When did philosophy go bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tanais
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tanais

Guest
In light of all these horribly erroroneous philosophies in the modenr world, the question comes, where do all of them come from? When did we forget Thomas and start on the path to Freud, Kant, and Nietsche? Personally i believe it all stems back to the Reformation, because then faith became divorced from reason, whereas Thomas united the two. It is also when the rebellion against any authority other than ourselves started. I think Marcus Grodi captures it well in his book, How Firm A Foundation. In it a priest explains the levels of authority, 1st being the Magisterium, the bishops all united together under the Pope, then Sacred Tradtiion, then Sacred Scripture, then the Holy Spirit in the individual and then ouselves. We said that once the first 2 were eliminated by Luther, the others naturally fall with it until eventual we are with ourselves, we become the dictators of what is real or not.Anyhow, that is my own personal opinion, anyone else want to explain how we got to Modernism and Nihilism?
 
40.png
Tanais:
In light of all these horribly erroroneous philosophies in the modenr world, the question comes, where do all of them come from? When did we forget Thomas and start on the path to Freud, Kant, and Nietsche? Personally i believe it all stems back to the Reformation, because then faith became divorced from reason, whereas Thomas united the two. It is also when the rebellion against any authority other than ourselves started. I think Marcus Grodi captures it well in his book, How Firm A Foundation. In it a priest explains the levels of authority, 1st being the Magisterium, the bishops all united together under the Pope, then Sacred Tradtiion, then Sacred Scripture, then the Holy Spirit in the individual and then ouselves. We said that once the first 2 were eliminated by Luther, the others naturally fall with it until eventual we are with ourselves, we become the dictators of what is real or not.Anyhow, that is my own personal opinion, anyone else want to explain how we got to Modernism and Nihilism?
Click to expand...
Some people blame Kant, some blame Luther, some blame Descartes …

I think that all of these tendencies have been present in philosophical thought for ages. It isn’t as if St Thomas lived in a vacuum … he was often arguing against those who already held contrary positions about what could be known, etc.
 
Since I’m new at this I prefer to focus on the good, and if I can get that straight, then I’ll try to fill in the details, if necessary.

Encyclical Fides et Ratio by John Paul II

This may also be of interest. It’s a response to the Pope’s encyclical

The Scandal of Philosophy by Ralph McInerny

There was a revival of Thomistic Philosophy around mid-century, from which we have work from Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain, in particular (both recommended by JP II in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”

The trigger for the revival came from this document:
AETERNI PATRIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE RESTORATION OF CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY

A long time ago I read “Ten Philosophical Mistakes” by Mortimer J. Adler…

My understanding is that there was always some good philosophy, but, personal morality affects the pursuit of truth and what people are willing to see and accept as the truth.
 
When you’re a philosopher, the key to success is to get people to listen to you.

Around 1920, Bishop Sheen was studying in England. He heard about a philosopher who had written a best selling book called Being and Time in which he claimed God was an evolving God who grew greater with time. The man even got a medal from the King of England for his book.

So Bishop Sheen went to see this guy. He explained that God could not evolve because then he wouldn’t be an infinite God etc etc. The philosopher responded, “I never thought of it that way.”

Sheen then asked if the philosopher had ever read the works of Thomas Aquinas. The man answered, “No, and I don’t think I will. You become famous in this world not through truth but through novelty, and my theory is novel.”
 
Well, philosophy has never been the same since Descartes. But you can trace the roots of this problem back. I suggest Etienne Gilson’s The Unity of Philosophical Experience.
 
40.png
Apolonio:
Well, philosophy has never been the same since Descartes. But you can trace the roots of this problem back. I suggest Etienne Gilson’s The Unity of Philosophical Experience.
Click to expand...
I’ll second the recommendation for Gilson’s book. It’s one of the most enjoyable history of philosophy works that I’ve read.
 
I’m not too familiar with the history of philosophy; but I do think that once we diverged from the Aristotelian philosophy as baptized by Thomas Aquinas, it began to go downhill. Thomism was carried on by people like Mortimer Adler, Etienne Gilson, and even Frank Sheed. But modern philosophers–even Catholic ones–began to look upon Thomist philosphy and theology as outdated and too much associated with “triumphalism” in the church.

This attitude carried over into the field of history. The history of western civilization is essentially the history of the Catholic Church, including its synthesis of the Hebrew, Roman and Greek traditions. But I don’t think it’s taught that way any longer. Many years ago, my cousin, (not a Catholic) who had just finished his first year of college and a course in Western Civ. said to me, “I didn’t realize that up until the Reformation everybody was Catholic!” Well sure, I replied. But that doesn’t happen anymore.

Recently, having a discussion with my quasi-pagan friend, he said something to the effect that “well, it’s a good thing we have separation of Church and State, because religion and religious wars have killed more people than all the wars in history.” Obviously, his history lessons came from a non-objective source, ie. the modern university.

My reply was that I thought the particular honor of being responsible for the most killings belonged hands down to the 20th century, and had nothing to do with religion. None of the religious wars and inquisitions could possibly compete with the killings accomplished by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Ho-Chi Minh, the various massacres in African States, Serbia, etc.

Of course, we have to give credit to the French Revolution for starting us down this path with its reign of terror.

I think that ultimately bad philosophy leads to death.

JimG
 
I give major credit to Descartes, at least as he has been used in modern philosophy. As a Catholic, is your understanding of human nature “I think, therefore I am” or “I was created in the image of God, therefore I think” ?

Depending on your answer, your use of reason will follow two entirely different paths.
 
It’s kind of ironic that

(1) Descartes was reacting against skeptics who claimed that God, among other things, couldn’t be known with certainty. For him, certainty about God was a natural consequence to realizing that we are conscious and we did not create our own consciousness.

(2) Augustine came up with basically “I think before I am” long before Descartes. And some Greek guy (can’t remember who) long before Augustine.

Like oldfogey says, it seems to be more what other people did with Descartes than Descartes himself that has made a big difference in ‘modern’ philosopphy.
 
From Heinlein’s Lazarus Long character

Philosophy its like cotton candy

It looks pretty and smells wonderful and is sweet to the tongue but it wont satisfy your hunger because when you try to bite into it nothings there. 😛

Peace

Scott
 
Philosophy went bad as soon as people whose minds were clouded by sin began “philosophizing”. One can go a long way back and find pretty wacky ideas about the world.
 
I think that the argument can be made that philosphy ‘went bad’ with the 14th century William of Ockham. Yes, he’s the one who developed ‘Ockham’s razor’–that the simpler the explanation of something the better.

In many respects he was reacting against developing excesses in scholasticism. But his own reaction was itself excessive.

He also helped lay the foundation of nominalism–a school of thought that basically tries to put metaphysics off to the side as ultimately unknowable. In many respects he is a very early pre-cursor to Kant.

I also think that this way of thinking influenced Calvin who emphasized so strongly the inscrutability of God.
 
I would agree that Okham and Nominalism was the beginning of the end for philosophy. 😦 And Kant’s Subjectivism was the end, because he was the first person to seriously suggest that truth is subjective, not objective. Of course, objectivity is part of the definition of “truth” for every philosophy prior to Kant (even the Eastern philosophies, which are often touted as being so radically different from Western ones, but really they are not). Subjective truth is an oxymoron, plain and simple.:whacky:
Now with Postmodernism, the full implications of subjective truth have been realized, and truth itself has been abolished. Postmoderns do not even bother to refute truth, or reason, or anything else. There is complete indifference toward any topic which might need to make an appeal to Truth with a capital ‘T’.

The opposing philosophy to Nominalism–Realism–is the antidote. Realist philosophies such as Thomism, Augustinianism, and Anselmism (not sure that last one is a word:p ) start from the premise that the world is real, and so are our ideas about the world. Not a haphazard collection of perceptions, opinions, stories, bla bla bla…but real. Starting from there, everything else can be demonstrated to possess substance and relevance: God, natural law, marriage, you name it. :tiphat: Any philosophy with a different starting point will inevitably lead to indifference and relativism.

This is a pretty serious post and i hope i didn’t bore anyone, but it is a subject i’ve devoted some time studying.
 
Jesus told Pilate: " I came to give testimony of The Truth, everyone who is from the Truth Listens to me"

Pilate answered: “What is Truth”

The two positions have been there since time imemorial, those who seek the Truth assuming it absolute and those who take the truth as something subjective to mans mind. Thsoe who take as their premise that 1+1 =2 and that existence exists and that there is an absolute Truth and those who work for death killing reazon.

God gave us reason to survive, to the animals He gave instinct. If we don’t use the reason to unveil the truth before us and try to pretend that our mind can manipulate truth, we die.

Philosophy never died, those who die are the ones who choose to leave reason and whith it the ability to knowing the truth before them.

Of course to really get to know the Truth (with capital “T”) reason is the begining but it’s no enough, that’s where faith and the working of the Holy Spirit come in, to show us the path to our ultimate salvation in Jesus Christ.

So then, let’s have faith, and let the Holy Spirit work on our reason to show us the Truth.

Blessings,
J.C.
 
40.png
tractarian:
Now with Postmodernism, the full implications of subjective truth have been realized, and truth itself has been abolished. … Realist philosophies such as Thomism, Augustinianism, and Anselmism (not sure that last one is a word:p ) start from the premise that the world is real, and so are our ideas about the world
Click to expand...
I agree with tractarian that the realist philosophies are the key antidote to subjectivism. Are they even being taught in the universities anymore?

JimG
 
oldfogey:As a Catholic, is your understanding of human nature “I think, therefore I am” or “I was created in the image of God, therefore I think” ?

Response:
I see no problem with each statement. “I think, therefore I am” is an epistemological statement concerning one’s knowledge of one’s existence. The statement “I was created in the image of God, therefore I think” is more of a metaphysical statement.

Though we can trace bad philosophy before Descartes, I have to give Descartes credit. Since his meditations (or perhaps, it was just a dream?), philosophy has never been the same. The way to start philosophy for him was to be “critical”, meaning it has to be epistemological. Now, some Louvain Thomists in the early 20th century said, “Fine, we’ll take your challenge.” They were called “critical realists”. The problem with this, as Gilson noted and I agree, is that one cannot end up to be a realist if one starts as a Cartesian or Kantian. However, does that mean realism can never be “critical”? Jacques Maritain doesn’t seem to believe so. He believes that there can be such a thing as critical realism. And so the debate continues…Descartes’ “dream” still gives us nightmares.
 
I would agree with others here that certainly there was something of a large decline in philosophy with the advent of William of Ockham, who took himself to be arguing against the doctrines of two of my favorite scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Bl. John Duns Scotus. He was a good metaphysician no doubt, on a par, intellectually speaking, with both St. Thomas and Bl. John Duns, however, his advocating of nominalism as a good a core position of his philosophy was a poor move.

I third the recommendation of Gilson’s writings. I would also recommend an article by the great American philosopher C.S. Peirce, entitled “Review of Fraser’s The Works of George Berkeley.” His analysis of the philosophical shift from scholasticism proper to the modern era is very good, I think.

As much as we blame Descartes, we cannot forget that another very damagin philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, was contemporaneous with Descartes, and Hobbes was even more nominalistic in his tendencies than was Descartes. The combination of Hobbes in England and Descartes on the continent was not at all a good thing for the Western philosophical tradition, I think.
 
40.png
squirt:
Some people blame Kant, some blame Luther, some blame Descartes …

I think that all of these tendencies have been present in philosophical thought for ages. It isn’t as if St Thomas lived in a vacuum … he was often arguing against those who already held contrary positions about what could be known, etc.
Click to expand...

In his own time, Aquinas was not uncontroversial or uncriticised. Besides, the Franciscans have their own philosopher, in Duns Scotus - so even once he was canonised, Aquinas was not by any means agreed with by all Catholics. That is, after all, not the function of philosophy.​

IMO, one of the healthiest features of life today is that Aquinas is no longer the philosopher to the “RC ghetto” - he’s not as completely identified with RCism as he was after 1879; he’s treated as a philosopher, in his own right, who has something to say, in his own right. ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## In his own time, Aquinas was not uncontroversial or uncriticised. Besides, the Franciscans have their own philosopher, in Duns Scotus - so even once he was canonised, Aquinas was not by any means agreed with by all Catholics. That is, after all, not the function of philosophy.

IMO, one of the healthiest features of life today is that Aquinas is no longer the philosopher to the “RC ghetto” - he’s not as completely identified with RCism as he was after 1879; he’s treated as a philosopher, in his own right, who has something to say, in his own right. ##
Click to expand...

Very true.

You don’t need to be a Thomist to be Catholic, and you don’t need to be Catholic to be a Thomist.
 
Gottle of Geer said:
##
IMO, one of the healthiest features of life today is that Aquinas is no longer the philosopher to the “RC ghetto” - he’s not as completely identified with RCism as he was after 1879; he’s treated as a philosopher, in his own right, who has something to say, in his own right. ##
Click to expand...

St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian.
To prescind Thomas’ ‘five ways’ or the rest of his philosophical work (most of the Prima Pars of the ST?) from the whole of his
theology is unfruitful. What about the overall exitus-redditus goal of the Summa Theologica? Thomistic philosophy is fine as a foundation for understanding Thomas’ theology, but apart from this why not just read Aristotle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top