Why discuss Philosophy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter prayerchanges
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prayerchanges

Guest
Why do we discuss philosophy? Can’t we be content with blind, innocent faith? Is it ok to think this, to just not worry about everything? Does it really matter how Christ was God and Man, can’t we just accept this as one of the pillars of our Faith?
 
prayerchanges said:
Why do we discuss philosophy? Can’t we be content with blind, innocent faith? Is it ok to think this, to just not worry about everything? Does it really matter how Christ was God and Man, can’t we just accept this as one of the pillars of our Faith?
Click to expand...
Becaue God designed humans with a cerebrum and intended it to be used fully.
 
then what happens when a philosophical discussion confuses someone, and then causes that person to become less sure of their faith? (just wondering here, I enjoy philosophy just as much as the next person)
 
If one’s faith can be weakened by confusion in a philosophy discussion, is it really a strong faith? That does not seem very likely. Above all, we must remember that divine revelation has supreme authority over all philosophical speculation concerning it. If your eye causes you to sin, put it out. If your philosophical faculties will not let you accept a matter of faith, put them aside.

In a more direct answer to your question, we discuss philosophy because man, by nature, desires to know, and that is a desire we ought to indulge. True eagerness to learn for the sake of truth can lead us only to truth, in the end. This is more true of the wise than the foolish, it may be admitted, but how does one grow wise? The search for truth for her own sake! Now, since God is the True, Good, and Beautiful, such searches must ultimately lead our intellects to Him. To put this another way, metaphysics is the intellect’s contemplation of first principles on the grounds of reason. And this, of course, will be what the blessed intellect is eternally doing in Heaven. Thus, if you would like to give your intellect some “practice,” so to speak, for eternal beatitude, philosophy is about the best route you can go!

All this being said, philosophy is not needed in this life. However noble it may be, philosophy is not a necessary condition for salvation. Faith, on the other hand, is. To put it in the most eloquent words of the Angelic Doctor:
The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
Click to expand...
 
“can’t we just accept this as one of the pillars of our Faith?” because it is “faith,” not knowldege. Faith or belief are adult worlds for “let’s behave as if” or “let’s pretnd.” Taht is fine, up to a point, but when people adamantly insist “this is true” when in fact it is an arguable belief, we can have problems. some of these are evidnced in the horrors perpetrated on non-beleivers or belivers by each other or outside agencies.

This may be where it could be important for some, who actulally do have an ear for levels, kinds, and degrees of knowledeg, to study and consider the esoteric and exoteric differences of practices and explicaions even within the same faith. Invaraibly, even in religions where their exoteric versions may even be at war, the esoteric aspcets are in complete harmony. Clearly there is, then, a vast difference, similar to what happens in schools, of grades and curves within those grades. And then, of coures, there is university, which is what the esoteric aspects deal with. It is not that nay of them are right or wrong, it has to do with levels and capacities of understanding.

Everyone is by far not the same in these regards. Yet we have fifth graders insisting that they know how the world works according to their loevel of understanding, and saying they ought to have precedence over the university students. Occasionally, they even crucify one to make their point, and then use the crucified one’s teachings to support their grade. Curious. It is clear that if the crucifed one returned to explicate things, He would suffer that same fate at the same hands.
 
There is this…

Matthew 18.3: “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

But also this…

1 Peter 3.15: “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.”

We must engage the world for Christ with all humility. How Christ was God and Man is not unimportant and deserves our attention, not least of all because we might need to discuss it with others.
 
I would advise a solid grounding in the faith before any serious study of philosophy is attempted. I have heard that the study of philosophy is useful “to open your mind”, and well it may be. However, various philosophies have lured the poorly grounded away. In the cases of Thomas Merton, and of Jesuit Father Anthony de Mello, very well grounded men lost their faith and drifted into either Buddhism (Merton), or into an almost new-age relativist philosophy (de Mello).
 
As well they should have, along with many others, including myself. Catholcism bears important seeds that can mature into a greater understanding. That understanding is by mo means for everyone. We do not ask our fifth graders to fuction at post-graduate levels, and neither do we have anything but respect for those making their way, as we did, through the necessary steps. But even in fifth grade I knew there was such a thing as university, just as a Catholic i knew there was a difference between my understanding an Aquinas’. And even he, at the end, said that ll he had written was “as straw.”

Now certailny that statement can be interpreted form a pious standpoint commensurate with a certain understanding of the faith. But what if there is more thatn that? Even Jesus taught the public in parables, and then took His desciples aside and taught them in private. Not all words are for evryone, and there ought not be judgement of those who, following their best conscience, find a necessity to see and partake a larger picture.
 
Why study philosophy? To become wise.

If true philosophy undermines our faith, then our faith (in those particulars that are emperiled by philosophy) ought to be undermined.

Unfortunately, not every university teaches the methods of true philosophy…
 
prayerchanges said:
Why do we discuss philosophy? Can’t we be content with blind, innocent faith? Is it ok to think this, to just not worry about everything? Does it really matter how Christ was God and Man, can’t we just accept this as one of the pillars of our Faith?
Click to expand...
St. Augustine said that we believe in order that we may understand. Understanding is the reward of faith. What this means is that faith is only the first step on our journey towards God.

No one should be content with a blind faith. We should understand what it is that we believe. This understanding is a type of seeing. This understanding is better than anything the world has to offer.

Each person has his own particular capacity and opportunity to learn more about the Faith. We should pursue, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that understanding, which is the reward of faith. St. Thomas Aquinas says, “The pursuit of wisdom especially joins man to God in friendship.” Our wisdom is the Sacred Scriptures, Church teachings, and the writings of the Doctors, Fathers and Saints of the Church.

Catholics ought to study these theological writings whenever they can. Christian philosophy is also very useful for understanding and explaining to others what it is that we believe. Philosophical argument can show non-Catholics that what we believe is logical. Armed with theological knowledge and Christian philosophy we are better able to defend the truths of the Catholic Faith against skeptics and heretics.

Philosophy has its own value. The word philo + sophia means “the love of wisdom.” People often ask what use is philosophy. The Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain says philosophy is above utility. (That is, philosophy is above being useful). And that is why philosophy is absolutely necessary. We do not live by bread, vitamins, air conditioning, cars, etc. alone. There are things of the spirit, that is, the truths that philosophical inquiry can attain, which are indispensable to man and society.

For example, society remains in critical need of a sound political philosophy. Unfortunately, one cannot learn sound philosophy in the majority of American colleges and universities that have philosophy departments. There are only a few universities that actually teach sound philosophy. The majority of philosophy departments will take the novice and unwary on a tour of false philosophies without ever educating him in the great tradition of the philosophia perrenis.

One is left to find for themselves a master of philosophy as a teacher and guide. St. Thomas Aquinas is that master. He remains the greatest philosopher of all time.
 
To ask the question, “why discuss philosophy?” is to ask a philosophical question - so you may have answered it yourself. That is, all humans, by nature desire to know. To deny this, and seek contentment in “blind, innocent faith” would be to deny the nature of your humanity. And to do that would be an act contrary to the very faith you thought you had.

Further, you might consider the object of true philosophy: being. Then consider the object of your faith: the God who identifies Himself as being, (I AM).

As you see from the responses to your question, everybody’s got opinions - and what’s the measure of a good opinion? Well, only philosophy can answer this question - so you find yourself stuck doing it - and you might as well do it well.

Unfortunately, you can’t get real philosophy at more than maybe three colleges in the states these days. And, no, Stubenville isn’t one of them.
 
itinerant

*No one should be content with a blind faith. We should understand what it is that we believe. This understanding is a type of seeing. This understanding is better than anything the world has to offer.… One is left to find for themselves a master of philosophy as a teacher and guide. St. Thomas Aquinas is that master. He remains the greatest philosopher of all time. *

Ah, but you left out Thomas’ remarks at the end of his life, when he said that more had been revealed to him than in all his works, and that he now viewed his works as straw.

Aquinas, I believe, had become a mystic, and saw the futility of man’s wisdom compared to the wisdom of “knowing” God.
 
Sorry, DHume, in my understanding Jtruej had it right: Being.

Itinerant 1, I find your reply to prayerchanges quite excellent. The part about philosophia perrenis in particular fascinates me. But I don’t exactly agree with what I find in the Catholic encyclopedia about it, and am wondering about your take on it. This especially makes me curious exactly because of your elevation of Augustin. I have a particular take on his last revalation that he took as cause to stop writing and make his famous comment about that. I also am quite sure that Aquinas has some superb non-Catholic andtherefor uselessly maligned company.

At any rate, I found your post refreshing and more accurate by my lights than many on here.

I might also wonder here what Charlie’s take is on “knowing” God relative to that same famous statement by Aquainas. I’m betting it is rather more exo than eso -teric. But we shall see.
 
prayerchanges said:
Why do we discuss philosophy? Can’t we be content with blind, innocent faith? Is it ok to think this, to just not worry about everything? Does it really matter how Christ was God and Man, can’t we just accept this as one of the pillars of our Faith?
Click to expand...
This is the worst idea I think I have ever heard. Can you imagine what would happen if people all just took things on innocent faith? The world is not all Catholic. Cults would be even more numerous, scams would be going on everywhere, etc. At some point, you have to examine what you believe/reject and decide how that applies to you and your life. In simple terms, if I said I was the reincarnation of Jesus would you believe me on innocent faith? “I’m not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I’ve seen what it can do to skyscrapers.”
 
Got to agree with Liquid on this one. I can’t believe that anyone would say what Prayerchanges did, but there it is! The unexamined life is not only not worth living, P, it is downright dangerous. If you question, at least you can take responsibility for your own discoveries. Or maybe you are very young. I don’t know. I mean, if your trio of heros is indeed that, I would think you to be avidly in favor of deep quesitoning. Or, hey! You were just being sarcastic? 😃 <picture of a bitting sarcasm
 
Prodigal_Son:

I don’t think so. St. Bernadette admitted she was stupid, and so it is we see wisdom in those words, wisdom in blind trust of her peers. All through OT the emphasis is obtaining wisdom through grace. Wisdom is a gift. If a tool is limited then we can expect it to serve us partially. So it is with limited human reasoning. It can only serve us to a point. The rest is obtained through divine reasoning.

Sirach,Wisdom,Psalms,etc recommends seeking wisdom over knowledge.

St. Augustine’s final conclusion at the end of decades of learning through the best philosophers is that we need to believe(faith) first then we will understand(grant).
 
AF, I will admit to being stupid as well, in the face of people I consider to be stellarly brilliant. Will that stop me from thinking to the full extent of my ability with as complete data as I can gatherer? Especially about scriptures and traditions that are demonstrably questionable as to origin and meaning in translations over time?

And, would you please demonstrate Divine reasoning? Perhaps there is a course in that I missed in my Catholic education? All I know is that the premise detremines the result, and one had better be certain on those grounds. About the last premises I would trust are scriptural ones save in very limited ways as hypotheses.

Wisdom superceeding knowledge has to do with factual knolwedge by itself being insufficient for Knowledge, or Self Knowledge. “Gnothi Seauton.” as the Greeks said it, but in a different script, lol! It doesn’t, I believe, mean have blind faith or to cease questioning.

“St. Augustine’s final conclusion at the end of decades of learning through the best philosophers is that we need to believe(faith) first then we will understand(grant).” I’m curious as to how you came to that and what exactly you mean by it.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC
 
AndyF said:
Prodigal_Son:

I don’t think so. St. Bernadette admitted she was stupid, and so it is we see wisdom in those words, wisdom in blind trust of her peers. All through OT the emphasis is obtaining wisdom through grace. Wisdom is a gift. If a tool is limited then we can expect it to serve us partially. So it is with limited human reasoning. It can only serve us to a point. The rest is obtained through divine reasoning.

Sirach,Wisdom,Psalms,etc recommends seeking wisdom over knowledge.

St. Augustine’s final conclusion at the end of decades of learning through the best philosophers is that we need to believe(faith) first then we will understand(grant).
Click to expand...
I agree that wisdom is a gift. But the gift is not given all at once, and the gift involves work to acquire more and more wisdom. I guess I would classify “understanding” as a subset of wisdom. Understanding can be enhanced by philosophy, but the other aspect of wisdom (right action) cannot.

I don’t know much about St. Bernadette, but if she said that wisdom was found in the blind trust of her peers, she was definitely not wise.

I am not making the claim that understanding leads to virtue; this is untrue. But you need look no further than John Chapter 1 to see that philosophy gives us the language to talk about things that are true. This language gives us the ability to recognize errors. Discerning the foolishness behind the cult of subjectivism in modern culture is one such error, and even mainstream philosophers have continually pointed this out (although the rest of the academic world isn’t listening). If you didn’t have philosophy, you could see this error, but you couldn’t explain it to a nonbeliever.
 
Detales said:
Sorry, DHume, in my understanding Jtruej had it right: Being.

Itinerant 1, I find your reply to prayerchanges quite excellent. The part about philosophia perrenis in particular fascinates me. But I don’t exactly agree with what I find in the Catholic encyclopedia about it, and am wondering about your take on it. This especially makes me curious exactly because of your elevation of Augustin. I have a particular take on his last revalation that he took as cause to stop writing and make his famous comment about that. I also am quite sure that Aquinas has some superb non-Catholic andtherefor uselessly maligned company.

At any rate, I found your post refreshing and more accurate by my lights than many on here.

I might also wonder here what Charlie’s take is on “knowing” God relative to that same famous statement by Aquainas. I’m betting it is rather more exo than eso -teric. But we shall see.
Click to expand...
Since you have read about the *philosophia perennis *perhaps you can bring up specific points in which you disagree or have questions about. We could go over those particular points. In any case I will make a second post of an article about the philosophia perennis for a point of reference.

Regarding St. Thomas’s vision in which he learned that all he was written was “as straw” I can only wonder why certain people like to make reference to that. Some folks appear to have a prejudice against the intellectual life, perhaps because they are too intellectually lazy to apply themselves to that learning which requires great effort, i.e. the works of St. Thomas.

The works of St. Thomas are miraculous, but no matter how much knowledge we achieve in this life, it is miniscule compared to what there is to be learned. St. Thomas did stop writing. But then again a day will come when each of us will stop writing. In that respect, do we say that everything we wrote is worthless? Hopefully not. Our writings would be wiser and more logical if we were more learned in the philosophia perennis. I hope no one is so self-centered and egotistical to think that anything they write, including posts CAF, is more valuable than what St. Thomas wrote. Too often we are lovers our own opinions, and inordinately so.

Here is an excerpt from Pope Pius XI on St. Thomas:
  1. "Such a combination of doctrine and piety, of erudition and virtue, of truth and charity, is to be found in an eminent degree in the angelic Doctor and it is not without reason that he has been given the sun for a device; for he both brings the light of learning into the minds of men and fires their hearts and wills with the virtues. God, the Source of all sanctity and wisdom would, therefore, seem to have desired to show in the case of Thomas how each of these qualities assists the other, how the practice of the virtues disposes to the contemplation of truth, and the profound consideration of truth in turn gives luster and perfection to the virtues. For the man of pure and upright life, whose passions are controlled by virtue, is delivered as it were of a heavy burden and can much more easily raise his mind to heavenly things and penetrate more profoundly into the secrets of God, according to the maxim of Thomas himself: “Life comes before learning: for life leads to the knowledge of truth” (Comment. in Matth., v); and if such a man devotes himself to the investigation of the supernatural, he will find a powerful incentive in such a pursuit to lead a perfect life; for the learning of such sublime things, the beauty of which is a ravishing ecstasy, so far from being a solitary or sterile occupation, must be said to be on the contrary most practical.
(from Studiorum Ducem)

To read the entire encyclical: Studiorum Ducem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top