When did philosophy go bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tanais
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
as far as i can tell, all philosophy since plato and aristotle is basically a pendulum swinging between the two, and the various philosophers that have come and gone since them are just staking out different places on the greeks’ territory.

i think philosophy as a system was set up in such a way that it went bad from the very beginning. but it didn’t really get bad until descartes. he’s the archetype of the philosopher who destroys everything before him in order to defend it hypothetically, and comes up with answers that aren’t nearly as convincing to the next generation of philosophers as the arguments with which he demolished his own beliefs.
he adopted skepticism in order to refute the skeptics. only his answer to them has been disproven seven ways to sunday, while his radical skepticism has remained.
fast forward to hume, who probably was the single most destructive philosopher of them all. he rejected all the previous answers to the questions, and posited that there were no answers.
so kant refutes him, then comes up with his own answers.
only to have hegel refute him, and come up with his own.
then schopenhauer and kierkegaard, who refute hegel’s answers, and nietzsche, who thought he found the answer to destroy them all, but really only posited more answers that the world has since rejected.
and so on.

ultimately, the only thread that’s tied them all together was their skepticism and destructive tendencies, particularly where religion is concerned.
 
40.png
eikke:
i think philosophy as a system was set up in such a way that it went bad from the very beginning. but it didn’t really get bad until descartes. he’s the archetype of the philosopher who destroys everything before him in order to defend it hypothetically, and comes up with answers that aren’t nearly as convincing to the next generation of philosophers as the arguments with which he demolished his own beliefs.
he adopted skepticism in order to refute the skeptics. only his answer to them has been disproven seven ways to sunday, while his radical skepticism has remained.
fast forward to hume, who probably was the single most destructive philosopher of them all. he rejected all the previous answers to the questions, and posited that there were no answers.
so kant refutes him, then comes up with his own answers.
only to have hegel refute him, and come up with his own.
then schopenhauer and kierkegaard, who refute hegel’s answers, and nietzsche, who thought he found the answer to destroy them all, but really only posited more answers that the world has since rejected.
and so on.
Click to expand...
eikke has made a very good observation, but i think it misses the mark about the real problem inherent in philosophy, which is not how the philosopher answers a question, but rather what question the philosopher seeks to answer.
For the Greeks and Romans, the question was unanimous: “How can man be happy?” Reading only Plato and Aristotle may give an unbalanced view of what philosophy was really like back then. Balance it with the other major schools of the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans, and you will notice that the measure of success for a philosophy seemed to be not just answers to questions put down on paper (papyrus, clay, whatever), but a system of living that would satisfy the human sprit.

If there is any one thread that ties together all those bad philosophers, it is that they all had almost completely given up on this goal–human happiness–and settled for arguing over abstractions.
 
The Old Road:
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?
Click to expand...

Because about 1600 years of philosophy intervene between them - including Neoplatonism, and Augustine’s “Christian Neoplatonism”, and Boethius, and the influence of the “Pseudo-Dionysius”, John Scotus Erigena, Anselm, Avicenna, Maimonides, and the Scholastics before Aquinas 🙂 .​

The pattern of the Summa that you mention would not mean much, if the Summa had no content. Besides, Aquinas wrote an awful lot more than the Summa and his Biblical work.

Aquinas does not = the whole of the Christian philosophical tradition - not by a long way; as the Franciscans would doubtless be ready to point out: not to mention the non-Roman rites & churches ##
 
The question is difficult, because while modern philosophy has many weaknesses I do not think it is appropriate to say it “went bad.” The biggest weakness I see today is relativism, specifically denial of the principle of non-contradiction.
 
The biggest weakness I see today is relativism

And relativism is not restricted to philosophy. It also dominates the arts, religions, even science, which repudiates the notion of a “finished” truth.

Why relativism is so much more powerful today than it was 500 years ago might, just might, have something to do with the fact that the Reformation provoked a centuries-long disintegration of the very idea of universal (catholic) truth.

About the only universal truth conceded by relativists today is that there is no universal truth.

I think the rise of democracy might also have something to do with the triumph of relativism. Just as people came to regard themselves as equal to each other, it was no great leap to the notion that all ideas are on a par with each other.
 
Oh, well…the Catholic Church opposes any philosophy that does not square with its own, and that has been going on since Christ came. Simple enough?
 
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...
Personally, I believe that this long road towards the destruction of modern philosophy started with the ideas of William of Ockham, who divoced philosophy from theology (thus contradicting Aquinas and Bonaventure). He wanted to free religion from what he believed was the shackes rationalism imposed on it. He does not deny the value of reason, only that it must be kept within its own sphere.

However, his followers took his conclusions further. They began claiming that reality as it is is wholly unknowable by reason. Eventually, because of him we now can no longer “know” the true nature of anything, including objective standards of good and evil.

From Ockham flowed out the overwhelming tide which was carried further by Hobbes, Bentham and the utilitarians, Locke, Hume and all Philosophy which denies any objective truth.

His influence can be felt now in the widespread philosophical
and moral relativism nowadays, people who are fond of saying “what is right for you is not necessarily right for me”, or “what is truth to you is not necessarily so for me!”.

This is its legacy.

Gerry
.
 
Philosophy went bad during the “Enlightenment”. Previous to this Philosophy Science and Theology were one single discipline. Now they are three seperate and contending disciplines, each claiming to explain “Truth”.

How can any one of them find Truth without the other?
 
Philosophy went bad when “baptized Aristotleianism” became Catholic dogma. Big mistake. Once the scientific revolution happened in the 17th century, Aristotelianism was almost entirely discredited. It’s metaphysical claims were shown to be bunk for the most part, and unfortunately Aristotle bases everything else upon his metaphysics. That is why people like Descartes had to start anew, because the foundation for theological and moral beliefs for the past couple centuries had been yanked out from beneath them. Descartes, Kant, Locke, and even Berkeley were trying to salvage traditional religious belief, morality, human freedom, etc with their philosophies in a world that was suddenly very different than what Aquinas thought it was. From a scientific standpoint, things only got worse for Aristotelian metaphysics as time progressed. That is why it was a huge mistake for the Church to make Aristotelianism its official philosophy.

There are several philosophies that can be baptized, so to speak. neo-platonism suited the Fathers just fine. the Pope is partial to phenomenology. Even existensialism can be Christianized. It isn’t wise to just blindly favor one philosophy over another, especially when a different philosophy might do a much better job with reconciling traditional Christian beliefs with the latest scientific discoveries.
 
40.png
Minerva:
Philosophy went bad when “baptized Aristotleianism” became Catholic dogma. Big mistake. Once the scientific revolution happened in the 17th century, Aristotelianism was almost entirely discredited. It’s metaphysical claims were shown to be bunk for the most part, and unfortunately Aristotle bases everything else upon his metaphysics. That is why people like Descartes had to start anew, because the foundation for theological and moral beliefs for the past couple centuries had been yanked out from beneath them. Descartes, Kant, Locke, and even Berkeley were trying to salvage traditional religious belief, morality, human freedom, etc with their philosophies in a world that was suddenly very different than what Aquinas thought it was. From a scientific standpoint, things only got worse for Aristotelian metaphysics as time progressed. That is why it was a huge mistake for the Church to make Aristotelianism its official philosophy.
Click to expand...
No part of Aristotle’s metaphysics was shown to be “bunk” in the 17th century. Heliocentrism was refuted, but I do not think this is core to Aristotle’s metaphysics. The form/matter - act/potency distinctions are core, and it is true that first corpuscular, and later, atomic, theories did/do threaten the aristotelian-thomistic views of material things, especially the unity of human persons. I know of no philosopher who thinks that Descartes’ bifurcation of the human into mind and matter is an advance in the philosophical understanding of human beings. Problems in viewing humans dualistically were present even in the neo-platonists – Augustine’s anthropology/psychology has many notorious ambiguities/problems.
I think it is ultimately impossible to reconcile atomistic views of material reality with the Catholic understanding of the unity of the human person, and the immortality of the soul. Either the person is one thing (a unity of soul and body (Aristotle-Thomas)), or that unity is only apparent, and the body is really a collection of billions of little things (molecules). Are we our bodies (not alone, of course) or are our bodies a mere pile of molecules that interact and work together (but are metaphysically still themselves)?
40.png
Minerva:
There are several philosophies that can be baptized, so to speak. neo-platonism suited the Fathers just fine. the Pope is partial to phenomenology. Even existensialism can be Christianized. It isn’t wise to just blindly favor one philosophy over another, especially when a different philosophy might do a much better job with reconciling traditional Christian beliefs with the latest scientific discoveries.
Click to expand...
The “phenomenology” of the pope’s philosophy is greatly exagerated. Early on in “Love and Responsibility” the Wojtyla makes it clear that his “phenomenology” is methodological, and does not subscribe the inherent subjectivism and relativism of Husserlian phenomenology. He is also quite clear that he accepts the metaphysical anthropology of Aquinas. “Fides et Ratio” renews his endorsement of Aquinas, though not for the matter/form (soul) anthropology, but for Aquinas’ openness to the truth wherever it is found. Certainly what is required for any philosophy to be “baptized” is first to admit that there is a truth to be known. The implications of Descartes and Berkeley, and the explicit teaching of Hume, Kant, Husserl, and Sartre, deny this.
 
40.png
Minerva:
Philosophy went bad when “baptized Aristotleianism” became Catholic dogma. Big mistake. Once the scientific revolution happened in the 17th century, Aristotelianism was almost entirely discredited. It’s metaphysical claims were shown to be bunk for the most part, and unfortunately Aristotle bases everything else upon his metaphysics.
Click to expand...
I don’t entirely agree. Aristotelian (and Thomist) metaphysics are entirely different methodologies from the scientific method.

True, you can’t do science using Thomist methods. But you can’t do philosophy using science, especially if you’re dealing with the spiritual rather than the physical.

JimG
 
I must confess that I am not quite – rather I should say, not completely anti-Kant. I think that if we were to look at his work, yes there would be questionable philosophical theories. however, if we see a premise of this assertions – that individuals are not to be use as a “mere means” we can see some of the Catholic philosophy towards the sanctity of life. I will concede that this is but one example; and I will concede that one can easily pick out certain idioms that agree with a philosophical outlook. Given that, I will say that Kant is questionable in other areas – I am sure, some, more qualified and knowledgable than I can expound upon this matter.

I, do, have a question. What about our Eastern brethren? Who are some of the influential philosophers – ones in line with the teaching of the Church? Who are the old ones? what about any contemporary and/or modern-day thinkers?
 
“No part of Aristotle’s metaphysics was shown to be “bunk” in the 17th century. Heliocentrism was refuted, but I do not think this is core to Aristotle’s metaphysics. The form/matter - act/potency distinctions are core, and it is true that first corpuscular, and later, atomic, theories did/do threaten the aristotelian-thomistic views of material things, especially the unity of human persons.”

Modern atomic theory doesn’t just threaten Aristotle, it blows him out of the water. You simply cannot have atoms and an Aristotelian picture of matter/form. Aristotle would’ve agreed 🙂

“I know of no philosopher who thinks that Descartes’ bifurcation of the human into mind and matter is an advance in the philosophical understanding of human beings. Problems in viewing humans dualistically were present even in the neo-platonists – Augustine’s anthropology/psychology has many notorious ambiguities/problems.”

I know more than a few philosophers who think Descartes was an advance, or at least that Descartes was doing what he had to in order to salvage the soul and free will. Descartes was reacting to Hobbes who had taken the new discoveries in science to their logical conclusion. The universe was a big machine, running by its own mathematical laws. So are the things in the universe…so is the human being. there was no room for a “spooky” soul, it was the unecessary ghost in the machine. Descartes realized this is what happens when you identify the human as a body and which is why he posited the human as foremostly a mind, distinct from the body. Of course there are alot of problems with the view, as there are with any philosophical theory. But what Descartes did was highly innovative, and he, at least, wanted to preserve Christianity unlike Hobbes.

“I think it is ultimately impossible to reconcile atomistic views of material reality with the Catholic understanding of the unity of the human person, and the immortality of the soul. Either the person is one thing (a unity of soul and body (Aristotle-Thomas)), or that unity is only apparent, and the body is really a collection of billions of little things (molecules). Are we our bodies (not alone, of course) or are our bodies a mere pile of molecules that interact and work together (but are metaphysically still themselves)?”

so what will you do, reject the existence of atoms? The question of whether anything is itself or a collection of atoms, is a question as old as philosophy itself. Sorry I can’t help you with it, though i have my theories.

“The “phenomenology” of the pope’s philosophy is greatly exagerated. Early on in “Love and Responsibility” the Wojtyla makes it clear that his “phenomenology” is methodological, and does not subscribe the inherent subjectivism and relativism of Husserlian phenomenology. He is also quite clear that he accepts the metaphysical anthropology of Aquinas. “Fides et Ratio” renews his endorsement of Aquinas, though not for the matter/form (soul) anthropology, but for Aquinas’ openness to the truth wherever it is found. Certainly what is required for any philosophy to be “baptized” is first to admit that there is a truth to be known. The implications of Descartes and Berkeley, and the explicit teaching of Hume, Kant, Husserl, and Sartre, deny this.”

Endorsing Aquinas’ search and openness to truth is a long way from making Thomism the de facto Catholic philosophy. And I also disagree that Descartes didn’t believe there was any truth to be known. Kant didn’t believe this either. Hume, Husserl, and Sartre did, but I wouldn’t advocate their philosophies anyways.
 
“I don’t entirely agree. Aristotelian (and Thomist) metaphysics are entirely different methodologies from the scientific method.”

exactly, which is why the Scholastic system could not accomodate the scientific revolution of the 1600s

“True, you can’t do science using Thomist methods. But you can’t do philosophy using science, especially if you’re dealing with the spiritual rather than the physical.”

true doing science isn’t doing philosophy, but what science discovers has enormous impacts on philosophy, especially concerning issues of the soul and free will.
 
40.png
Minerva:
true doing science isn’t doing philosophy, but what science discovers has enormous impacts on philosophy, especially concerning issues of the soul and free will.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the human soul and free will must be material and therefore subject to the scientific method? Is a scientist involved in a scientific endeavor acting freely and intelligently or is he determined by the rules that govern matter?

It seems to me that there is as much danger in scientists trying to do philosphy as there is in philosophers trying to do science.

JimG
 
Philosophy went bad when Aristotle was interpreted in a way never intended by Aristotle.

The best overview of philosophy is A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, in spite of his agnosticism.
 
Jim,

what I meant was that discoveries in science, especially cognitive science/neuroscience have alot of bearing on free will and the soul. Many scientists are convinced that consciousness, the mind, the will, what have you, is an entirely physical phenomenon. Thus there is no immortal soul. Nor would there be any free will. Philosophers look at what science is saying about the relationship between mental phenomena and physical phenomena and try to see what it means. Can we still be free? Is life after death possible? Sadly most philosophers are already physicalists about this issue, but for us Christian philosophers it’s still an open question and a very interesting one. But we have to look to science for help here because the scientists are the ones studying the brain and how it works.
 
I agree with Minerva in that our problem is that we are preaching of an immaterial world in a society that worships matter and denies the existence of anything else. Actually, this problem goes allllllll the way back to Ancient Rome. Yep. It’s all about pursuing pleasure as god and contraception. For more info check out Moral Darwinismamazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830826661/qid=1092446123/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3742059-8876842?v=glance&s=books by Benjamin Wiker. An EXCELLENT and very thorough evaluation of modern thinking. I cannot recommend this book enough on this topic. I don’t know how there COULD be a better book out there on the subject. Benjamin Wiker draws very logical and facinating conclusions.

Check it out!
Pax.
 
Looking to the neurosciences has its place, and some of their discoveries are revealing. But you can’t let physics do your metaphysics for you, and a crude, unnuanced atomism does innevitably lead to a denial of free will and any kind of soul (including an immortal one). Unfortunately, most philosophers today are physicalist, but physicalism is a metaphysical position, not an empirically discovered or verified one. It says that all there are physical entities (atoms or sub-atomic particles and the physical forces that govern their interaction according to physical necessity). Given this starting point, physicalists, like Hobbes and Democritus, will deny free will and the need for any kind of soul. No modern variety of physicalist theory (functionalist, cognitivist, supervenience, emergence), though, adequately accounts for even the natural phenomena like genuine intentionality (even apart from consciousness). Clearly the body and physical states are important for understanding cognitive states, but crude metaphysical atomism isn’t sufficient. One needs a more nuanced way to explain how material elements go into making up the human body, without the human being reduced to a collections of such elements. Happily, the thomistic-aristotelian theory does (rather generally) account for material constituents, while not identifying the person with them. This is at least part the function that their version of soul serves in their theory, and why despite the advances in science since the 16th century, their theory is still viable. Physicalist theories haven’t fared well despite the enormous promise (wishful thinking?) of cognitive science.

But I think the discussion is drifting.

As to the original question, just about all of the philosophical possibilities (rationalism, skepticism, relativism, atomism, hedonism, dualism, hylomorphism, stoicism) had been tried within about the first 300 years or so of the emergence of philosophy, and they continue to have their adherents in every age. There have always been bad philosophies. It is a mystery why at certain times certain of them predominate. I think it might have something to do with sin.
 
actually aridite, the question of atoms and how a human body is more (or is it?) than a collection of atoms, is seperate from the mind-body problem. You can ask the same question about any material object - like the laptop I am writing on right now. Is it a laptop or is it silicone atoms? Like I said, this is an old problem and there are no easy answers to it. Aristotelianism is unsatisfactory for solving the problem since the existence of atoms violates Aristotle and Aquinas’ belief in prime matter.

The mind-body problem is also a difficult one and I have no answer to it myself. I do know lots of philosophers who have no problem with being physicalists and see it as a consistent world view. I disagree with this quite vehemently. If physicalism is true, then free will and immortality go out the window. Alot is at stake. I don’t see how Aristotelianism helps out with the problem. For one thing, Aristotle didn’t even believe the brain was used for thinking - he thought it was used for regulating mucus and humors. This isn’t very helpful when you need to go head to head with the latest in neuroscience 🙂

you seem to be very well versed in philosophy - did you major in it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top