How YOU Can Become One of God’s Favorites!

[Jacafamala]

I assume you mean something Catholic--Catholic thinking, but specifically what?

[A-Catholic-Catholic]

Hi again Catholic Catholic,

I'm interested in what would be the correct rules for thinking.

Jacafamala

Jacafamala,

Thank you for your question! 

I think it is really wonderful that you want to know this!  ;)  I would hope that this would be true of everyone!

The answer to your question, of necessity, requires a certain amount of technical language, for which I apologize in advance.

By the same token, I will try to familiarize you with only a tiny fraction of the basics.

Therefore, I will try to be as brief and as lucid as possible. 

The rules, or more correctly, the laws, for correct thinking ascertain the Truth of a subject with absolute objective scientific certitude.

As a result, these rules or laws, which are properly used by the intellect (one of the powers of the immortal Soul), or human mind, enable the mind to correctly function with order, ease, and without error (i.e. with absolute scientific certitude), when one masters these said rules or laws.

After a person has done this, the person is then able to expound one's thoughts orderly, clearly, systematically, and logically.

Although I do not have a brief list of these rules or laws, nevertheless, they can be found, usually within their respective explanations, in various sources.

Historically, in the Roman Catholic Church, these laws of correct thinking are to be found in books that are written on what is called the philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy) which, after the 13th Century, came to be known as Scholastic Philosophy, a.k.a. the Philosophy of the Schoolmen, e.g. Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Scholastic Philosophy has moved down through the centuries to our own day, often obscured, often ignored, often, and for long time periods, despised as outmoded by those who knew, and continue today to know, little or nothing of its doctrines,not to mention its very compelling evidence.

Scholastic Philosophy has a number of what are called departments, or if you prefer, branches.

The department or branch of Scholastic Philosophy which has to do with the laws, for correct thinking is called Epistemology.

To be complete, Epistemology is also known as:  1)  Major Logic; 2) Material Logic; and, 3) Criteriology). 

The science of  Epistemology, by whatever name it is called, has to do with the trustworthiness of human knowledge.  Since this is concerned with the mind and its knowing, it is in the Department of Logic. 

Here is where the nature and classification of Truth is to be found.  Here is where Truth and certitude, the various doctrines on certitude, the sources of certitude, plus scientific certitude and its acquisition are investigated and learned.

For the record, some of the other departments or branches of Scholastic Philosophy include: 1) Cosmology;  2)  Psychology; 3) Theodicy/Natural Theology; 4) Ethics/Moral Philosophy.

Anyone who might be interested in reading about Scholastic Philosophy might find the book by Cardinal Mercier to be helpful?  It is called A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy.  Both volumes one and two are available for free in a pdf file format on the following contents page (simply scroll down the page to find them) at:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=CARDINAL%20MERCIER

By the way, this particular source has lots of Roman Catholic Books in its archives - all free, and most in pdf file format.

I have found it interesting how some authors prefer Scholastic Philosophy  to what some might want to call Augustinianism which some Philosophers style neo-Platonism.

This is found to be the case with one well-respected Roman Catholic source which explains why Saint “Thomas Aquinas was a necessary corrective to Augustine. He is less great, less original, and, above all, less animated; but the calm didactics of his intellectualism enable him to castigate Augustine’s exaggerations with rigorous criticism, to impart exactitude and precision to his terms -- in one word, to prepare a dictionary with which the African Doctor may be read without danger” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo, I. His Function as a Doctor of the Church, (4) The character of his genius.)

As you can gather from the above, concerning the laws of correct thinking, it is not just a matter of listing them, but, more importantly, of understanding the mentality in which and by which they are stated, explained, and taught.  In other words, these laws of correct thinking are really basic concepts of the Truth which are proven by scientific certitude.

IF you are looking for something that is reasonably short and simple,  you might find it almost as profitable (maybe even more so ), to review a few basics about fallacies?  Fallacies are those things which are false as opposed to those things which are True.

Personally, I have found that a basic knowledge of fallacies has helped me greatly in the past.  They are, in some respects, much easier for some people (like me  ) to understand than the more complicated laws of correct thinking!

As a courtesy to you, rather than not give you any details at all about any of these things, which would certainly be frustrating to say the least (I know it would be this way for me, anyway  :help:), it seems both wise and prudent to present to you a brief list of at least some of them, even if some of the language tends to be somewhat technical.

But, not to worry,  ;) I am not going to go into any details explaining them.  Rather, you might find the book by Cardinal Mercier doing a much more reasonable job explaining some of them?  There are also other books on this subject by other authors from the early to middle 1900's.

For example:  IF you prefer something about as simple and as easy to read as possible, you might want to contact used book dealers and ask for the book by Right Rev. Msgr. Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D., S.T.D.: “An Introduction to Philosophy” (1930’s or 1940’s edition) and/or “Epistemology”, also by Right Rev. Msgr. Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D., S.T.D. (1930’s or 1940’s edition).

A one, short paragraph, technical explanation of all fallacies in general is found in Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 17, Article 4. The entire Summa Theologica is available for free at:
http://stjamescatholic.org/summa/

Summary of Fallacies

Fallacies can be summarized as follows:

I.   Fallacies arising from language (Fallacies of Diction).

Fallacies of Diction

Aristotle listed six Fallacies of Diction which he called:

1)  Equivocation;
2)  Amphibology;
3)  Composition or Compounding;
4)  Division or Dividing;
5)  Accent;
6) A Figure of Speech.

II.  Fallacies arising from some other source (Extradictional Fallacies).

A.  Purely Logical Fallacies

B.  Semi-logical Fallacies
1.  Fallacy of Accident
2.  Confusion of Absolute & Qualified Statement

C.  Material Fallacies

1.  Begging the Question.
2. Irrelevant Conclusion/Missing the Point/Ignoring the Issue
3.  Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument to the Man/Person)
4.  Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument to the People)
5.  Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument to Ignorance)
6.  Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Argument to Authority)
7.  Argumentum Ad Baculum (Argument to Force)
8.  False Cause
9.  Complexity of Questions/Many Questions

III.  Fallacies of Induction

IV.  Fallacies of Observation
1.  Fallacies of Non-Observation
2.  Fallacies of Mal-Observation
a)  Optical Illusions

V.   Fallacies of Generalization
1.  Illicit Generalization
2.  False Analogy

I hope that the above data has not been too overwhelming?

Likewise, I hope this this information, IF you have not already been familiar with it, will open an exciting new door to ascertaining the Truth of a subject with absolute objective scientific certitude.

So also, I would hope that the data, even though in an outline format, of fallacies will be of a great help to you in the future.  I suspect most people already know what the fallacy of the Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument to the Man/Person) is all about?

Personally, I find it very interesting, but at the same time very disturbing, when I hear all kinds of politicians, especially during political debates on TV, whether for the U.S. Presidency, the U.S. Congress, etc., using psychobabble, as well as fallacies, to try to deceive voters by evading the real issues, evading telling the Truth, or victimizing voters with other deceptive methods of what is only superficial propaganda which sounds good, but is not good and sound!

Congratulations!    

Your patience and fortitude have brought you to the conclusion of what I hope and pray has been an answer which has tried to point you in the correct direction of where to go for more information on this very important subject while, at the same time, trying to familiarize you with just a few of the basics involved.

I wish you well IF you decide to continue to explore this very interesting science!

Personally, in my humble opinion, it is sad that high school students are not given a class which teaches them (suitable for their level of learning capabilities) what the laws of correct thinking are as well as what some of the more frequently used fallacies are.

IF this was done, perhaps there would be more peace in the world, with much fewer arguments, because Truth has really nothing to do with a person's personal opinions about anything, but rather focuses only on the Truth of a subject with absolute objective scientific certitude!  Likewise, maybe politicians would suddenly stop victimizing voters who know when and what fallacies these slick-talking politicians are trying to use to deceive the voters?  Maybe this would force at least some politicians to be totally honest with voters by telling them the Truth, not what the politicians think the voters want to hear?

Thanks so much for taking time from your busy schedule to read this!

God Bless You!

A Catholic Catholic

[A-Catholic-Catholic]

Hi again Catholic Catholic,

I'm interested in what would be the correct rules for thinking.

Jacafamala

Hi Jacafamala! 

When I originally responded to your question, I was explaining that these rules are found in Scholastic Philosophy and suggested several sources of reference.

I had forgotten, at the time,    (mea culpa) that Pope Leo XIII wrote an Encyclical which includes some interesting data on Scholastic Philosophy.

Although there are a number of English translations of this Encyclical on the internet, and in various books, etc., so far I personally have found only one source which actually got rid of most of the endless abbreviations in the important endnotes (which it is assumed everyone today knows what they mean  :help:), by replacing many of these hair-pulling abbreviations with the actual complete words to which these abbreviations refer. 

The place I found that has replaced most of the abbreviations with real words  ;) in the endnotes of this Encyclical is at:  http://www.shrineofsaintjude.net/home-QBox-012-2.html

Pope Leo XIII even gives a brief history of Scholastic Philosophy and explains why it needed to be restored to its rightful place in the Roman Catholic Church!

IF nothing else, at least this Encyclical is a very easy read!

Thanks for reading! 

God Bless You!

A Catholic-Catholic

[Jacafamala]

Oh my gracious Cath Cath, I think I'm in over my head. Well thank you for all that and for taking the time to explain. 

[A-Catholic-Catholic]

Oh my gracious Cath Cath, I think I'm in over my head. Well thank you for all that and for taking the time to explain. 

Hi Jacafamala! 

Thank you for your response.

So sorry to learn you feel this way.  :(

I know, from my own personal experiences, that it can appear to be overwhelming at first.  But remember the longest journey always begins with the first step.

I still think that the academic world would do well to consider teaching High School Seniors (at a level with which they are familiar) at least some basics about what is and what is not Truth.

For example, as the Sacred Scriptures teach:  God is Truth.

This means that because God does not change, and, by Divine nature, is unable to change, the same is true with Truth - it does not  evolve as Pope Saint Pius X teaches against the errors of the Modernists and the New Theology Theologians.

Because of your obvious love of, and interest in, the Truth, here is a very brief summary of a few important points about Truth.

Truth and Certitude

The Nature of Truth

“Truth” is a “relation” existing between two things, the “mind” and something judged by the mind, i.e.,  a judged “reality”.

There is Truth in the judging mind when the judging mind forms a judgment which accurately squares with the reality about which the judgment is made, i.e., when you know things accurately and factually, you have the Truth about them.  Because things are knowable, since they can be rightly judged upon by the mind, there is Truth in them to know.  Hence, Truth is the relation of equality, of squaring-up, of adequation, between the mind and reality.  The opposite of Truth is “falsity”.

Various Doctrines on Certitude

Skepticism.  Skepticism is the doctrine which denies the possibility of achieving certitude.

Qualified Skepticism.  Qualified skepticism which admits that one can attain to knowledge that is PROBABLY true and certain?

Idealism.  Idealism is a kind of blanket-term for many doctrines which in any way minimize reality and tend to turn things into thoughts or mental images, in other words to make reality a kind of dream in our own minds.

Sensism.  Sensism, which is often identified with Positivism and Empiricism, is the doctrine which relies upon the senses, and at the same time, a minimized value of the reasoning mind.

Human Traditionalism.  Human Traditionalism is a theory which asserts the incapacity of individual minds to read Truth with certitude.

Fideism.  Fideism is a doctrine, similar to traditionalism, which declares that the human mind, as individual or in agglomeration, is incapable of knowing Truth with certitude, and asserts that ALL certitude rests upon an original revelation made by God to man, and handed on by HUMAN tradition.

Agnosticism.  Agnosticism limits the field of human knowledge and declares that, for the rest, we must have HUMAN faith. 

Irrationalism.  Irrationalism, commonly called “rationalism”, is the doctrine that the human mind is capable of knowing all reality thoroughly  and that what cannot be so known is simply not existent. 

Dogmatism

If a person eliminates all of the above erroneous “doctrines” about Certitude, what is left?  Dogmatism. 

As a result of the errors (explained by Pope Saint Pius X) of Modernism and its false theory of evolution (something which is all the rage today with the New Theology Theologians!), “dogmatism” appears to have a harsh and unwelcome sound. 

But this is merely an accident of speech or rather of contemporaneous fashion’s abuse of words.  The word “dogmatism” in its ancient Greek meaning of “thinking”.  And a “dogma”, which literally means “a thought”, is here used to mean a self-evident Truth.  Dogmatism is the doctrine which holds that the human mind, recognizing, with certitude, self-evident Truths, can build upon them a body of knowledge that is certainly true.

“Can the human mind achieve certitude?”  Notice, it is not, “Can the human mind achieve ALL certitude.”  We concede the fact of limitation in a nature essentially limited.  But can you have certitude?  Can you attain to true and certain knowledge?  The skeptic says you cannot.  The idealist, the sensist, the agnostic, the traditionalist, the fideist, all say that you can have a sort of broken or incomplete certitude in certain fields.  The dogmatist says: “Yes, the human mind can have certitude wherever it discovers solid evidence for its judgments.”

The doctrine of dogmatism finds the mind capable of squaring with reality, i.e.,  of obtaining logical Truth.  Notice that dogmatism does not merely assert that certitude is obtainable, it does not even rest on assertion that self-evident Truths are known with certitude, dogmatism investigates.  Dogmatism looks for evidence and it accepts evidence.  In those judgments which the mind makes necessarily and spontaneously, dogmatism seeks for evidence and finds it in the judgments themselves.  It finds that, as a fact, the subject and the predicate of such a judgment are identical, and that alien proof is therefore neither needed nor available.

In other judgments, dogmatism looks for evidence in causes, in explanations, in proofs which it weighs and applies by the strict rules of logic.  Dogmatism thinks, it reasons calmly, clearly, consistently, and legitimately.  It requires evidence suited to the nature of the facts in each case, and sufficient to establish these facts if they are really facts.

Dogmatism looks only for that degree of certitude which the nature of the facts indicates as being possible.  But dogmatism does not make blind assertions or affirmations or denials which the mind is required to swallow without question or investigation.  Dogmatism is, both first and last, the doctrine of the possibility of certitude as obtainable by the mind through the presence and power of objective evidence.

So it is that dogmatism recommends itself to the mind as eminently sane because it involves no self-contradiction as opposed doctrines do, for example: evolution. 

It does not rest on blind assumptions, nor does it make any unwarranted limitations or extensions in the field of knowledge.  It attaches no value to mere assertion.  It seeks to come into clear alignment with reality. 

Thus dogmatism stands alone among all theories or doctrines on human knowledge in the fact that it offers a rounded and complete treatment of the Critical Question.  Therefore, dogmatism stands alone in its intrinsic claims for acceptance as the true theory of knowledge.

Certitude

Certitude or certainty is found in the mind’s unhesitant assent to Truth.  It is a judgment which is wholly confident, completely without fear of being wrong.  When a person is in doubt, he “doesn’t know what to say”; in suspicion, a person “inclines to think”; in opinion a person “believes it to be thus”; in certitude, a person KNOWS.  But can’t a person be certain of what is not true?  Yes, but such certitude is called “error”.  This means that “certitude”, strictly used, is reserved for the mind’s unwavering assent to known Truth.

It is manifest that the only knowledge that is worth winning is certain knowledge of Truth.  The human mind naturally wants Truth because the object of the intellect is Truth and so it wants true knowledge and to hold true knowledge with certainty.

Here in one sentence is the whole object of the science of criteriology.  We may sum up that object in three words out of the sentence:  knowledge, Truth, certitude which can be summed up in the one word “certitude” because certitude means “certain knowledge of Truth”.

The Sources of Certitude

Evidence

Evidence is the light of Truth shining into the mind and making it see.  It is the understandable object or thing as clearly known.

Immediate Evidence

Evidence at times is “immediate”, i.e.,  sometimes it requires no thinking out, no medium of reasoning through which it can be made to appear because it appears at once and directly like a blazing light appears at once and directly so that you don’t need any other light with which to seek and to find it.  An immediately evident Truth is called “self”-evident.  Thus it is immediately evident to the mind that “a totality is greater than any of its parts”.  The very meaning of “totality” and “part” necessitates this judgment.

Mediate Evidence

Truth does not always immediately appear.  It must be sought by other light than that which manifestly abides in it.  Thus the knowledge that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is not immediately evident, but must be worked out through the “medium” of reasoning.  Evidence that must thus be worked out is called “mediate” evidence.

Objective Evidence

To be of value, evidence must be “objective”, or, more accurately, “trans-subjective”.  It must not be the mere feeling, or the mere viewpoint, i.e. the mere personal opinion, or the mere taste, of the person, called the subject, who seeks it or is influenced by it.  It must not be subjective. 

“Objective evidence” is the ultimate criterion of Truth, the ultimate basis of certitude.  For it is the Truth “right there looking at you”.  It is reality unfolded before the mind.  It is the light shining from reality into the understanding and making the mind see.

Evidence of the Senses

The channels of knowledge for humans are the senses and the mind which function in such a way as to bring in their findings.  They note and accept “evidence”.  They are sources of Truth and certitude.

Your knowing begins with the senses and the exterior senses.  Although it does not end there, it does necessarily begin there.  Your mind takes the findings of the senses and peers beneath their materiality and their limitations to grasp essences and form ideas, and from ideas to form other ideas, and with ideas to make judgments and reasonings.  But all of this begins with the action of the senses upon this bodily world.

I hope the above has been helpful for you?

Thanks for reading!      

God Bless You!

A Catholic Catholic

[Jacafamala]

I know that simple people have been led onto the heights of sanctity. I'm really not proud of my ignorance, I'm only saying that for a busy mama, there must be a more efficient way than all that.

[A-Catholic-Catholic]

I know that simple people have been led onto the heights of sanctity. I'm really not proud of my ignorance, I'm only saying that for a busy mama, there must be a more efficient way than all that.

Hi Jacafamala,

Thanks for your response! 

First of all, try not to be so hard on yourself.  After all, you have a wonderful vocation in the sight of God and it is by being faithful to your vocation that you help to save your soul and the souls of all of your children and your husband! 

I am reminded of the Father of Saint Therese, the Little Flower.  In a book I had read years ago about Saint Therese, mention was made of how he used to kiss the chest of each of his young children because God was present in each of them by Sanctifying Grace!

I have personally discovered that the good God "talks to me" about different things through other people!  How?  They will usually make some kind of a comment about something, usually having nothing to do with me at all, and it will sometimes answer a question I have had on a certain subject!  Or, in reading a book, sometimes the wind will blow some of the pages to a different page on which I find the answer to a certain problem or situation.  Different things like this.  Perhaps you have had similar things happen in your life?

In this day and age, I think everyone is very busy?  Sun dials and hour glasses just do not fit well into this electronic, instant, digital age.   

I was thinking about Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Patron Saint of Catholic Schools, Colleges, and Universities.

It is my understanding that his primary text-book, so to speak, was the Crucifix!  Why?  Probably because the Crucifix physically shows us the extent of God's love for each of us.  When one meditates on God's tremendous love for each of us as we have before our eyes the horribly beaten body of Christ, one can better know God and return His love for us, because, among other things, God is Love.  But God is also Truth.  In knowing Charity, which is the God of Love, we can also know Truth.

This is my non-technical explanation of why Saint Thomas used the Crucifix.  As a matter of fact, Christ reportedly appeared to him on the Crucifix and said to him:  Bene scripsi Thoma - Thomas you have written well!  This was after Saint Thomas wrote about the Holy Eucharist. Below is a picture of this event from a Dominican holy card.

Perhaps this suggestion will fit in with your daily schedule much better than the other alternative? 

Thanks for reading!

God Bless You! 

A Catholic Catholic

[Jacafamala]

javascript:void(0);Yes, very much so!

[A-Catholic-Catholic]

I have to say that it's never occurred to me to try to become liked better that the next person.  Getting to heaven will make me happy enough.   ;D

The topic actually reminded me of the title of a sermon I saw on a Baptist bulletin (program) from a protestant relative.  It was titled "How to Become Great in the Kingdom of God".   I think we should be worried more about getting there than worrying about what our status will be once we are there.

Hi Curt Jester!

Thanks for your response!

Since I read your response, I have been trying to remember some of the details about Saint Teresa of Avila concerning one time when, shortly after her death, as best my memory can do at this time,     , the Saint appeared to one of her Religious Sisters who had been praying for the happy repose of her soul.

After assuring the Carmelite Nun who had been praying for her that, yes, she was in Heaven, the Nun asked her one, or possibly several questions?

What I do vaguely remember (I read this probably back in about 1960 or so?) is that the Nun asked Saint Teresa, that IF she would have the opportunity to return to this life, what she would do?

Saint Teresa responded that IF such a thing was possible, which it was not, she would like to devoutly recite but one Hail Mary!

Why?  Because just one Hail Mary, recited devoutly, would elevate her just that much higher in Heaven and bring her just that much closer to the Throne of God!  In the process, she would also enjoy an additional degree of great happiness!  All from only one more Hail Mary!

I did happen to find the following from Saint Teresa in some of my notes.  I hope you find it helpful?

“Whoever makes a habit of prayer should think only of doing everything to conform his will to God’s.  Be assured that in this conformity consists the highest perfection we can attain, and those who practice it with the greatest care will be favored by God’s greatest gift and will make the quickest progress in the interior life.  Do not imagine there are other secrets.  All our good consists in this” (Saint Teresa of Avila).

Another Saint puts it this way, perhaps more clearly:

“But before all, in order to become saints, IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE THE DESIRE TO BE SAINTS; we must have the desire AND THE RESOLUTION.  Some are always desiring, but they never begin to put their hands to the work.  `Of these irresolute souls,’ says Saint Teresa, `the devil has no fear.’  On the other hand, the saint said, `God is a friend of generous souls.’  The devil tries to make it appear to us to be pride to think of doing great things for God.  It would indeed be pride in us if we thought of doing them, trusting in our own strength; but it is not pride to resolve to become saints, trusting in God, and saying, I can do all things in Him Who strengtheneth me. (Omnia possum in Eo qui me confortat.  Phil. 4:13.)” (Bishop Saint Alphonsus DeLiguori, THE HOLY EUCHARIST, Novena to the Holy Ghost, Meditation X,  The Means of Loving God and of Becoming a Saint, pp. 494-495; emphasis added.)

In other words, just as an archer must aim the arrow in the bow much higher than the target, in order to hit the target, so also the same is true in the Spiritual Life.

Although not specifically on this subject matter, although it is from Saint Teresa, here is something which has helped me over the years.  Perhaps you might like it also?

Let nothing trouble thee,
Let nothing affright thee,
All things pass away,
God never changes,
Patience obtains everything,
God alone suffices.

(Saint Teresa of Avila.  A note she wrote in the margin of her Breviary.)

While on the subject of the Spiritual Life, I know most Catholics have their favorite books on this subject, which is great. 

But since I wanted to learn as much as I could about the Spiritual Life itself, I have discovered, at least for me, personally, the best book in English I have found is the Three Ages of the Interior Life, by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.  It is available for free download at:   http://www.christianperfection.info/

It took me about a year (maybe longer) to read it because I limited myself to reading only one of the relatively brief chapters per day. (I read the few individual longer chapters over several days.)

My other favorite is the Imitation of Christ.
Several editions of this book are available for free at:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Imitation%20of%20Christ

Hopefully the logic of the example of the bow and arrow above will be helpful for you?

Thanks for reading! 

God Bless You! 

A Catholic Catholic

[Josué]

I'm God's favorite.

The rest of you have to compete for second place.

I beg to differ.  He told me himself he liked me more than thee.