Another random question
#11
If you open Cardinal Merciers book and read it well, it will change your life.  If you master it, it will change the lives of others around you.
Reply
#12
(10-18-2011, 11:41 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 10:30 AM)Jakey31 Wrote: I had another discussion about taking "the good" from bad philosophy. For example, Rene Descartes is there any good in his philosophy that i can take and add to my own and call it catholic? Can i take any part of philosophy that the church is against and combine certain part of that bad philosophy to my own. I argue you can't because you run into some sort of contradiction. thoughts comments anyone 

Don't bother with modern stuff.  Stick with Scholasticism.  Modern philosophies outside of the scholaticism and neo scholasticism are essentially protestant, atheist, or theosophical philosophies, and while there may be some minor little nuggets of something that is not bad, they are all soaked in BS, and if you nev...its a waste of time.  Just don't bother.

Get the TAN reprint of Sullivan, and if you are going beyond that, then ask for other book recommendations, it just depends on your skills or where you are at, and the level of time you can put into it.  I tell you what, Cardinal Mercier's 2 vol. is readable, and good, they just delve a little into the "critical question" more than a staunch thomist would care to, but, it could be a prudent indulgence.

Desire Mercier - Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy - English Translation.
Thank you for the sugestion. I would add it to my list of things to read
Reply
#13
vol 1 or vol 2 or both?
Reply
#14
(10-18-2011, 11:41 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 10:30 AM)Jakey31 Wrote: I had another discussion about taking "the good" from bad philosophy. For example, Rene Descartes is there any good in his philosophy that i can take and add to my own and call it catholic? Can i take any part of philosophy that the church is against and combine certain part of that bad philosophy to my own. I argue you can't because you run into some sort of contradiction. thoughts comments anyone 

Don't bother with modern stuff.  Stick with Scholasticism.  Modern philosophies outside of the scholaticism and neo scholasticism are essentially protestant, atheist, or theosophical philosophies, and while there may be some minor little nuggets of something that is not bad, they are all soaked in BS, and if you nev...its a waste of time.  Just don't bother.

Get the TAN reprint of Sullivan, and if you are going beyond that, then ask for other book recommendations, it just depends on your skills or where you are at, and the level of time you can put into it.  I tell you what, Cardinal Mercier's 2 vol. is readable, and good, they just delve a little into the "critical question" more than a staunch thomist would care to, but, it could be a prudent indulgence.

Desire Mercier - Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy - English Translation.

What would you say to those who argue that neo-scholasticism was contaminated with rationalism and other Enlightenment ideas?

For example, Etienne Gilson wrote:
Quote:People conjure up a Thomism after the manner of the Schools, a sort of dull rationalism which panders to the kind of deism that most of them, deep down, really prefer to teach.

and later described certain strains fo scholasticism as a "brew of watered-down philosophica aristotelico thomistica concocted to give off a vague deism fit only for the use of right-thinking candidates for high school diplomas and Arts degrees."
Reply
#15
I would call it specious rhetorical baloney from people who probably couldn't hang with the doctrines.  There were some wierd ones who called themselves neo-thomists or scholastics, but if they veered from Thomas, they were only Thomists in name.

And this coming from Gilson?  Ah, maybe his introduction is okay, but I don't care really what he says.  He went along with v2 just like the rest of them, and thus, loses my respect and trust at least, and my calling him a lover of wisdom.
Reply
#16
And prove it...I want names and doctrines.  I want the evidence, I would say.
Reply
#17
It was spurred on by the Popes!  Leo, Pius x, xi, Benedict xv in the code, directives to religious orders, I mean, it is ordered to be taught in seminaries in the Code.  I don't care Gilson says, or anyone on this earth or an angel from Heaven.  The Popes have spoken.  Plus, I have tasted the doctrines and they are sweet.  I am confirmed in it, no question no contest.
Reply
#18
(10-18-2011, 11:41 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 10:30 AM)Jakey31 Wrote: I had another discussion about taking "the good" from bad philosophy. For example, Rene Descartes is there any good in his philosophy that i can take and add to my own and call it catholic? Can i take any part of philosophy that the church is against and combine certain part of that bad philosophy to my own. I argue you can't because you run into some sort of contradiction. thoughts comments anyone 

Don't bother with modern stuff.  Stick with Scholasticism.  Modern philosophies outside of the scholaticism and neo scholasticism are essentially protestant, atheist, or theosophical philosophies, and while there may be some minor little nuggets of something that is not bad, they are all soaked in BS, and if you nev...its a waste of time.  Just don't bother.

Get the TAN reprint of Sullivan, and if you are going beyond that, then ask for other book recommendations, it just depends on your skills or where you are at, and the level of time you can put into it.  I tell you what, Cardinal Mercier's 2 vol. is readable, and good, they just delve a little into the "critical question" more than a staunch thomist would care to, but, it could be a prudent indulgence.

Desire Mercier - Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy - English Translation.
Do you recommend vol.1 or vol.2 or both
Reply
#19
(10-19-2011, 09:47 PM)Jakey31 Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 11:41 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 10:30 AM)Jakey31 Wrote: I had another discussion about taking "the good" from bad philosophy. For example, Rene Descartes is there any good in his philosophy that i can take and add to my own and call it catholic? Can i take any part of philosophy that the church is against and combine certain part of that bad philosophy to my own. I argue you can't because you run into some sort of contradiction. thoughts comments anyone 

Don't bother with modern stuff.  Stick with Scholasticism.  Modern philosophies outside of the scholaticism and neo scholasticism are essentially protestant, atheist, or theosophical philosophies, and while there may be some minor little nuggets of something that is not bad, they are all soaked in BS, and if you nev...its a waste of time.  Just don't bother.

Get the TAN reprint of Sullivan, and if you are going beyond that, then ask for other book recommendations, it just depends on your skills or where you are at, and the level of time you can put into it.  I tell you what, Cardinal Mercier's 2 vol. is readable, and good, they just delve a little into the "critical question" more than a staunch thomist would care to, but, it could be a prudent indulgence.

Desire Mercier - Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy - English Translation.
Do you recommend vol.1 or vol.2 or both

Get both, Jakey.  Furthermore, if you have the money, I would also hunt down Msgr. Paul J. Glenn's series of philosophy books: Introduction to Philosophy, History of Philosophy, Dialectics, Logic, Criteriology, Ontology, Psychology, Theodicy, Ethics and Apologetics.  I don't personally have his "Sociology," but I'm sure that's also pretty good.  His series teaches the perennial philosophy, which is Scholasticism -- and has been greatly approved by the Church (by dozens of Pontiffs).  I love the manner in which he covers the material, as it makes for a logical and orderly journey; it's also more for beginners than is Cardinal Mercier's work.  Acquiring the latter's two volumes may prove both easier and cheaper than obtaining all of Glenn's books.  Good luck and God bless!

P.S. - I highly recommend that you follow jordanawef's advice, because so much of modern philosophy is based upon false principles, which in turn lead to false conclusions.
Reply
#20
(10-20-2011, 03:44 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-19-2011, 09:47 PM)Jakey31 Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 11:41 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(10-18-2011, 10:30 AM)Jakey31 Wrote: I had another discussion about taking "the good" from bad philosophy. For example, Rene Descartes is there any good in his philosophy that i can take and add to my own and call it catholic? Can i take any part of philosophy that the church is against and combine certain part of that bad philosophy to my own. I argue you can't because you run into some sort of contradiction. thoughts comments anyone 

Don't bother with modern stuff.  Stick with Scholasticism.  Modern philosophies outside of the scholaticism and neo scholasticism are essentially protestant, atheist, or theosophical philosophies, and while there may be some minor little nuggets of something that is not bad, they are all soaked in BS, and if you nev...its a waste of time.  Just don't bother.

Get the TAN reprint of Sullivan, and if you are going beyond that, then ask for other book recommendations, it just depends on your skills or where you are at, and the level of time you can put into it.  I tell you what, Cardinal Mercier's 2 vol. is readable, and good, they just delve a little into the "critical question" more than a staunch thomist would care to, but, it could be a prudent indulgence.

Desire Mercier - Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy - English Translation.
Do you recommend vol.1 or vol.2 or both

Get both, Jakey.  Furthermore, if you have the money, I would also hunt down Msgr. Paul J. Glenn's series of philosophy books: Introduction to Philosophy, History of Philosophy, Dialectics, Logic, Criteriology, Ontology, Psychology, Theodicy, Ethics and Apologetics.  I don't personally have his "Sociology," but I'm sure that's also pretty good.  His series teaches the perennial philosophy, which is Scholasticism -- and has been greatly approved by the Church (by dozens of Pontiffs).  I love the manner in which he covers the material, as it makes for a logical and orderly journey; it's also more for beginners than is Cardinal Mercier's work.  Acquiring the latter's two volumes may prove both easier and cheaper than obtaining all of Glenn's books.  Good luck and God bless!

P.S. - I highly recommend that you follow jordanawef's advice, because so much of modern philosophy is based upon false principles, which in turn lead to false conclusions.
Thank you for the recommendations, always can get more books. also i beg to ask the questions "Can we take anything that is made from Modern/Post-Modern philosophy or any thing inspired from it.  I say no we can't because God didn't will it and since HE didn't will it, then it wont work.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)