Value of Philosophy/Logic/Speculation

[Scriptorium]

I wonder what peoples' thoughts are on the value of logic. Not opposed to faith, but opposed to experience. Since we have one life, can the endless debates amongst logicians be a distraction from the primary issues of our life and what we are supposed to be doing while we are here, i.e., perfection? Has the theory of hylomorphism really helped Christianity become better at transforming souls? Has St Thomas' great works done much to "decide" any of the great question of life? Are we doomed to endlessly debate these points because they are by their nature speculative? I am thinking of St Thomas saying his works were straw after his vision. Should we heed that, and simply conclude that perfecting our moral life is higher than theorizing, arguing well, or memorizing texts? I also know a lot of Catholics who are reasonably good people, but they seem to be more into reading about Catholicism and reasoning about the issues of the day, without actually doing much beyond the average Catholic life. Instead of theorizing about God's qualities, how about transforming your life to see God? What do people think about this? What should the balance be between experiential knowledge and speculative knowledge? 50/50? 80/20? 20/80? Should we favor experiential knowledge over speculation because it is true knowledge (direct knowledge of the object), whereas speculation is indirect, secondary knowledge (knowledge of the object through another object). I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[drummerboy]

Well, I'll at least say that we should use everything with moderation, and so that it helps us attain salvation.  This applies to philosophy as well.  We can learn much about life from it.  Socrates summed up the purpose of philosophy in the Gorgias when he said "our discussion is about the way we're supposed to live."  Basically everything we as Catholics believe in regards to virtue and right living, comes from philosophy.  We just take it for granted now.  There was a time when people thought it was good to be unjust (still are of course, but read Plato to see the discussions).  Yes, we do have much from Judaism, but also much from philosophy, esp Greek.  But in response to your question, we must be careful that it does not distract us from the ultimate purpose: to attain salvation and glorify God.  Look at the life of Thomas Aquinas, and you'll see he balanced this as well; he spent possibly as much time in prayer as in study.

[Graham]

Philosophy is both vitally important, and absolutely useless. Used honestly, it will convince us of two things, that (1) there is a Reality and it is One, Infinite, and Eternal, and (2) that we will never know this Reality intimately by means of thought and logic. Philosophy winds up by persuading us of its own insufficiency in the real task of inner transformation.

[drummerboy]

That's a good point.  While it can lead us to truth and how to live that truth, it does not give us the grace to actually live it out.  Hence the despair of the Greeks when St. Paul came.  They knew what "the good life" was, to a degree, but did not have God's grace. 

This reminds me of when I was reading St. Athanasius' "Life of St. Antony."  I was a little offset by Antony's criticism and dismissal of learning, esp when written by a Doctor of the Church.  But then it gradually bacame clearer.  Antony did not disrespect learning.  It was the attitude of the learned who believed their knowledge made them "holy,"  their self-righteousness, their failure to realize their need for God.  This really comes out when Antony challenges two visiting Greek philosophers to cast out demons with syllogisms.

[Crusading Philologist]

You can also look to the theurgic neoplatonists like Iamblichus and Proclus in this regard. They also came to the conclusion that reason on its own was not enough, and ritual and mystery were also necessary, and of course Proclus would go on to have a big influence on Pseudo-Dionysius. Although, some would argue that classical philosophy was almost always tied to pagan religious practice.

[Scriptorium]

It seems to me that reason will be always hampered by language, which in itself is mundane and limited. Its the old statement, "God is ineffable," which in itself can't be accurate because then he would be "effable". I understand how some reconcile this, and the relative value of analogistic knowledge of God. But just as at some point we look at the bearded pictures of God the Father and conclude that it was a learning device for young people, not to be taken literally, I kind of wonder why St Thomas' philosophic knowledge is considered so great in comparison to the direct union St Teresa and St John of the Cross had, when even Thomas called his work straw. I am not belittling St Thomas at all, but just trying to get the mind of the Church on the matter. All my books point to direct union with God as the peak of perfection, but spend a lot more time explicating philosophic speculation about who we are, instead of that process to get to union with him (or only takes it to a certain level), which would be direct knowledge. Musing ...

[Atomagenesis]

Philosophy is still extremely useful for getting over the hump for people who are not Catholic, even though you're getting into mystical theology there, the divine union is not philosophy, it's definitely mystical theology.

Philosophy helps me immensely in helping people come to realize why their modern views are wrong, and I'm really happy I got a very good Thomistic Philosophical education, otherwise I don't know what kind of bullcrap I'd probably believe. It really helps me look at reality though, and explain ontological concepts to people, most people's view of life and reality is pure subjectivity, which is incredibly scary to me.

[Crusading Philologist]

On the other hand, I think it is unfortunate that so much of Catholic apologetics is based around a purely philosophical account that attempts to "prove" the truth, or at least the rationality, of Christian doctrine with reference only to a supposedly neutral reason.

[Resurrexi]

On the other hand, I think it is unfortunate that so much of Catholic apologetics is based around a purely philosophical account that attempts to "prove" the truth, or at least the rationality, of Christian doctrine with reference only to a supposedly neutral reason.

I guess you'd regard the Summa contra Gentiles as unfortunate?

[Crusading Philologist]

I said that I thought it was unfortunate that so much of  Catholic apologetic material is focused on philosophy, not that all strictly philosophical arguments for certain aspects of the Faith are so. Anyway, I am not as familiar with the Summa contra Gentiles, but our picture of St. Thomas and what he was trying to do has developed quite a bit since the early 20th century.