Why discuss Philosophy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter prayerchanges
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In any case I will make a second post of an article about the philosophia perennis for a point of reference.
VII. Is Progress in Philosophy Indefinite, or Is There a Philosophia Perennis?

"Considering the historic succession of systems and the evolution of doctrines from the remotest ages of India down to our own times, and standing face to face with the progress achieved by contemporary scientific philosophy, must we not infer the indefinite progress of philosophic thought? Many have allowed themselves to be led away by this ideal dream. Historic Idealism (Karl Marx) regards philosophy as a product fatally engendered by pre-existing causes in our physical and social environment. Auguste Comte’s “law of the three states”, Herbert Spencer’s evolutionism Hegel’s “indefinite becoming of the soul”, sweep philosophy along in an ascending current toward an ideal perfection, the realization of which no one can foresee. For all these thinkers, philosophy is variable and relative: therein lies their serious error. Indefinite progress, condemned by history in many fields, is untenable in the history of philosophy. Such a notion is evidently refuted by the appearance of thinkers like Aristotle and Plato three centuries before Christ, for these men, who for ages have dominated, and still dominate, human thought, would be anachronisms, since they would be inferior to the thinkers of our own time. And no one would venture to assert this. History shows, indeed, that there are adaptations of a synthesis to its environment, and that every age has its own aspirations and its special way of looking at problems and their solutions; but it also presents unmistakable evidence of incessant new beginnings, of rhythmic oscillations from one pole of thought to the other. If Kant found an original formula of Subjectivism and the reine Innerlichkeit, it would be a mistake to think that Kant had no intellectual ancestors: he had them in the earliest historic ages of philosophy: M. Deussen has found in the Vedic hymn of the Upanishads the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon, and writes, on the theory of Mâyâ, “Kants Grunddogma, so alt wie die Philosophie” (“Die Philos. des Upanishad’s”, Leipzig, 1899, p. 204).

“It is false to say that all truth is relative to a given time and latitude, and that philosophy is the product of economic conditions in a ceaseless course of evolution, as historical Materialism holds. Side by side with these things, which are subject to change and belong to one particular condition of the life of mankind, there is a soul of truth circulating in every system, a mere fragment of that complete and unchangeable truth which haunts the human mind in its most disinterested investigations. Amid the oscillations of historic systems there is room for a philosophia perennis – as it were a purest atmosphere of truth, enveloping the ages, its clearness somehow felt in spite of cloud and mist. “The truth Pythagoras sought after, and Plato, and Aristotle, is the same that Augustine and Aquinas pursued. So far as it is developed in history, truth is the daughter of time; so far as it bears within itself a content independent of time, and therefore of history, it is the daughter of eternity” [Willmann, “Gesch. d Idealismus”, II (Brunswick, 1896), 55O; cf. Commer “Die immerwahrende Philosophie” (Vienna, 1899)]. This does not mean that essential and permanent verities do not adapt themselves to the intellectual life of each epoch. Absolute immobility in philosophy, no less than absolute relativity, is contrary to nature and to history. It leads to decadence and death. It is in this sense that we must interpret the adage: Vita in motu.”

From Philosophy at the Jacques Maritain Center
 
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?
Philosophy is important to understand how you know what you know is real or not. The study of epistemology and presuppositions are vital in apologetics.
 
Let’s get back to the original question:

*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? *

Is philosophy necessary to being steadfast in our faith?

No. Philosophy has corrupted as many minds as it has improved. Look at all the Catholics who go to college Catholic and come out atheist or agnostic. For some it will take a lifetime to unlearn the foolishness done by so-called “wisdom-loving.” The scriptures are full of caution against the worldly philosophers.

On the other hand, philosophy, rightly used, can be an antidote to bad philosophy. I think of all the many brilliant minds who have been converted from atheism to Christianity largely because they began to read the Christian philosophers. Maritain and Chesterton read Aquinas and mastered them. C.S. Lewis, by his own account, was heavily influenced by Chesterton to turn to Christ. I had the same experience. Chesterton was the greatest philosopher of the last hundred years, largely because of the enormous influence he wielded (and still wields).

According to Paul:

“If I should speak with the tongues of men and Angels, but have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing.”

Philosophy is fine for the philosophical of mind, and is a beautful flowering of grace when its mark is the truth and the furtherance of truth in humility. But it is not a necessary aid to our salvation. Charity is by far the greater grace, and it is the single grace that it is absolutely necessary we embrace.
 
itinerant

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.

:newidea: Could it be because Thomas himself liked to mention it?

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.

I’ve known many such people as you talk about. However, in the case of Aquinas I think that most of the moderns, especially those outside the Church, avoid him because they see him as no longer relevant. He is also rather a large morsel to chew on, so you have to commit a good deal of your life to be truly nourished by him. And then, of course, Aquinas almost warns us off with that famous remark about straw. The so-called Dumb Ox needed more than straw to nourish him. Maybe we all do?
 
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.” I’m sure that youare right: some folks do have a prejudice against the intellectual life, as you clearly do not. An yet I would wonder if that statment of St.Thomas could not be a departure point for some significant inquiry as to the nature of his new found insight. For my part, that is the directon I would go with it. My question would be along the lines, though, not of how his later statements fits his writings, but what is the transcendent point that he must have reached in order to be able to say that. I contend that such a point is not restricted to a strictly Catholic interpretation, but that it transcends exoteric Catholicism and enters a new realm of consideration.

That would be the realm of the Perennial Philosophy on the grounds on which I am aquainted with it, and which I sense the Church misinterprets in significance. This is so especially relative to the identity statements attributed to Jesus, a topic I’ve often mentioned in these fora.

I completely agree with this stance as put forth in your second post: “For all these thinkers, philosophy is variable and relative: therein lies their serious error.]” Those thinkers attempted to proceed from the objective to the Unitary, postulating, it would seem, that the ultimate was an assembly of parts, built from below as was the tower of Babel. Not possible. I also agree with this from Willmann: “*“The truth Pythagoras sought after, and Plato, and Aristotle, is the same that Augustine and Aquinas pursued. So far as it is developed in history, truth is the daughter of time; so far as it bears within itself a content independent of time, and therefore of history, it is the daughter of eternity” *”

I am only at odds with the Church’s understanding of the premise its idea of eternity is built on, that premise being essentially dualistic in nature, and not reflective of Reality. I do not wish to enter a debate about that on here, despite my great respect for your obvious intellectual accomplishment. I will only ask if you might be interested in some source material that might better explicate, in scholarly terms, what my contention is. If you are amenable to that and wish afer such consderation to continue a conversation, I might be happy to do that.
 
I am only at odds with the Church’s understanding of the premise its idea of eternity is built on, that premise being essentially dualistic in nature, and not reflective of Reality. I do not wish to enter a debate about that on here, despite my great respect for your obvious intellectual accomplishment. I will only ask if you might be interested in some source material that might better explicate, in scholarly terms, what my contention is. If you are amenable to that and wish afer such consderation to continue a conversation, I might be happy to do that.
Normally, I open to studying alternative viewpoints, which is the only real way to learn, but my current reading list is already beyond my limited abilities. In fact, I will be disappearing from this forum for a time because a research project is calling me.

In regard to the nature of reality, the Christian philosophy of Thomas Aquinas maintains a moderate dualism. This view I hold to as the best answer, one that is in accordance with the common experiences of mankind and Revelation.

Peace, bro
 
Dear 1,

I wish you the best in your studies. May they be uncommon in their great success.

BD
 
You discuss philosophy with topics that people might think are important.
 
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?

I agree with you - but OTOH…​

The trouble is, that any position people take, has some kind of philosophical POV at least implied by it. Even if the position taken is an anti-philosophical one 🙂

The ideas that others live by are fascinating in themselves, & as parts of the history of human attempts to make sense of the world & the universe. Appreciation of this history gives understanding of the present - so it has great practical importance too.
 
I just wanted to see why you all sought philosophical enlightenment, haha, thanks for the responses. Also, it has helped quite a lot to see the other threads on this forum and hope to one day take those to friends and family who question faith.

Josh
 
That is wonderful. Encouraging folks to question is an admirable pusuit. Many of the answers on here will surely stimulate them in that direction. Good work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top