The Importance of Metaphysics

[Dranu]

The more I am reading of philosophy, the more and more I am beginning to see a pattern. All (well at least I haven’t seen an athiestic neoplatonic philosophy, please show me otherwise if I am wrong) radical skeptics, relativism, empiricists, and atheist seem to outright reject metaphysical realities. At least in the sense of Platonic/Neoplatonic metaphysics. Either metaphysics is just called the usage of the human mind or not called in to play at all. In otherwords the ideas are not reflected in reality, but rather (as I typically hear it argued, which seems paradoxical to me), reality is reflected in the idea. So, in that way, there are no real laws or principles that govern the universe, they are exclusively products of the human mind.

From what I understand, platonic thought (not just the majors hints of it in the ‘Republic’, but that metaphysical approach in general), seems to logically conclude that there is a supreme God.

So, what do you all think the importance of metaphysical realities are to the Catholic faith, and all non-apostate Christians in general? Furthermore, do you have any good arguments for or against neoplatonic thought?

 

[diarmait]

When you speak of platonic metaphysical realities, are you talking about his idea of separate forms?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

When you speak of platonic metaphysical realities, are you talking about his idea of separate forms?

If he even accepted such a notion, himself.

It is unclear.

 

[Dranu]

Diarmait:

When you speak of platonic metaphysical realities, are you talking about his idea of separate forms?

Ya pretty much. Not in the sense of each thing having a form, like this computer’s form etc. (that I have heard might have been a really early Socratic position, but not so much later) But in the concept that they share in these ‘forms’ in a sense. Such as the greatest form, the Good/Beautiful. Also things such as first principles/laws being real things, rather than just constructs of the mind.
Saul. Tentmaker:

If he even accepted such a notion, himself.

It is unclear.

Oh, I haven’t heard that before, could you elaborate? Whether or not he did I guess doesn’t matter too much, but I am curious for historical purposes.

 

[brown_bear]

The more I am reading of philosophy, the more and more I am beginning to see a pattern. All (well at least I haven’t seen an athiestic neoplatonic philosophy, please show me otherwise if I am wrong) radical skeptics, relativism, empiricists, and atheist seem to outright reject metaphysical realities. At least in the sense of Platonic/Neoplatonic metaphysics. Either metaphysics is just called the usage of the human mind or not called in to play at all. In otherwords the ideas are not reflected in reality, but rather (as I typically hear it argued, which seems paradoxical to me), reality is reflected in the idea. So, in that way, there are no real laws or principles that govern the universe, they are exclusively products of the human mind.

From what I understand, platonic thought (not just the majors hints of it in the ‘Republic’, but that metaphysical approach in general), seems to logically conclude that there is a supreme God.

So, what do you all think the importance of metaphysical realities are to the Catholic faith, and all non-apostate Christians in general? Furthermore, do you have any good arguments for or against neoplatonic thought?

For starters, I think your topic is excellent.
Then, I think metaphysical realities are very important to the theology, as Saint Thomas Aquinas, for instance, showed with all his life of study and teaching.
Furthermore - perhaps beyond the commonplace - the Aquinas acknowledged and set off a not-so-bit part of the platonic/neoplatonic thought. For example, in De ente et essentia there is a part in which Thomas considers the decrease of the act of being in the creatures when, by degrees, they “drive off” from God (the separate substances i.e. the Angels, then the human beings, then the material things). Well, in my opinion this part amazingly echoes the best of neoplatonic layout.
Obviously not all in the platonic or neoplatonic thought is “apt to Christianization”. But first Saint Augustine and then Saint Thomas knew how to pick up the better, and I think this a no little part of the glories of the Church.

 

[But_for_Grace]

first i must say, good topic.

as to metaphysics, i would say we must define from the “pop” metaphysics as opposed to traditional metaphysics, and true aristotle’s metaphysics. we probably want to consider aristotle’s as it is the first complete work on the subject (Plato claimed he would never attempt a work on metaphysics) and anyone reading Summa Theologica will note that St. Thomas Aquinas relies heavily on Aristotle (see the notes to the text)

it should not be suprising to see the use of the classical philosophers in christian teachings, all that is good is of God, so that which is good and true may exist in platonic philosophy as well as in christian teachings.

 

[Greg27]

Neo-Platonic philosophy is a fairly complex school of thought which runs from Plato through to Ficino in the Renaissance. Neo-Platonic philosophy was abandoned by Philosophers (except Descartes and Liebniz) in favour of a more empirical approach (Hume, Locke, Berkely) or for Kant’s idealism. It was rejected thoroughly in the 20th century both in the analytic and continental traditions in favour of focusing on embodied human existence, cognition and language in our encounter with the universe.

Neo-Platonism is important in Christianity for providing the language and concepts in which many ideas and dogmas were expressed, as well as the encounter of the human subject with God. Neo-Platonism is important both for the Greek Christians (St Basil, Origen, St Gregory of Nazianzen, St Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Clement of Alexandria, Maximus Confessor) and also Western Latin Christians (Augustine, Gregory the Great, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Nicholas of Cusa, Eckhart, Albert the Great, etc). However, Aristotle was also important in many ways, and medieval philosophy especially tried to combine Aristotle and Platonic philosophy along with elements from Islamic and Jewish thought.

In terms of being able to cognise metaphysical reality, modern secularism and skepticism and post-modernism claim this sort of access to the ‘things themselves’ is either not possible or else these realities do not exist. All there is, is the universe of phenomena, and we need to do our best in this world. I think the success of science poses some problems for any philosophy which believes it is important to get truer knowledge by going ‘beyond’ the world right to the abyss of the Absolute, when our time is so focused on what is visible and tangible in reality. So far no philosophical school has managed to overcome this skepticism, though in my view there does seem to be a growing awareness there are limits on what we can know, including when it comes to scientific explanation.

 

[Dranu]

In terms of being able to cognise metaphysical reality, modern secularism and skepticism and post-modernism claim this sort of access to the ‘things themselves’ is either not possible or else these realities do not exist. All there is, is the universe of phenomena, and we need to do our best in this world. I think the success of science poses some problems for any philosophy which believes it is important to get truer knowledge by going ‘beyond’ the world right to the abyss of the Absolute, when our time is so focused on what is visible and tangible in reality. So far no philosophical school has managed to overcome this skepticism, though in my view there does seem to be a growing awareness there are limits on what we can know, including when it comes to scientific explanation.

See the way I see it is that was never an issue, why have the gifts science give you in the first place? Science is contingent on those absolutes, if you want clear reasoning that is. If the skepticism you refer to is why pursue the absolutes, I would just reflect the question back with why pursue the particulars (science)?