Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 23, 2013, 10:07:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
 
Author Topic: Philosophy without Revelation  (Read 2607 times)
kjvail
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Personality type: INTJ / melancholic
Posts: 3,527


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2009, 07:37:PM »

His argument is rooted in his notion of entelechy. What's the point of life? This can only be understood by grasping his "eternal return". If time is infinite and matter is not then everything repeats itself eventually. So live as if you had to relive the same life over and over for all eternity.
Yes, but I don't think I'd go that route. Nihilism is what I think I'd "follow" although surely not deliberately. Who says "I think I'll be a nihilist."? Ewige Wiederkunft is a sand castle on a beach. Humanists are the worst though.

Without God, we are animals who have become self aware, trapped in a futile existance.

Well as I've said before, I think Buddhism is pure reason run mad. Nietzsche ignores the modern epistemological problem. He doesn't deal with noumena at all, for him its unimportant. But that's a HUGE and unjustified assumption. He must assume some sort of analogical or univocal relationship of phenomena and noumena but what if there isn't?
What if what we perceive is NOT what is, what if its completely equivocal? Without a creator who creates both man and the world, there is no reason why it shouldn't be. Only the fact that God creates the world to be known guarantees that what is perceived bears some relationship to what is.
Our senses are limited and we cannot perceive anything without the instrument of perception, the human mind. There's no external verification. Human beings are always limited to talking about what human minds can perceive.

That's the Buddhist approach. What is is an illusion, a production of perception alone. They do have, of course, the notion of a transcendent perception which can be acquired but most never do and simply continue to accept what they perceive as what is. This is ignorance which leads to desire and being trapped in samsaraic existence (very similar to Nietzsche's eternal return but totally negative whereas for Nietzsche the world is all there is).
Read the 1st century Buddhist philosopher Narajuna and some of the commentaries on his work. He's occupies a position in Buddhist thought similiar to St. Augustine in Christian thought, i.e. nearly every Buddhist tradition claims him as their root. He didn't write nearly as much, in fact we have very little but it's troubling stuff. The logic is ruthless. He was the philosopher of "sunyata" (emptiness, voidness, the English translations don't capture what is the meaning really. I think the best understanding of what he is saying could be summed up in the word "interdependence")

Mulamadhyamakakarika (most important work, "Fundamental Stanzas of the Middle Way in Sk.) here:

http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/other.pubs/nagarjuna/

So yeah, I think if there was no revelation from God, I've have to go with Buddhism.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 07:46:PM by kjvail » Logged

Pax Tecum,
Kevin V.

"I am a converted pagan living among apostate puritans"
- C.S. Lewis

"In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing,
Rosarium
Guest
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2009, 07:50:PM »


So yeah, I think if there was no revelation from God, I've have to go with Buddhism.


This is interesting. That couldn't be more different than me, yet, the same theoretical situation (although, I think you were a Buddhist  before. I was never really a nihilist).

I wonder what this says about us and the differences in how God reveals Himself to us.
Logged
iggyting
Member

Posts: 243


« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2009, 11:06:PM »

In the encyclical, Fides Et Ratio, JP II exhorts Catholic thinkers to return to Thomism and Revelations as a sure guide to a Christian philosophy. He also stresses the need to do philosophy per se in order to better understand our Faith. Reason can only go that far where Faith goes beyond. Seen in this light, modern philosophies, starting from Descartes and down the ages, can be seen as doing a service to the Christian Faith. Many ot these modern philosophers had have Christian beginnings. Neitzsche, Hedeigger and Wittgenstein are good examples.Their search for God (unknowingly or otherwise) through pure reason alone led them to an idolatry of knowledge - a worship of their own as it turned out. Not given the faith or the 'wisdom', an atheistic outlook and a natural nihilism (in a meaningless void) follow. True to their belief and value system, many of their lives ended in tragedy or scandal. As for their positive contributions to the Christain Faith, their conclusions lead to further affirmation of the revealed truths and what being human means. 
Logged

none
Rosarium
Guest
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2009, 11:13:PM »

In the encyclical, Fides Et Ratio, JP II exhorts Catholic thinkers to return to Thomism and Revelations as a sure guide to a Christian philosophy. He also stresses the need to do philosophy per se in order to better understand our Faith. Reason can only go that far where Faith goes beyond. Seen in this light, modern philosophies, starting from Descartes and down the ages, can be seen as doing a service to the Christian Faith. Many ot these modern philosophers had have Christian beginnings. Neitzsche, Hedeigger and Wittgenstein are good examples.Their search for God (unknowingly or otherwise) through pure reason alone led them to an idolatry of knowledge - a worship of their own as it turned out. Not given the faith or the 'wisdom', an atheistic outlook and a natural nihilism (in a meaningless void) follow. True to their belief and value system, many of their lives ended in tragedy or scandal. As for their positive contributions to the Christain Faith, their conclusions lead to further affirmation of the revealed truths and what being human means. 

Exactly, but this is assuming no access to revelations and no grace from God to learn the truth. Those are not able to reach the Church surely get a little guidance from God, if only as God cares for the birds and beasts. And in judgement, such people are judged with this in mind.
Logged
Telemaque
Member

Posts: 1,155


« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2009, 11:19:PM »

Catholicism teaches that there is a natural morality in the heart of man, so even pagans who have never heard of the Faith are capable of knowing good and evil.

It is not enough to save them from sin, but it is enough to keep them from adopting an inhuman and nihilistic concept of morality.


Logged



JonW
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago, IL
Personality type: Melly
Posts: 445



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2009, 01:27:AM »

Quote from: kjvail
The other is to acknowledge that our understanding, even our reasoning process itself, is conditioned by the cultural narrative. Language is a limiting factor and conditions thought. This doesn't mean that all truth claims are equally valid, one can still be true and the rest false, but what it does mean that there is no human reasoning that "proves" its own first principles (see Godel's theorem).

Presumably you're talking about Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.  These were results in formalized arithmetic and have absolutely nothing to do with epistemology, or any part of philosophy, theology, etc.  This does not stop philosophers from using them to ill-effect.  After all, they do need to publish. 

Additionally, I don't think anyone has succeeded in showing that there is no universal reason.  Frankly, there so obviously IS universal human reason that I think the burden of proof is squarely with the one denying it.  Pointing out that what we might reason about varies from culture to culture and that particular logical results were discovered (if you like) in certain cultural/historical circumstances does nothing to show that human reason is thereby even partly culturally conditioned.   

If not for Revelation, I would be where I was before my conversion: a materialist atheist.  I would consider both Buddhism and Nietzsche as equally nonsensical (if somewhat amusing) and, basically, beside the point.  I would look to science, logic, and good philosophy for all my intellectual pursuits. 

An interesting question might be how one would handle a mystical experience of Christ without Revelation.  Frankly, I'm not sure, but I think it would have something to do with me preaching a sort of Gospel and winding up in a padded cell.  On the other hand, the world wouldn't be what it is without the Revelation we have.   
Logged

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found hard and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton
il_lebbroso
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 105



« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2009, 01:13:AM »


When I confront atheists, I easily accept perspectivism as being the only real way a person can be if they choose not to follow God and find their self delusions to be pitiful. They are so confused. "Well, homosexual behavior is found in many species. It is natural. Thus, it isn't something humans should say is "wrong"." That is their argument. Do they forget or ignore that these same animals routinely kill, rape and do things that they find "immoral"?

I think atheists can be divided into two camps regarding their view of others. The "liberal" or "leftist" ones tend to find morality in the need to live in a community with others, and having to respect others' rights and desires. This would rule out killing, robbing, raping, etc. because these actions would destroy the community and could backfire in the form of revenge.  These atheists eschew harming others in order to have a happier, more comfortable society where everyone takes care of each other and lives in harmony. This ideal is what we see practiced in places like The Netherlands and Portland, Oregon. (Until they run out of money, that is.)

While sadly misguided, these atheists are not as terrifying as the other kind of atheists, the Hitlers, Maos and Stalins, Pol Pots and Kim Il-sungs, who like Nietzche believe only in the principle of "might is right." The horrors of the twentieth century give adequate testimony to what they are capable of.
Logged

Only say the word,
And I shall be healed.
Supercertari
Member

Gender: Male
Personality type: ENFP
Posts: 219



« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2009, 04:53:AM »

Personally I find the question of faith etc. without Revelation fascinating and take as a starting point the First Vatican Council Session 3, Chapter 4. The whole chapter is worth a good read but I pick out particularly the following:

Quote
4. Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connection of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33].

5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

I spent some time specializing in Egyptology and, contrary to the usual canard that Christianity “stole” its “mythology” and festivals from ancient civilizations find that the endeavour of reason to answer one of the most compelling hungers in human nature, that for God, brought so many through applying reason to nature toward some appreciation of the truth. What’s extraordinary is that in the Egyptian mythologies it is not only the stories which have some similarities to the Truth as ultimately revealed in Christ but also their ritual – rituals whose practise was long forgotten until recent discoveries. For example the rites of Osiris at Abydos, well forgotten by the time of Christianity developing its worship, is extraordinarily similar to the Triduum. There is, to me, without doubt a part of our created nature which seeks the Creator and as He is Reason reason is able to approach Him to some degree. It is, of course, completed in the Revelation of Christ. Indeed, in some of my more Balthasarian moments, I imagine the moment in the great theandric drama where God notes how well humanity has progressed toward an understanding of Him that He announces “Well done, now here He is” as Christ enters stage right.

At present I’m studying the theory that homo sapiens sapiens started in Africa and moved from there into the world c.150,000 years ago. The earliest evidence of the “species” outside Africa are found in modern day Israel in the Skhul and Qafzeh caves. These show ritual burial, the ritual use of ochre etc and demonstrate that from the very earliest origins of the species there has been a concern for the spiritual a hunger for the divine. What is equally fascinating is that these two caves are one in Mount Carmel and the other 2km from Nazareth respectively.

If this seems to stray into “evolution” then I would emphasis two things: one we need not be irrational evangelicals whose opposition to evolution is a “scandal”, two we might instead be (in so far as we may be) “undecided” on the whole question while showing that it need not be in opposition to the Genesis revelation. I love what Pius XII wrote on the issue:

Quote
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favourable and those unfavourable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

If, and it’s a huge “if”, homos sapiens sapiens did evolve from some previous species of primate it is entirely reasonable to suggest that this was with God not just as the “watchmaker” but also the “movement.” Was there a moment of “ensouling” of those first two humans who enjoyed walking in paradise with the Creator until the exile of the Fall? Whatever the story all of their descendents have cried ever since “let us back in!” in all their spiritual efforts.

The huge problem today is that “reason” is totally identified with scientific method, scientific knowledge and has exiled itself from the noumenous and spiritual. It’s a denial of human nature which places in the path of reason and discovery declarations of “truth” which, unlike the Truth, permit no further investigation or understanding. The general populace believes that every question has been answered, there’s nothing more to be done, reason has finished its job so it is no longer essential lets forget about what distinguishes us from the rest of creation and become beasts whose raison d’etre is rutting and consuming. It’s an astonishing effort to force “devolution” on humanity, to deny what is different and unique – which for some obscure reason seems to be quite successful. Whether one believes we are 6,000 or 160,000 years old the current era involves contradicting that entire history, subverting ALL the anthropological evidence.

I’ve heard two of the three hungers coupled by suggesting contraception is sexual bulimia, I would use a similar analogy to deal with the third hunger and suggest modern “reason” is spiritual anorexia.
Logged

"deprecans supercertari semel traditæ sanctis fidei."
iggyting
Member

Posts: 243


« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2009, 07:01:AM »

Quote from Lebbroso: " I think atheists can be divided into two camps regarding their view of others. The "liberal" or "leftist" ones tend to find morality in the need to live in a community with others, and having to respect others' rights and desires."

How about a third kind.  Smile So-called Christians whose daily living is practical atheism and Sunday worship, an empty respectable form?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 01:02:AM by iggyting » Logged

none
Scipio_a
No, you're not a trad...you're a BITTER zealot.
Member

Gender: Male
Location: TX
Personality type: balanced
Posts: 9,502



« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2009, 05:30:PM »

Philosophy without revelation...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPs7-5feq-M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPs7-5feq-M</a>

I think this says it all...probably more than she's aware.
Logged

"Scipio Bull Biscuits, a flawlessly indoctrinated feminist male." - paraphrased from voxpop in one of his shining moments!!

"You've become a full adept to your kabbalistic philosemetism ...why not get it over with and fully convert to Judaism. At lest that would be respectable." - Popscile



"[Scipio's] high on mouth and low on brains"  - a brainiac

"...all I can guess is that maybe you're gay and haven't figured it out yet."   Huh?....LOL

"a malicious twerp" - A candylander

"I ain't no freakin' monument to justice!" -Moonstruck

"Check out the big brain on Brad" - Jules
Pages: 1 [2] 3
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC