FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why do you think philosophy is so unpopular here?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(05-08-2010, 05:30 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2010, 05:18 PM)Jesse Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2010, 05:12 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]Oh - and just to reaffirm what I said in my previous comment - the concept of dog that you have has been learnt by you from your sense experience - it has not come from a magical "other place" as Platonists would have you believe.

It is the fact that all knowledge comes from the senses that we get our first (and most important) concept: being.  In other words "I exist, therefore I don't NOT exist" - the principle of non-contradiction upon which all reality stands.

Just stating that empiricism is fact doesn't prove it so ;)

The peripatetic axiom is self-evident (hence being called an axiom).  One cannot prove a self-evident proposition.

Those who believe it is self-evident call it an axiom.  Others do not except out of politeness.
(05-08-2010, 05:12 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2010, 09:57 PM)MaterLaeta Wrote: [ -> ]I have absolutely no background in philosophy and have a hard time reading some of it.  There is no way I would post a comment on it.

Ignoring your use of paralipsis I will just say that if you have trouble reading philosophy, it is because you are not starting at the very beginning. If you were to take a course in Formal Logic you would build up from there.  Until you have done that, you should not bother at all with theology, metaphysics,


Hey take a look at this guy....this is exactly what I was talking about (all of it)......LOL


(05-08-2010, 05:27 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]Aquinas' use of the axiom allows for infused knowledge from God and from the deriving of further knowledge from that which was already sensed (or infused in a miraculous way) by the use of reason.  

Yes, he had to make an exception to the rule so the rule didn't fall apart.  That is a common requirement in philosophical systems.

Quote:There are so many errors in platonism and neo-platonism that I can't understand what a traditional Catholic would embrace that over the sound doctrines of St Thomas.  Anything which has merit in the work of Plato was absorbed by the Schoolmen into the Aristotelean system anyway - what is left is chaff.  Going back to Plato was a big problem (and remains so) for the Jesuits and it is tantamount to throwing out the Vulgate and starting over with ancient and disparate Biblical manuscripts.

Well, for one thing, St. Thomas was a Platonist after a sense.  Like Aristotle and others, he did not throw out the whole of the system because he found problems with it within his own system.  He subscribed to the Via Negativa of Pseudo-Dionysius for example to fill in gaps in his system.

What we are finding out is that the Aristotelean system is getting thrown out because it, too, is full of errors.  It seems to me that neither system is complete and we need to backtrack and find out where the errors are exactly.
(05-08-2010, 05:33 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2010, 05:12 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2010, 09:57 PM)MaterLaeta Wrote: [ -> ]I have absolutely no background in philosophy and have a hard time reading some of it.  There is no way I would post a comment on it.

Ignoring your use of paralipsis I will just say that if you have trouble reading philosophy, it is because you are not starting at the very beginning. If you were to take a course in Formal Logic you would build up from there.  Until you have done that, you should not bother at all with theology, metaphysics,


Hey take a look at this guy....this is exactly what I was talking about (all of it)......LOL

This is what happens when the Socratic approach is thrown out the window.  Philosophy loses all art and instead becomes solely a science, something that is far beneath its calling.  Philosophy is supposed to be above all arts and sciences and starts with a simple proposition: wonder.

Instead we get modern philosophers (who are really engaging in linguistic sophistry rather than philosophy) and empiricists who believe that nothing that can be weighed, measured, etc. really exists.

It's good to have a basis to understand philosophical discussion using convenient terms and lingo, but philosophy is not limited by that.
(05-08-2010, 05:12 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]If you were to take a course in Formal Logic you would build up from there.  Until you have done that, you should not bother at all with theology, metaphysics, etc.  Logic is the essential foundation of knowledge - without it you can't deduce whether what you are reading is true or not.  

OK. I have done a course in Formal Logic.  What is the next step?  I just randomly took 3 philosophy courses that I needed as degree requirements and they don't fit together. (As well as the logic course, I did an survey of existentialism and an intro to Aquinas.)  I really want a good foundation in philosophy because I want to be able to do theology properly. 
(05-08-2010, 06:03 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2010, 05:12 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]If you were to take a course in Formal Logic you would build up from there.  Until you have done that, you should not bother at all with theology, metaphysics, etc.  Logic is the essential foundation of knowledge - without it you can't deduce whether what you are reading is true or not.  

OK. I have done a course in Formal Logic.  What is the next step?  I just randomly took 3 philosophy courses that I needed as degree requirements and they don't fit together. (As well as the logic course, I did an survey of existentialism and an intro to Aquinas.)  I really want a good foundation in philosophy because I want to be able to do theology properly.   

If theology is your goal, I suggest you study Aquinas in-depth and go from there.  Other philosophical systems contain heretical and unCatholic elements in them.  For Catholic philosophy, it is best to start with Aquinas.

Catholic philosophy is bound by what is Divinely revealed and what the Church teaches to be the truth.  If the philosophical system contradicts that (e.g., Plato and pre-existence of souls), that element is to be rejected and the underlying error sought.  Aquinas has no contradictions and forms a good basis for Catholic philosophical thought.  Besides that, the Popes pre-V2 demanded it be taught in all seminaries, so it makes sense to follow good advice.

Once you have that, or at least an understanding of what makes certain philosophical concepts Catholic or unCatholic, you can look at other philosophical systems that have errors in them but are not inherently contrary to the Church and have been used within Catholic theology.  I suggest Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Aristoteleanism, and Augustinianism depending on what you like.  Most modern philosophy is crap.

ETA: this is an interesting read:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm
(05-08-2010, 06:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]ETA: this is an interesting read:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm

Thanks for this.  I learn best when I have a sense of the big picture and then fill in details.  That is just the sort of overview that I need.

Any ideas about how to study Aquinas?  As I said, I've done an intro course (we used Kreeft's Summa of the Summa).  I tried just starting at the beginning of a translation of the Summa and reading, but I bogged down.
(05-08-2010, 04:54 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2010, 12:39 PM)Zakhur Wrote: [ -> ]Or maybe most people just think Philosophy is boring.  And I guess they're right if by Philosophy it is meant "an attempt to contradict common sense with assertions like 'nothing moves.' "

Yes, it contradicts common sense in the case where common sense is perception based on the senses.  But that is not necessarily the "really real" as Plato attests to.  ;D

:fish:
It's not just philosophy. I'm often saddened to see threads about apologetics and theology only getting 5 or 6 comments and threads bitching about the NO or certain bishops racking up a couple of pages.
(05-08-2010, 05:31 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2010, 05:12 PM)JamieF Wrote: [ -> ]Oh - and just to reaffirm what I said in my previous comment - the concept of dog that you have has been learnt by you from your sense experience - it has not come from a magical "other place" as Platonists would have you believe.
You're mischaracterizing what the Platonists want people to believe.  A dog is not a simple form.  A triangle might be.  A Platonist, especially a Neo-Platonist, might argue we know a dog because we get simple forms from the magical "other place" and combine them to construe a notion of a dog.  A dog is derivative of forms.
That is an important clarification.  Many people think that, in Plato's Theory of the Forms, there is a form for every material object one can distinguish and identify.  But Plato, one, did not believe material objects substantially existed (at least not in the radical way that Forms exist), and two, that what we sense when we sense a material object is a thing that acquired its form from the Forms (shape, color, and so forth).  The Forms tend to be highly general categories.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7