything theologians love to talk about this kinda stuff. We all want to more fully understand what the afterlife will be like why things will be the way they are.

but let me just explain to you real quick what makes this a philosophical thought and not theological discussion at its base.

Souls by themselves have no existence, because they have nothing to individuate them. So God when he creates us he creates a body and a soul, or form and matter. It is actually also the case that formless matter has no existence, but it also doesn’t exist, it is kinda in limbo if you want to say that. Getting to deep into. But when we die our souls separate from our bodies, meaning the form of us no longer has mater. the problem is that this soul can’t exist by itself it wouldn’t be individuated. So something must individuate it. What individuates the soul after death, that is the discussion you brought up. Very philosophical. It can’t even begin to be thought about being discussed without philosophy.

I said ‘prominent’ philosophers, but I neglected two very important ones. The most interesting thing about Augustine was his conversion and that happened through an existential realization of his sin (his depravity!). Aquinas proved God but it is extremely important to be clear about exactly what he did. Recall how argument works: it’s putting together (like legos) some stuff that you’re given to get other stuff. If you’re given this, here’s the possible things you can get, if given that those are the possible things you can get. From ‘God’ you can get ‘God’

yes but your confusing knowing things through divine revelation and knowing things through reason only. You are correct to say that everything comes from God. But we know these things through our reasoning. Things come in and out of existence, if all things came in and out of existence then there would be a time where nothing existed. If nothing existed than nothing can exist, this is absurd so there must be something that has always exited and can’t fail to exist. This is what all men call God.

see I took my reasoning only no assistance from God and got to the existence of God.

The only thing Aquinas showed is that you can get ‘God’ from a certain pile of stuff.

No it is called an aposterori (spelling off) argument, which pretty much means you take what you observe to something you can’t observe. For example you see the trees moving, so you get to the fact that the wind is blowing.

It is pointless to debate the absolute persuasiveness of Aquinas’ arguments because that isn’t the purpose they served.

no but why would that matter

If you are already a buddy of Aristotle’s and share his way of looking at the world, then Aquinas’ proofs have something to offer. If not then not. Guys, let’s be realistic, it’s not like the Church’s teaching on reason means you can take anyone, no matter where they are, and bring them to the faith. From thepremise ‘There is no God’, no amount of philosophy [argument] will convince one otherwise.

I disagree STRONGLY and Anthony Flew is my evidence. He was probably the smartest atheist philosopher for the last 100 or so years. He through his own philosophical investigations converted to believing in an intelligence.

youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU

enjoy

As a last comment, you said that seminarians are required to study philosophy; my personal opinion is that this requirement should be universally dropped.

it will NEVER happen, philosophy is way to important to theology and I think way to important to basic human thought and becoming better thinkers.

It is the most scandalous thing for intellectuals to have someone who can’t understand philosophy attempt to give an argument (and think that his beliefs are justified because of the argument).

so this is a reason to get rid of philosophy? wouldn’t that be because the person didn’t understand philosophy and not the fault of philosophy. Plus we all know that we believe because we have faith and that our understanding then comes after we have faith. Reason can never justify our believe in anything other then a intelligent being who created us.

Ironically, the reason I am so critical of the popular conception of reason (I say ‘popular’ because it’s not doctrine- proof: read any of the above mentioned authors) is that it is actually harmful when people see just how bad our arguments are. (Aquinas says this!) But they aren’t bad if you don’t misinterpret the force they themselves purport to have!

please show me exactly where Aquinas said this.

post to long had to cut rest out.

 

[catholictiger]

It would seem that every religion includes some philosophy. At the most primitive level, religion and philosophy are indistinguishable.

Even if I belive that the Sun is God, this implies a viewing of the world and reality in a certain 'philosophical ’ way- a certain metaphysics, a certain axiology, a teleology, an etiology, etc.

yes, and to everyone please note that I don’t think that theology is just another name for philosophy. There are many things philosophy can’t deal with that theology can, and visa versa. But without philosophy you can’t have theology.

Just like without math you can’t have physics but there are some things that physics can do that math can’t do.

you can’t do math without logic

I would say logic is the most basic knowledge that anyone can have.

 

[blessedrosary]

I’ll say this reason is something that comes after faith. Actually the ONLY thing in the Catholic faith that can be come to known without faith is the existence of a god. But everything else can’t be proved by reason alone. But once we get to faith then we go to reason.

ok I kinda get what your getting at but what is your whole objection to arguments?

a better way to explain this reason and know God without faith is to think of it logically. You can logically explain your way to the existence of a God. If it is logical that God exists then there is a possibility that God exists. I don’t see any problem with logical arguments. They are the foundations of our own experience. You couldn’t form any coherent statement without some type of logic. You don’t have to understand logic to use logic, but you can’t be illogical and expect to really communicate much with people. Think about someone who is illogical if you can thing of one. Imagine someone coming up to you and saying I believe that there is a God in heaven above, but I don’t believe that God’s can possibly exist. No sane man could ever make a statement like this. That is illogical at the most basic level. Violates the principle of non contradiction. No human will knowingly contradict himself and not correct himself. People may not know the principle of non contradiction but they practice it every day.

Could you please show me where these people have said that philosophy isn’t the foundation for theology, theology can be understood with absolutely no philosophical thought. Any other things we brought up.

I know I’m not saying this, and you don’t have to understand philosophy to access God, but if you have any understanding of God it is based on philosophy. If you know God is a trinity Father Son and Holy Spirit, that concept while it does come to us through divine revelation we are able to study it only through philosophy.

philosophy is more than just the thomists I can should you examples of philosophers who didn’t believe in a soul who said we are purely body and nothing else. Lets start with Nietzsche.

**had to remove this quote post got to long. **

Nietrzsche, doesn’t believe in a soul I just made it philosophy.

Kant believed in a soul but he said it couldn’t be proved, this opened up the possibly for people to say there is no soul. PRetty much people took it a step further than Kant did.

that’s all I can come with at the moment, because its tough to remember names that were only brought up a couple times in class next to the guys who were talked about almost daily.

oh I’ve studied this stuff, and it is a very philosophical debate, while that for the average person I would agree doesn’t really mean anything theologians love to talk about this kinda stuff. We all want to more fully understand what the afterlife will be like why things will be the way they are.

but let me just explain to you real quick what makes this a philosophical thought and not theological discussion at its base.

Souls by themselves have no existence, because they have nothing to individuate them. So God when he creates us he creates a body and a soul, or form and matter. It is actually also the case that formless matter has no existence, but it also doesn’t exist, it is kinda in limbo if you want to say that. Getting to deep into. But when we die our souls separate from our bodies, meaning the form of us no longer has mater. the problem is that this soul can’t exist by itself it wouldn’t be individuated. So something must individuate it. What individuates the soul after death, that is the discussion you brought up. Very philosophical. It can’t even begin to be thought about being discussed without philosophy.

yes but your confusing knowing things through divine revelation and knowing things through reason only. You are correct to say that everything comes from God. But we know these things through our reasoning. Things come in and out of existence, if all things came in and out of existence then there would be a time where nothing existed. If nothing existed than nothing can exist, this is absurd so there must be something that has always exited and can’t fail to exist. This is what all men call God.

see I took my reasoning only no assistance from God and got to the existence of God.

No it is called an aposterori (spelling off) argument, which pretty much means you take what you observe to something you can’t observe. For example you see the trees moving, so you get to the fact that the wind is blowing.

no but why would that matter

I disagree STRONGLY and Anthony Flew is my evidence. He was probably the smartest atheist philosopher for the last 100 or so years. He through his own philosophical investigations converted to believing in an intelligence.

youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU

enjoy

it will NEVER happen, philosophy is way to important to theology and I think way to important to basic human thought and becoming better thinkers.

so this is a reason to get rid of philosophy? wouldn’t that be because the person didn’t understand philosophy and not the fault of philosophy. Plus we all know that we believe because we have faith and that our understanding then comes after we have faith. Reason can never justify our believe in anything other then a intelligent being who created us.

please show me exactly where Aquinas said this.

post to long had to cut rest out.

I will try to respond to your points in order.

1. What do you mean by ’ Actually the ONLY thing in the Catholic faith that can be come to known without faith is the existence of a god’? I agree the existence of God can be known through reason, but what kind of reason? I want to say Christ can be known through reason (after all, faith is a reason act- ah, but what kind of reason), but obviously differently than God can be known. BUT, I disagree that God can be known “through reason alone”, because any argument you give of the existence of God is going to presuppose a background without argument; something we call faith. Maybe not divine faith, but faith nevertheless.
2. I actually happen to be a logician, and I would disagree that our thinking is based on logic and I would certainly disagree that our experiences are. I once told a philosophy professor that we don’t always need reasons to believe or think as we do. Ironically he asked me ‘Why?’

As to your point about statement of fact and belief (it is raining but I don’t believe it), the best we could say is it’s meaningless. Or it’s meaning is something other than what it looks like at first sight. I don’t think it contradicts non-contradiction, but I don’t really put that much trust in non-contradiction; see my discussion on non-contradiction in another current thread.

1. Start reading. (For Anscombe, I’d look at ‘On Brute Fact’- I said in ‘some ways’ because it won’t be immediately clear what I mean. But I can explain after you look at it (it’s a 2 page essay).
2. This is probably the most important point. You say we can access God but maybe not understand him without philosophy. OK, maybe I’ll grant you this; then my question is the following. We want God. But how? I would say Christianity is primarily about accessing God, not understanding him. But even still, it sounds just a little bit arrogant (at best- entirely wrong at worst) to say that those who have access to God have less understanding than those who don’t. (This isn’t to oppose understanding and access, in general, of course.)
3. I certainly agree that philosophy is more than Thomists, but I don’t understand what your point is with Nietzsche and Kant. Could you please explain?
4. I’ve got nothing; again I am a little lost.
5. You are making a philosophical argument, but it’s not a very strong one. It doesn’t follow from that all things come into being and exit that there was a time when nothing existed. The most frustrating thing in philosophy: philosophers thinking their conclusions have an objective force they don’t have. Why? because ‘follow from’ isn’t a logical matter!
6. This is wrong. Yes it is an aposteriori argument but that doesn’t impugn what I said. In fact, it seems to be missing the point completely. I should note, however (and this is a beautiful point), that even aposteriori arguments in form aren’t always necessarily aposteriori in nature. For example, scientists stubborn insistence that science has something authoritative to say about e.g. religion is based on an apriori belief about what it is that science actually does, i.e. the way scientific investigation actually wraps around reality.
7. Confusion on this point indicates confusion about the previous one.
8. Premises can change. But when they do it isn’t logic reason that changes them. You can’t disagree with this. (Haha, it’s metaphysically impossible and just downright logically nonsensical).
9. I know it won’t.
10. No, it’s a reason to re-examine what philosophy is. I like to say there are two philosophies. Philosophy and philosophy’. And then explain how modern academic philosophy is completely distinct from the classical philosophy which aims at getting truth. A philosophical question: when you are grasping for something, what means do you use to attain it? Another argument in favor of point 8: How you think you’ll get what you want may in many cases be apriori. I think a lot of people think access to truth happens by argument. My only point is that this is in large part mistaken.
11. It’s like the first or second page of the summa contra gentiles.

 

[blessedrosary]

1. correction: sorry it’s chapter 9 of the first book in the summa contra.

 

[catholictiger]

I will try to respond to your points in order.

1. What do you mean by ’ Actually the ONLY thing in the Catholic faith that can be come to known without faith is the existence of a god’? I agree the existence of God can be known through reason, but what kind of reason? I want to say Christ can be known through reason (after all, faith is a reason act- ah, but what kind of reason), but obviously differently than God can be known. BUT, I disagree that God can be known “through reason alone”, because any argument you give of the existence of God is going to presuppose a background without argument; something we call faith. Maybe not divine faith, but faith nevertheless.
2. I actually happen to be a logician, and I would disagree that our thinking is based on logic and I would certainly disagree that our experiences are. I once told a philosophy professor that we don’t always need reasons to believe or think as we do. Ironically he asked me ‘Why?’

As to your point about statement of fact and belief (it is raining but I don’t believe it), the best we could say is it’s meaningless. Or it’s meaning is something other than what it looks like at first sight. I don’t think it contradicts non-contradiction, but I don’t really put that much trust in non-contradiction; see my discussion on non-contradiction in another current thread.

1. Start reading. (For Anscombe, I’d look at ‘On Brute Fact’- I said in ‘some ways’ because it won’t be immediately clear what I mean. But I can explain after you look at it (it’s a 2 page essay).
2. This is probably the most important point. You say we can access God but maybe not understand him without philosophy. OK, maybe I’ll grant you this; then my question is the following. We want God. But how? I would say Christianity is primarily about accessing God, not understanding him. But even still, it sounds just a little bit arrogant (at best- entirely wrong at worst) to say that those who have access to God have less understanding than those who don’t. (This isn’t to oppose understanding and access, in general, of course.)
3. I certainly agree that philosophy is more than Thomists, but I don’t understand what your point is with Nietzsche and Kant. Could you please explain?
4. I’ve got nothing; again I am a little lost.
5. You are making a philosophical argument, but it’s not a very strong one. It doesn’t follow from that all things come into being and exit that there was a time when nothing existed. The most frustrating thing in philosophy: philosophers thinking their conclusions have an objective force they don’t have. Why? because ‘follow from’ isn’t a logical matter!
6. This is wrong. Yes it is an aposteriori argument but that doesn’t impugn what I said. In fact, it seems to be missing the point completely. I should note, however (and this is a beautiful point), that even aposteriori arguments in form aren’t always necessarily aposteriori in nature. For example, scientists stubborn insistence that science has something authoritative to say about e.g. religion is based on an apriori belief about what it is that science actually does, i.e. the way scientific investigation actually wraps around reality.
7. Confusion on this point indicates confusion about the previous one.
8. Premises can change. But when they do it isn’t logic reason that changes them. You can’t disagree with this. (Haha, it’s metaphysically impossible and just downright logically nonsensical).
9. I know it won’t.
10. No, it’s a reason to re-examine what philosophy is. I like to say there are two philosophies. Philosophy and philosophy’. And then explain how modern academic philosophy is completely distinct from the classical philosophy which aims at getting truth. A philosophical question: when you are grasping for something, what means do you use to attain it? Another argument in favor of point 8: How you think you’ll get what you want may in many cases be apriori. I think a lot of people think access to truth happens by argument. My only point is that this is in large part mistaken.
11. It’s like the first or second page of the summa contra gentiles.

sorry that I didn’t make some things clear, my writing skills unfortunately can be lacking at times, its my biggest weakness in academics and it comes out on a place like this.

but lets go point by point

1.) what I mean is that practically everything in the Catholic faith requires faith first in oder to believe it. You can’t believe in the resurrection without having faith in it first, you can’t believe in the incarnation, the eucharist, confession, and so on and so forth. Some things like abortion being wrong, gay marriage being wrong, and stuff like that can be by reason only, but supernatural things must have faith.

But God can be proven through reason alone. Well probably just a being who created the universe and must exist. My evidence of this is Anthony Flew, he got to an intelligence through reason, not through faith. When you listen or read about his conversion you see that he says it can only be this way because of this. He doesn’t say God gave me the grace of faith to believe in him.

The reason we can know there is a creator is because using our reason we can get to the point where we know something must have created us. I have shown this.

1. just a simple question on this would you ever believe a illogical point? You are probably correct to say that we can think illogical things, but I would imagine our minds can pick up on this. If you are a logician then you are probably write on this issue, but this doesn’t take away from the fruitfulness of philosophy just acts as a failed point by me.
2. I will try and find it thanks
3. How we get to God is through a relationship through Jesus Christ, and I haven’t said that philosophy is necessary to reach God. You are making the point that philosophy is fruitless and has no point, and that we should stop teaching seminarians this. While I could be wrong on theology can’t be understood without philosophy, I know it is the case that philosophy is the grounding for a lot of our theology. That itself makes philosophy fruitful.
4. you said because thomist don’t disagree on the body and soul issue, that its not philosophy. But other philosophers disagree with an idea of body and soul so it is philosophy. Plus it is asking the question why, or the basic question of what are we, which are philosophical questions. Just because people disagree on something or people agree on something doesn’t mean its not philosophy.
5. sorry about this just trying to say the afterlife debate is philosophy. If you really want to know some of the theories I’ll try to explain them to you but they aren’t really good for this debate.
6. if I were to quote word for word Aquinas’s argument would you sill have the same objection?
7. the point I was trying to make is Aquinas’s argument is based on a posteriori argument and because of that you can get to God without faith.
8. I guess with 9 i was just asking why does your point about his argument matter.
9. so you think flew’s change of mind comes from faith somehow, I could agree that could happen but the way you talk makes it looks like it is all based on reason.
10. because philosophy is very fruitful.

12 I don’t disagree we don’t need philosophy to get access to the truth, all we need is Christ and his Church. That is all. But part of getting a deeper understanding of the divine ourselves and many things around us we need philosophy.

one last point, philosophy students have some of the best scores on graduate entrance exams. So you have to admit it is atleast fruitful in that way. lol.

 

[blessedrosary]

Ahh!, ok I think there is a lot of good stuff in your reply, but the one thing I cannot get over is the phrase ‘reason alone’. So maybe to tackle it, I’ll ask you: what do you take the nature of our “principles” in reasoning to be? Sometimes I get the impression that a certain class of deductions counts as ‘reason’ and another class counts as ‘faith’ but this doesn’t seem like a fair way to demarcate our conclusions 1. because of what is based at the bottom of each doesn’t seem to be obviously different The pope says ‘Christ is the man’, I believe it because he says it. You give me an argument about what the apostle said and why they couldn’t have been lying. I believe it because it’s persuasive. I read the gospels and what Christ says just clicks (maybe because he answers a fundamental question about human life?) In all three cases I arrived at the same conclusion; but we want to somehow say one is an act of reason and another is belief in authority and another is faith…? Or something like that. I don’t buy it. Unless you can give me a persuasive account of what makes the principles in secular reasoning different than those in religious, other than the fact that God is believed in one and not the other.

1. I am saying that by virtue of the fact that you have an apparent contradiction hardly ever implies that you actually do have one. The reason for this is that our thinking about things does not actually get a hold of the whole things themselves. We understand reality and things in it by its aspects. Usually the solution to a contradiction (derived by argument) is not finding the flaw in the logic of the argument but thinking about the matter in a totally different way. A good example of this, in my opinion, is the theory of relativity, in which Einstein shows a prima facie contradiction between vector addition and the absolute speed of light.
2. Newman is also good, he has a collection of sermons (15 sermons preached before the university of Oxford); and his stuff on reason and faith, in my opinion, is spot on. For Giussani he has a book with a subtitle faith. I think he is the best Catholic philosopher hands down. And he likes Aquinas.
3. This may be an impasse. I mean, doctrine is expressed in philosophical language, so in that sense there is not much I can argue against. At the same time; I want to say the philosophical language is an accident (to use metaphysical language) of the doctrine. The only example I can think of now is transubstantiation. I personally do not think that the basic theology on it is helpful or correct (the accident remains etc.). I want to just say ‘that is Christ’ in the sense we ordinarily use ‘is’. No metaphysics and same belief (and same love). I was told there is a reason we need the metaphysics. The reasons had to do with abstruse philosophical problems.
4. Ok, this is slightly confusing; I meant that the mere statement that we’re body and soul isn’t very philosophical. You bring up a good point, but I didn’t mean to say they’re agreement or disagreement is what makes it to be philosophical or non-philosophical. Just that the body/soul thing, for catholicism, is so basic that that doesn’t really count. Every catholic believes body/soul.
5. Yes I would still have the same objection. I think many of Aquinas’ arguments are terrible in the following sense: none of his ‘proofs’ for the existence of God are, in my opinion, persuasive. HOWEVER, having said that, I look again to point 13; I think Aquinas would respond to me thus: I didn’t actually mean these are knockdown arguments for the existence of God. ALL that they were meant to demonstrate is that straight up belief in God is not the ONLY way to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. And if you buy Aristotle’s way of doing philosophy, then this will indeed be very helpful.
6. I now understand the disagreement. Ok; this was my point. Sure you can get to God without “faith”, but what you mean by faith seems to be ‘faith in God’. What I am trying to say is that we shouldn’t be so quick to throw our beliefs (without argument) about God into a different pile than our beliefs (without argument) about other stuff (that serves as the basis for our argument) into another pile (this is the first point I made above), unless you can give an account of what the difference is.
7. Does 8 piece together my points 8-9 from last time?
8. I am a little confused what you mean.
9. Haha
10. Ok, then I think we can be friend I guess I just question the priority of ‘understanding’ to ‘access’, but we probably agree on what that priority is.

Haha, the last point is great. Math also is very helpful for the gre

 

[djeter]

*Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves. *

With these famous words, John Paul II began his encyclical on the relationship between faith and reason, an impassioned defense of how the two are necessary to complete each other. If faith without reason leads to superstition, John Paul II argues, then reason without faith leads man to nihilism and relativism.

Every truth — if it really is truth — presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times. Beyond this universality, however, people seek an absolute which might give to all their searching a meaning and an answer — something ultimate, which might serve as the ground of all things. In other words, they seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to nothing beyond itself and which puts an end to all questioning. Hypotheses may fascinate, but they do not satisfy. Whether we admit it or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt.

Through the centuries, philosophers have sought to discover and articulate such a truth, giving rise to various systems and schools of thought. But beyond philosophical systems, people seek in different ways to shape a “philosophy” of their own — in personal convictions and experiences, in traditions of family and culture, or in journeys in search of life’s meaning under the guidance of a master. What inspires all of these is the desire to reach the certitude of truth and the certitude of its absolute value.

You can find my reading selections from Fides and Ratio here, Part One and here, Part Two.

dj

 

[tonyrey]

*Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves. *

With these famous words, John Paul II began his encyclical on the relationship between faith and reason, an impassioned defense of how the two are necessary to complete each other. If faith without reason leads to superstition, John Paul II argues, then reason without faith leads man to nihilism and relativism.

You can find my reading selections from Fides and Ratio here, Part One and here, Part Two.

The truth in a nutshell!

 

[catholictiger]

blessedrosary

so sorry I haven’t responded in a while I got distracted by things and this just slipped my mind. I don’t have time to repsond tonight but I will promise I will respond tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. God bless.

 

[catholictiger]

1. something I need to make clear in this you are explaining how you get to a believe I agree with you on this point, we come to belief through faith, the only exception is the existance of a creator you can come to belief in him through reason alone, but most people get it through faith.
2. ok let me try to rephrase what I was getting at with this our minds think logically. All of us will realize when something is clearly contradictory. If a person beliefs something that is contradictory it isn’t because he knows they are contradictory rather he believes that they aren’t contradictory when they truly are. I believe our minds our logical and they think most of the time logically. As far as your point goes I’m not really well educated enough in scientific stuff to understand that even though I think I know what you are getting at.
3. I’ll check them out, but what do they try and argue? its been so long sence I have gotten in this debate lol
4. hmmm why do you think our theory of transubstiation (I think I spelled that correct) is incorrect, and I would also say that it is wrong to think things are philosophical by accident we use philosophical language because philosophy is the best way we can know the world around us and the why of the world around us. Theology deals with things of mystery while philosophy deals with things that are a mystery to the senses but can be understood through reason. Because God works in the world alot of what he does can be explained partially by philosophy, other things by theology only.
5. ok I understand your point here and it makes sense. I’ll just say our understanding of why we are body and soul can only come from philosophy. We can believe it through faith but understanding only through philosophy. It isn’t arguing the catholic church because no-one disagrees on this position.
6. that is fine we will discuss that at another time.
7. the second half of your point makes sense, it seems his writing that he is answering the question does God exist. You may know more background on STA to know this stuff.
8. could you rephrase that somehow it is alittle confusing
   9 see 8
   10 Flew came to believe in God without a big moment type experince which many of us have. For example he didn’t survive a major accident and he thought this must have been the hand of God, or came back to life after being “brain dead”. He simply came to believe in a creator by philosophical thinking, can’t think of a better word.
   12 (now 11) as far as priority goes getting access to God is so much more important than understanding him but we can’t stop at access. But for every faithful Catholic you must start at access to the divine and always stay connected to him. Understanding him, which you can never fully do, is something to you do to fall more in love with him. Its like a husband and wife, if they just have access to each-other but don’t really know or understand each other and who they are their love stops at a point, but once they understand each other better they have a better relationship. Always having access to each other is more important than understanding each other but the understanding part allows their love to grow deeper. Same with God.

 

[watches29jin]

Panerai replica In addition, I think team members are two semesters of exercise next has comparatively unity.TAG Heuer replica Overall, I think about the activity I more satisfied with the completion of.

 

[blessedrosary]

1. Ok, we could consider other examples. The point is this: in mathematics, for example, we have axioms that make up our system. So when we go off and start staying stuff about our system (i.e. deduce theorems) as a result of what the axioms imply we can be sure that what we’re saying is right because by definition the system and everything in it is exactly what we’ve set out in the axioms. However, in reality it’s not like that, in particular because- unlike mathematics- our “axioms” don’t CREATE the system; they (hopefully) represent it (to some degree of accuracy). Ok, this is the reason that deductions in reality aren’t like logical consequence. (i.e. what I mean by logical arguments “wrapping around” what they are supposed to.); because, as Hamlet says, reality is more than is contained in our philosophy (the things to consider are greater than the scope that our arguments allow for).
2. That the ordinary way of thinking about what reason means is wrong. I think Anscombe’s brute fact exemplifies this the best, except she’s not talking about reason there. But actually, it’s closer than everything else because it actually does say something about the very thing I am asking about, namely the principles of our reasoning.
3. I don’t think the theory of transubstantiation is wrong, sorry that was a mistake on my part; I mean, it’s doctrine. I just don’t think the language is as helpful in eradicating philosophical difficulties as some people would imagine. The difficulty it’s supposed to help with is this: how is it that something changes (in reality) when (in appearances) it doesn’t seem to. My problem is that for a physical thing, usually its substance is its accidents. I.e. a general rule of thumb: if it looks like an x, smells like an x, …, then it probably is an x. Obviously not in this case; I’m just saying we need another account (or no account at all [that’s my position], but then accept that!) of why in ordinary cases substance (of physical things) corresponds with its accidents and here we don’t.
4. This is actually much of my point, so it is good to clarify if it’s confusing. I say ‘God exists’ without argument and you call that faith because I don’t give an argument or reasons for the assertion. Well some smart scientist says ‘There are multiple universes’ and gives some fancy argument for his assertion. However, the assertion leads back to principles that he can’t argue for. (Notice that ALL arguments are like this, unless you want to allow for the possibility of arguing back ad infinitum.) My only point is this: tell me what makes my assertion without argument any worse than his assertion without argument. By virtue of the fact that they are both without argument there is no argument that speaks in favor or against the “goodness” of our assertions. The scientist will attack me because HIS principles don’t lead to or imply the conclusion ‘God exists’, but at worst that shows that HIS principles don’t have the strength to lead to THIS conclusion, UNLESS he has an argument that HIS principles encapsulate all there is to be known. But in point of fact, no scientist does. It is an assumption to think that your method of investigation has a certain scope, and that assumption is no better/no worse- from a REASON point of view- than our assumptions. Faith is no more ‘faith’ than science is just because both involve the same kind of belief-without-argument. Anscombe’s essay makes this point from a different angle. Read it.

Hope this helps. I see you are a seminarian. Presumably you love God, and in my opinion that is INFINITELY more important than that you have a head on your shoulders. I wish you the best in your training and ministry