I have been thinking about why I remain Roman Catholic when there is a sort of appealing offer to join the Anglican Network in Canada (a conservative split group with many Anglo-Catholics). One reason is the idea of absolute truth.
Christ promised his disciples that when the Holy Spirit comes he will lead them into "all truth" (John 16:13).
While Protestants are more unified than Catholics generally credit them to be, I realized quite importantly today that any disagreement of faith is a direct contradiction to this promise. Pope Leo XIII said "...it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights." At some point, were I to be an Anglican, I would have to say error and truth have equal rights. That can't be the case.
Jesus said that the reason he came into the world was to bear witness to the truth, and "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:37 KJV).
I like the idea of the Papacy, because we can always know what the truth is. Whether we are ready to be obedient to it, is another question altogether, but inevitably by the workings of grace we assent to the truth, and are at peace.
On a side note, I went to Fatima shrine today with my friend across the border and the way the priest said the mass, he just declared it, and he preached it. Methinks the Americans are more faithful to the liturgy than our freewheeling Canadian clerics. I got a book defending the Papacy by the late great Cardinal Hans Urs Von Balthasar, and so far his arguments are good.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Putting the Intellectum back into: Fides quarens intellectum
I discussed with a friend the other day my "rationalism". Instead of trying to defend how I function, rather I wanted to try to explain it. When dealing with infidels, you cannot use the Bible. As an Evangelical we learned how 'historically accurate' the bible was. Indeed Homer's Illiad might be historically reliable, but this doesn't mean Apollo played a role in the fight. Rather than go this route, I tend to use Metaphysics in the Thomistic method, or go the route of the New Natural Law theorists, who put forth basic goods for human flourishing and argue how Catholic doctrine is in keeping with this. I believe in reason / common sense, because I believe humans are created in the image of God. If they were not, then obviously reason would be useless. If we are totally depraved as Protestants contend, it is likewise useless.
Much of my conversion was based on the reasonableness of Catholicism. History attests to Roman Catholic Ecclesiology, and Tradition is reasonably the most suitable interpreter in scriptural difficulties. To put it simply, Catholicism makes sense. I think a person's philosophy (epistemology) determines their theological views. Unbeknownst to me, a Political philosopher I encountered at Brock converted me from Protestant Nominalism to Aristotelian Thomism. This laid the groundwork for everything else.
I am not a Rationalist if by that word you mean one who believes in Reason alone, or seeks to eliminate religion. But rather I am someone who holds the Anselmic doctrine of faith seeking understanding. I believe in reason, which to most postmoderns makes me a Rationalist. I found a part of the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains my position best:
"The term Rationalism is perhaps not usually applied to the theological method of the Catholic Church. All forms of theological statement, however, and pre-eminently the dialectical form of Catholic theology, are rationalistic in the truest sense. Indeed, the claim of such Rationalism [Enlightenment Atheism] as is dealt with above is directly met by the counter claim of the Church: that it is at best but a mutilated and unreasonable Rationalism, not worthy of the name, while that of the Church is rationally complete, and integrated, moreover, with super-rational truth. In this sense Catholic theology presupposes the certain truths of natural reason as the preambula fidei, philosophy (the ancilla theologiæ) is employed in the defence of revealed truth (see APOLOGETICS), and the content of Divine revelation is treated and systematized in the categories of natural thought. This systematization is carried out both in dogmatic and moral theology. It is a process contemporaneous with the first attempt at a scientific statement of religious truth, comes to perfection of method in the works of such writers as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, and is consistently employed and developed in the Schools."
While folks like Chesterton had to contend with Rationalism and thus fell towards the faith side of the equation, it was never Fideism which Kierkegaard and so many Protestants and postmoderns alike are fleeing to. In this day and age, the balance needs to swing back to rationality (in my opinion).
Much of my conversion was based on the reasonableness of Catholicism. History attests to Roman Catholic Ecclesiology, and Tradition is reasonably the most suitable interpreter in scriptural difficulties. To put it simply, Catholicism makes sense. I think a person's philosophy (epistemology) determines their theological views. Unbeknownst to me, a Political philosopher I encountered at Brock converted me from Protestant Nominalism to Aristotelian Thomism. This laid the groundwork for everything else.
I am not a Rationalist if by that word you mean one who believes in Reason alone, or seeks to eliminate religion. But rather I am someone who holds the Anselmic doctrine of faith seeking understanding. I believe in reason, which to most postmoderns makes me a Rationalist. I found a part of the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains my position best:
"The term Rationalism is perhaps not usually applied to the theological method of the Catholic Church. All forms of theological statement, however, and pre-eminently the dialectical form of Catholic theology, are rationalistic in the truest sense. Indeed, the claim of such Rationalism [Enlightenment Atheism] as is dealt with above is directly met by the counter claim of the Church: that it is at best but a mutilated and unreasonable Rationalism, not worthy of the name, while that of the Church is rationally complete, and integrated, moreover, with super-rational truth. In this sense Catholic theology presupposes the certain truths of natural reason as the preambula fidei, philosophy (the ancilla theologiæ) is employed in the defence of revealed truth (see APOLOGETICS), and the content of Divine revelation is treated and systematized in the categories of natural thought. This systematization is carried out both in dogmatic and moral theology. It is a process contemporaneous with the first attempt at a scientific statement of religious truth, comes to perfection of method in the works of such writers as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, and is consistently employed and developed in the Schools."
While folks like Chesterton had to contend with Rationalism and thus fell towards the faith side of the equation, it was never Fideism which Kierkegaard and so many Protestants and postmoderns alike are fleeing to. In this day and age, the balance needs to swing back to rationality (in my opinion).
Monday, March 8, 2010
Newman or Aquinas
I was sitting at my university doing Latin homework today when I overheard an interesting discussion. A girl and a guy were talking about Creation and the essay they were writing. The girl began talking about Aquinas' arguments for God's existence and she kept saying that he believed in the eternality of the universe (a belief Aristotle held, but which Aquinas opposed vehemently), it made me really annoyed - to the point that I almost got up and said something to her. But I waited patiently trying to understand that life would go on, and that all over the world people were misunderstanding the scholastics. At the end of their conversation, she said something to the effect of: 'but it's all ridiculous speculation anyway, your mind can't even wrap itself around the concepts, I'm just trying to get the paper done'.
As a converted Thomist I took great affrontery to such a claim - that the Thomistic 'proofs' for God were meaningless in everyday life. Though as I sat there it reminded me of another thinker who I respect equally (whether this is right ethically or not) to Aquinas, the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman.
He was a man of the people and as Catholic Encyclopedia says "a mystic not a skeptic". Even as a convert, he had no great love for the Scholastics and Medievals and indeed said very little about them. His most philosophical work was his essay usually called "Grammar of Assent" which took him 30 years to write. Now in Aquinas, Kant, and Heidegger, there is a complete phenomenology and ontology, a 'way of knowing' statements about belief and reason, etc.
Contrary to all of this, Newman set out what he believed to be - not the 'proper' or most logical way - but the real way people came to believe things. He argued that we actually have alot more faith than one might imagine, and that in all sorts of things we act using "Illative Sense" which bridges the gap between what we logically are certain of, and what we think is probably true and act on.
His whole point in "Grammar of Assent" (according to the summaries I've read) is that you don't need a volume on how to believe, because you already know how to do it.
This philosophy appeals to me greatly because it's something that everyone can understand. It's not removed to ivory towers and complex irrelevant discussions about Being and Time. It's a sort of everyman apologetics. I haven't read it yet - it will take a while. But I think perhaps I might end up switching my philosophical structure from 'pure'(?) Thomism to a sort of Thomistic Personalism which Newman and Papa JP II espoused.
As a converted Thomist I took great affrontery to such a claim - that the Thomistic 'proofs' for God were meaningless in everyday life. Though as I sat there it reminded me of another thinker who I respect equally (whether this is right ethically or not) to Aquinas, the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman.
He was a man of the people and as Catholic Encyclopedia says "a mystic not a skeptic". Even as a convert, he had no great love for the Scholastics and Medievals and indeed said very little about them. His most philosophical work was his essay usually called "Grammar of Assent" which took him 30 years to write. Now in Aquinas, Kant, and Heidegger, there is a complete phenomenology and ontology, a 'way of knowing' statements about belief and reason, etc.
Contrary to all of this, Newman set out what he believed to be - not the 'proper' or most logical way - but the real way people came to believe things. He argued that we actually have alot more faith than one might imagine, and that in all sorts of things we act using "Illative Sense" which bridges the gap between what we logically are certain of, and what we think is probably true and act on.
His whole point in "Grammar of Assent" (according to the summaries I've read) is that you don't need a volume on how to believe, because you already know how to do it.
This philosophy appeals to me greatly because it's something that everyone can understand. It's not removed to ivory towers and complex irrelevant discussions about Being and Time. It's a sort of everyman apologetics. I haven't read it yet - it will take a while. But I think perhaps I might end up switching my philosophical structure from 'pure'(?) Thomism to a sort of Thomistic Personalism which Newman and Papa JP II espoused.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Divine Impassibility and Immutability
"...following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood...recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ" - Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451).
"for in no wise is the Godhead, being by nature impassible, capable of suffering." - Theodoret (A.D. 393-457)
and some bible verses for the Evangelicals in the crowd:
"Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." - Epistle of St. James (1:17)
"I the Lord do not change" - Malachi 3:6
I get why people like the idea of God suffering and changing. It makes him human, it gets us out of having to explain why bad things happen, and it goes against Tradition (which is usually reason enough to do something in academia). It's easier to say God suffers with you than it is to say: God doesn't owe you anything and can kill you and your race if he wants (or 'allow' it if we really want to bring in an active passive distinction).
Philosophically if God can suffer he can change. Change implies imperfection, meaning God isn't perfect if he changes. If he isn't perfect he isn't eternal. If he isn't eternal he is contingent and depends on something beyond himself to survive/exist. This means he isn't sovereign. etc, etc.
This is why I believe God doesn't suffer or change. Certainly Christ in his human nature could change and suffer, but not his divine nature. This isn't an exciting belief, it's medieval, Traditional, boring, but it's the only God I can comprehend or understand.
But of course, if you aren't Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican, you're free to deny the authority of Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, in which case you can say anything you like about the divine nature, including that it suffers and that it changes.
"for in no wise is the Godhead, being by nature impassible, capable of suffering." - Theodoret (A.D. 393-457)
and some bible verses for the Evangelicals in the crowd:
"Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." - Epistle of St. James (1:17)
"I the Lord do not change" - Malachi 3:6
I get why people like the idea of God suffering and changing. It makes him human, it gets us out of having to explain why bad things happen, and it goes against Tradition (which is usually reason enough to do something in academia). It's easier to say God suffers with you than it is to say: God doesn't owe you anything and can kill you and your race if he wants (or 'allow' it if we really want to bring in an active passive distinction).
Philosophically if God can suffer he can change. Change implies imperfection, meaning God isn't perfect if he changes. If he isn't perfect he isn't eternal. If he isn't eternal he is contingent and depends on something beyond himself to survive/exist. This means he isn't sovereign. etc, etc.
This is why I believe God doesn't suffer or change. Certainly Christ in his human nature could change and suffer, but not his divine nature. This isn't an exciting belief, it's medieval, Traditional, boring, but it's the only God I can comprehend or understand.
But of course, if you aren't Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican, you're free to deny the authority of Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, in which case you can say anything you like about the divine nature, including that it suffers and that it changes.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Aristotelian Thomism
"Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse" - Romans 1:20
I get why philosophers convert to Catholicism frequently. Aristotelian Thomism makes sense of the above verse. I find that all of life makes the most sense in that system. As I dialogued with 3 atheists today, all of them seemed to be surprised by how rational Aristotle's virtue ethics are, and by consequence how Catholic Christianity really teaches it's morality because it promotes human flourishing.
Obviously it can't be stressed enough that Christianity is not Ethics, it is an entire explanation of everything, it is a sacramental life, it is a union with God only made possible by the grace of God and the work of Jesus Christ. But, the more people see how Plato, Aristotle, and all of Philosophy seem to be pointing to Jesus, the more they'll understand that an even greater possibility for eudaimonia/happiness exists, namely the Beatific Vision - the eternal enjoyment of God's unending goodness.
But for a start, Eudaimonia and human flourishing work, sometimes a spark can start a fire.
Not everyone has such a 'conversion' experience with Aristotle and/or Thomas, but I am grateful that I did. I didn't have to check my brain at the doors of the Cathedral, or have to claim my brain was totally depraved by Original Sin.
It is also important to remember the idea I found in a First Things article I just read as well: "As Benedict has often pointed out, the morality must be, and be seen as, motivated by love and beauty: exemplified by witnesses who rejoice in the Lord, not just by teachers who rejoice in being right." That is important.
Fides quarens intellectum - St Anselm of Canterbury
Faith seeking Understanding
... I really need to read "After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre
Friday, January 15, 2010
Random Ramblings
Today we watched the majority of "The Madness of King George" and I thought it was an excellent film. Some interesting things I noted from it, were George III's love for clergymen, and his comment at one point he referenced "the Liturgy of our Lord and served at the Lord's table" and used the title "parson" which all seems to indicate to me the Reformed/Calvinistic nature of the CofE in those times.
As well, the Enlightenment influence could be seen in their comment 'you shouldn't speak about the nature of the deity sir', etc. The tiniest theological point, I seem to always notice.
Ian Holm plays one of the doctors in the film, and he has been one of my favourite actors for some time now. I feel like renting every movie he is in, as I've yet to find his work disappointing.
In Latin the other day we were reading the Cena Trimalchionis from the Satyricon and one of the characters kissed the table after speaking about witches and evil spirits. Balme the translator noted in the gloss that this was a Roman superstition which they believed to ward off evil spirits. I immediately thought of the priest/celebrant in the mass kissing the altar before the liturgy of the Eucharist. Our reasoning is that this is done because of the holy relic of the saint in the altar, but much like the invocation of patron gods/saints it seems to have a double meaning. I'm surprisingly untroubled, but it gives more ammunition to the Anglican apologetic that the Reformation was about removing superstition rather than upturning doctrine. hmmm, I wonder what else I shall discover whilst doing classics.
I feel weird about it and other Catholic practices like the signum crucis, as I was raised to utterly revile superstition, and it is difficult for me to see the need for a signing both before and after prayers, but as superstition does, I'm sure it will eventually become a habit. And it is a holy superstition if you will, a sacramental practice attested to by the fathers.
Yesterday evening I had a very difficult time discussing things with a guest I had over. Our philosophies were so divergent that it seemed difficult to even talk about meaningful things. She an agnostic who claimed 'evil is a point of view' and I a believing but sinful Romanist who argued for the absolute nature of values and the meaninglessness of statehood rather than the meaninglessness of justice (we were talking about war). In the style of Thomas I thought of starting from reason and building my argument, but I realized that our individualist subjectivism has ruined everything, reason has been destroyed. And I don't like it. Watching the Enlightenment attitudes of the characters in "The Madness of King George" I (think) I realized that I prefer Modernism to Existentialism/Pietism/Individualism, at least among the Rationalists there ranks Spinoza, Liepniz, Descartes, and Kant, all theists and most Christians.
As well, the Enlightenment influence could be seen in their comment 'you shouldn't speak about the nature of the deity sir', etc. The tiniest theological point, I seem to always notice.
Ian Holm plays one of the doctors in the film, and he has been one of my favourite actors for some time now. I feel like renting every movie he is in, as I've yet to find his work disappointing.
In Latin the other day we were reading the Cena Trimalchionis from the Satyricon and one of the characters kissed the table after speaking about witches and evil spirits. Balme the translator noted in the gloss that this was a Roman superstition which they believed to ward off evil spirits. I immediately thought of the priest/celebrant in the mass kissing the altar before the liturgy of the Eucharist. Our reasoning is that this is done because of the holy relic of the saint in the altar, but much like the invocation of patron gods/saints it seems to have a double meaning. I'm surprisingly untroubled, but it gives more ammunition to the Anglican apologetic that the Reformation was about removing superstition rather than upturning doctrine. hmmm, I wonder what else I shall discover whilst doing classics.
I feel weird about it and other Catholic practices like the signum crucis, as I was raised to utterly revile superstition, and it is difficult for me to see the need for a signing both before and after prayers, but as superstition does, I'm sure it will eventually become a habit. And it is a holy superstition if you will, a sacramental practice attested to by the fathers.
Yesterday evening I had a very difficult time discussing things with a guest I had over. Our philosophies were so divergent that it seemed difficult to even talk about meaningful things. She an agnostic who claimed 'evil is a point of view' and I a believing but sinful Romanist who argued for the absolute nature of values and the meaninglessness of statehood rather than the meaninglessness of justice (we were talking about war). In the style of Thomas I thought of starting from reason and building my argument, but I realized that our individualist subjectivism has ruined everything, reason has been destroyed. And I don't like it. Watching the Enlightenment attitudes of the characters in "The Madness of King George" I (think) I realized that I prefer Modernism to Existentialism/Pietism/Individualism, at least among the Rationalists there ranks Spinoza, Liepniz, Descartes, and Kant, all theists and most Christians.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
How Philosophy Changes Our Lives
I was taught as a teenager the Worldview of C.S. Lewis, for which I am grateful, as there are many worse starting points. I think my view of faith and reason as well as the neo-Platonism of Lewis that we learned in philosophy allowed me to fit well into the Catholic faith. Unlike the nominalists (anti-rationalists) Luther and Calvin, Lewis fell more closely to the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas), through Lewis' study of Dante, and in his clever use of reason, I understood how Christianity shouldn't be afraid of philosophy.
But I did learn many unhelpful views that I'm only now philosophically unpacking. Our epistemology (method of finding truth) was Berkeleian Immaterialism. It was basically this argument:
Ideas are true or false
Matter/Material Objects is/are not true or false
Therefore ideas are not Matter/Material
This gave us "spirit" which wasn't material, or 'idealism' at least. Then we would go on to attack Empiricism with the typical Cartesian methods, as well as Berkeley's which sought to show how the senses were unreliable. Ex:
How do you know you have proper vision?
you hear the doctor say you passed a vision test
How do you know you have proper hearing? , etc to infinity where one can no longer believe anything based on the sense, but by the mind alone / reason.
This is the argument Bishop (Anglican/CofE) Berkeley used to argue for immaterialism, the idea that the only 'real' existent things are ideas perceived in one's mind. This then led to the problem of: 'what happens when someone isn't thinking about an object? does it cease to exist?' - we know the things don't cease to exist, as we do not when we sleep, etc. This means a universal mind must be perceiving everything at once (a Term Lewis uses in Mere Christianity for God - he was a Berkeleian after all). This universal mind is God.
Thus cometh the famous phrase that "we are all just thoughts in the mind of God".
This was a fun worldview because it was diametrically opposed to materialism, the worldview of the modern university. Then I remember reading Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" and his chapter on how the real world became myth, etc. It wasn't so much of a logical argument that disarmed me / immaterialism, it was just an interesting approach which many people would prefer to my pseudo-platonic arguments.
Like I said, Nietzsche never really convinced me logically of anything (that's kind of his whole point really), but it did much to shake my thinking. Subsequently I've read Christians who attack his post-modernism from a Modernist Christian standpoint, and I've seen other Catholics and Protestants accept postmodernity and understand Catholicism within it (Kearney, Vattimo, MacIntyre also kind of).
I then started studying Aquinas, and I began to love his way of doing things. He mixed the 'best' of neo-platonism with aristotelianism, and made it all Christian. But there was one problem... He was an empiricist (the view, you'll remember, of my oldest enemies). He described the intellect and soul ascending to God from perceiving sensible things. But when I read "Nicomachean Ethics" by Aristotle last year and his "Politics", I felt like I "gave my mind to Aristotle" (like I gave my heart to Christ), because he was such a genius. But I'm still trying to figure out Aristotelianism and my own life.
The advantage I do see in St. Thomas - aside from his legacy and centrality in our Holy Roman Church - is the way his system seems so true in everyday life. It is a challenge though to my normal Platonic system which has a heavy emphasis on distinguishing between mind and body, matter and spirit. This has been a key theme in my life (probably why I'm obsessed with learning and education, but morbidly obese, or why I am great with faith, but terrible with works). Aristotle, and St. Thomas always make sure that the internal and the external are linked, and that grace perfects nature. That sounds really simplistic but in reality it's REALLY profound. In my previous worldview matter was almost evil, corrupted by the fall, grace abolished nature, it didn't perfect it. The material world was the fake and transient world, the world of the forms or ideas was the 'real world'. Aquinas will have none of this. God is reconciling even nature to himself, and evil is only a privation of good, Christ gave us physical things - sacraments (baptism, eucharist, etc) - to change our spiritual reality by grace. This means faith and works, nature and grace, the natural and supernatural, are all married to some extent. For instance he writes on the Law of Christ:
"The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts: but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom." - St. Thomas Aquinas (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2108.htm)
I didn't go to church/mass today, even though I could've, because "I didn't feel like it", and because I couldn't receive the sacrament anyway (I'm as usual, in mortal sin). I figured regardless of whether or not I sat in church today, my relationship with God would be uneffected. But Aristotle reminds us that virtues are formed by habitual action and repetition. St. Thomas and Catholicism likewise oblige us to attend Mass regularly because this physical habit changes our spiritual reality, it makes God's Word more prevalent in our mind, it makes our Will more easily inclined towards the work of God, and it brings us into deeper fellowship and even allows us to spiritually partake in the oblation (Sacrifice of the Mass) of the priest/Christ.
But in my own choice of will, I demoted my intellect to my passion of laziness, and thus missed another chance at grace. This is how philosophy changes my life, and our lives. Perhaps you should look over your own philosophy, after all, according to Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living".
But I did learn many unhelpful views that I'm only now philosophically unpacking. Our epistemology (method of finding truth) was Berkeleian Immaterialism. It was basically this argument:
Ideas are true or false
Matter/Material Objects is/are not true or false
Therefore ideas are not Matter/Material
This gave us "spirit" which wasn't material, or 'idealism' at least. Then we would go on to attack Empiricism with the typical Cartesian methods, as well as Berkeley's which sought to show how the senses were unreliable. Ex:
How do you know you have proper vision?
you hear the doctor say you passed a vision test
How do you know you have proper hearing? , etc to infinity where one can no longer believe anything based on the sense, but by the mind alone / reason.
This is the argument Bishop (Anglican/CofE) Berkeley used to argue for immaterialism, the idea that the only 'real' existent things are ideas perceived in one's mind. This then led to the problem of: 'what happens when someone isn't thinking about an object? does it cease to exist?' - we know the things don't cease to exist, as we do not when we sleep, etc. This means a universal mind must be perceiving everything at once (a Term Lewis uses in Mere Christianity for God - he was a Berkeleian after all). This universal mind is God.
Thus cometh the famous phrase that "we are all just thoughts in the mind of God".
This was a fun worldview because it was diametrically opposed to materialism, the worldview of the modern university. Then I remember reading Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" and his chapter on how the real world became myth, etc. It wasn't so much of a logical argument that disarmed me / immaterialism, it was just an interesting approach which many people would prefer to my pseudo-platonic arguments.
Like I said, Nietzsche never really convinced me logically of anything (that's kind of his whole point really), but it did much to shake my thinking. Subsequently I've read Christians who attack his post-modernism from a Modernist Christian standpoint, and I've seen other Catholics and Protestants accept postmodernity and understand Catholicism within it (Kearney, Vattimo, MacIntyre also kind of).
I then started studying Aquinas, and I began to love his way of doing things. He mixed the 'best' of neo-platonism with aristotelianism, and made it all Christian. But there was one problem... He was an empiricist (the view, you'll remember, of my oldest enemies). He described the intellect and soul ascending to God from perceiving sensible things. But when I read "Nicomachean Ethics" by Aristotle last year and his "Politics", I felt like I "gave my mind to Aristotle" (like I gave my heart to Christ), because he was such a genius. But I'm still trying to figure out Aristotelianism and my own life.
The advantage I do see in St. Thomas - aside from his legacy and centrality in our Holy Roman Church - is the way his system seems so true in everyday life. It is a challenge though to my normal Platonic system which has a heavy emphasis on distinguishing between mind and body, matter and spirit. This has been a key theme in my life (probably why I'm obsessed with learning and education, but morbidly obese, or why I am great with faith, but terrible with works). Aristotle, and St. Thomas always make sure that the internal and the external are linked, and that grace perfects nature. That sounds really simplistic but in reality it's REALLY profound. In my previous worldview matter was almost evil, corrupted by the fall, grace abolished nature, it didn't perfect it. The material world was the fake and transient world, the world of the forms or ideas was the 'real world'. Aquinas will have none of this. God is reconciling even nature to himself, and evil is only a privation of good, Christ gave us physical things - sacraments (baptism, eucharist, etc) - to change our spiritual reality by grace. This means faith and works, nature and grace, the natural and supernatural, are all married to some extent. For instance he writes on the Law of Christ:
"The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts: but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom." - St. Thomas Aquinas (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2108.htm)
I didn't go to church/mass today, even though I could've, because "I didn't feel like it", and because I couldn't receive the sacrament anyway (I'm as usual, in mortal sin). I figured regardless of whether or not I sat in church today, my relationship with God would be uneffected. But Aristotle reminds us that virtues are formed by habitual action and repetition. St. Thomas and Catholicism likewise oblige us to attend Mass regularly because this physical habit changes our spiritual reality, it makes God's Word more prevalent in our mind, it makes our Will more easily inclined towards the work of God, and it brings us into deeper fellowship and even allows us to spiritually partake in the oblation (Sacrifice of the Mass) of the priest/Christ.
But in my own choice of will, I demoted my intellect to my passion of laziness, and thus missed another chance at grace. This is how philosophy changes my life, and our lives. Perhaps you should look over your own philosophy, after all, according to Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)