What happened to true philosophical thought?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoganBice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LoganBice

Guest
It is astoundingly profound to me that people such as Aristotle and Socrates who had no true revelation from God could be so accurate in their metaphysical thought about existence. It honestly confuses me on how we got where we are. Men before Christ who knew nothing for sure were able to come to many truthful (yet not fully) conclusions but after Christ we get this degrading modernistic atheistic philosophies like Nietzsche . It’s crazy to think about. To me it really shows the fallen nature of man and his arrogance.

Any thoughts?
 
It’s kind of a stretch to say that Aristotle and (especially) Plato were accurate in their metaphysics.
 
I’m not certain that you can combine “true” and philosophical in the same sentence. In the final analysis, philosophy is the writing down or orally transmitting of someone’s world view. Truth may have very little to do with it.

John
 
I’m not certain that you can combine “true” and philosophical in the same sentence. In the final analysis, philosophy is the writing down or orally transmitting of someone’s world view. Truth may have very little to do with it.
John
👍
 
It is astoundingly profound to me that people such as Aristotle and Socrates who had no true revelation from God could be so accurate in their metaphysical thought about existence. It honestly confuses me on how we got where we are. Men before Christ who knew nothing for sure were able to come to many truthful (yet not fully) conclusions but after Christ we get this degrading modernistic atheistic philosophies like Nietzsche . It’s crazy to think about. To me it really shows the fallen nature of man and his arrogance.

Any thoughts?
I am not personally so dismissive of either Plato or Aristotle. We can critique certain aspects of both, but there is no question that both philosophies are extraordinarily fruitful.

(For the record, I consider Aristotle by and large an improvement over Plato, but there are some important principles that Plato either discovered first, or that Aristotle cast aside too lightly: the notion of participation, for example.)

The highest point of Western philosophical thought, however, was not ancient Greek philosophy, in my opinion, but the great Christian thinkers of late antiquity and Middle Ages (often ignored outside of Catholic circles, which is unfortunate, because they are very interesting).

In reality, the changeover to “modern” philosophy began as early as the late 13th Century, a generation after Thomas Aquinas. I see the roots of Rene Descartes in philosophers as remote as Henry of Ghent, Bl. John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. I think Descartes’ philosophical “father” is Francisco Suarez, a Jesuit from Salamanca, Spain.

But, we could say, the watershed moment was Descartes. Before him, the emphasis of philosophical investigation was being or, if you will, reality. He placed the emphasis squarely on knowledge. (He is famous for doubting everything, save the fact that he himself is thinking, hence the maxim, “I think, therefore I am.”)

The history of modern philosophy is extremely complex, but in a certain sense, it all revolves around the question of “how can we be sure that we can rely on our knowledge?”

What brought about the atheist “bogiemen” of the 19th century (e.g., Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx) was the immensely influential idealistic philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel’s philosophy is, frankly, brilliant, but extremely dangerous, because it Hegel’s method appropriates all other philosophies (and even theology) to itself, and yet effectively blurs the distinction between matter and spirit.

(Extremely briefly, according to Hegel, earlier philosophies–which include Christianity—are merely “moments” in the development of what Hegel calls the Absolute Spirit, which is a sort of collective consciousness. He practically identifies the Absolute Spirit with God; the implication is that God is “created” or “emanated” by the world, especially by man.)

You can see the echoes of Hegelian philosophy in the Church’s declarations in Vatican I (espcially Dei Filius).

I think it is fairly evident that Feuerbach and later Neitzsche obtained their idea of God as “fabricated” by man, at least ultimately, from Hegel. (The connection between Marx and Hegel is even clearer.)

So, as you can see, Western philosophy has a fascinating history. I think it is important to know that history, so as to be able to dialogue with today’s culture.
 
I am not personally so dismissive of either Plato or Aristotle. We can critique certain aspects of both, but there is no question that both philosophies are extraordinarily fruitful.

(For the record, I consider Aristotle by and large an improvement over Plato, but there are some important principles that Plato either discovered first, or that Aristotle cast aside too lightly: the notion of participation, for example.)

The highest point of Western philosophical thought, however, was not ancient Greek philosophy, in my opinion, but the great Christian thinkers of late antiquity and Middle Ages (often ignored outside of Catholic circles, which is unfortunate, because they are very interesting).

In reality, the changeover to “modern” philosophy began as early as the late 13th Century, a generation after Thomas Aquinas. I see the roots of Rene Descartes in philosophers as remote as Henry of Ghent, Bl. John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. I think Descartes’ philosophical “father” is Francisco Suarez, a Jesuit from Salamanca, Spain.

But, we could say, the watershed moment was Descartes. Before him, the emphasis of philosophical investigation was being or, if you will, reality. He placed the emphasis squarely on knowledge. (He is famous for doubting everything, save the fact that he himself is thinking, hence the maxim, “I think, therefore I am.”)

The history of modern philosophy is extremely complex, but in a certain sense, it all revolves around the question of “how can we be sure that we can rely on our knowledge?”

What brought about the atheist “bogiemen” of the 19th century (e.g., Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx) was the immensely influential idealistic philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel’s philosophy is, frankly, brilliant, but extremely dangerous, because it Hegel’s method appropriates all other philosophies (and even theology) to itself, and yet effectively blurs the distinction between matter and spirit.

(Extremely briefly, according to Hegel, earlier philosophies–which include Christianity—are merely “moments” in the development of what Hegel calls the Absolute Spirit, which is a sort of collective consciousness. He practically identifies the Absolute Spirit with God; the implication is that God is “created” or “emanated” by the world, especially by man.)

You can see the echoes of Hegelian philosophy in the Church’s declarations in Vatican I (espcially Dei Filius).

I think it is fairly evident that Feuerbach and later Neitzsche obtained their idea of God as “fabricated” by man, at least ultimately, from Hegel. (The connection between Marx and Hegel is even clearer.)

So, as you can see, Western philosophy has a fascinating history. I think it is important to know that history, so as to be able to dialogue with today’s culture.
Very true. Didn’t Aquanis draw much from Aristotile. It just seems to me the values that the Greek philosophers went into was much more “Christian” then the modern philosophers. I don’t know too much on philosophy that’s why I posted this but from the small amount iv read it seems the arguments for things such as transubstantiation of the Eucharist is sometimes defended with Aristolian mertaphisics. I could be wrong.
 
Very true. Didn’t Aquanis draw much from Aristotile. It just seems to me the values that the Greek philosophers went into was much more “Christian” then the modern philosophers. I don’t know too much on philosophy that’s why I posted this but from the small amount iv read it seems the arguments for things such as transubstantiation of the Eucharist is sometimes defended with Aristolian mertaphisics. I could be wrong.
Certainly the concept of “substance” is Aristotelian, but Aristotle did not have all the tools, so to speak, to deal with the special case of the Eucharist. (He had no idea about grace, for example.)

Although it is true that Aquinas borrowed a lot from Aristotle, he also borrowed a lot from the Neoplatonists (the followers of Plato who arose in the 3rd century A.D., more than 500 years after Plato’s death), as well as St. Augustine (who is also a follower of Plato, but not exactly a Neoplatonist). His genius lies in putting the all of these together so harmoniously.
 
Truth is the state of belief on something. Our state of belief however is not absolutely true.
 
It is astoundingly profound to me that people such as Aristotle and Socrates who had no true revelation from God could be so accurate in their metaphysical thought about existence. It honestly confuses me on how we got where we are. Men before Christ who knew nothing for sure were able to come to many truthful (yet not fully) conclusions but after Christ we get this degrading modernistic atheistic philosophies like Nietzsche . It’s crazy to think about. To me it really shows the fallen nature of man and his arrogance.

Any thoughts?
There is a lot of irrational thought going on right on this Forum. People can be as irrational as they want on this Forum, for as long as they want, and no one cares. All they have to do is follow the rules. Guess there is no rule about indefinite irrationality.

Linus2nd
 
There is a lot of irrational thought going on right on this Forum. People can be as irrational as they want on this Forum, for as long as they want, and no one cares. All they have to do is follow the rules. Guess there is no rule about indefinite irrationality.

Linus2nd
I think I am done with Plato, Aristotle and Thomas. What is the next Victim? Can you please help me, lmelahn?
 
I think I am done with Plato, Aristotle and Thomas. What is the next Victim? Can you please help me, lmelahn?
So you masterd them all already. Gee, you must be some kind of genius.:rolleyes:
I don’t think anyone can help you, if Imelahn can that would be major progress.

Linus2nd
 
There is a lot of irrational thought going on right on this Forum. People can be as irrational as they want on this Forum, for as long as they want, and no one cares. All they have to do is follow the rules. Guess there is no rule about indefinite irrationality.

Linus2nd
Was that directed at me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top