|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Plato & Jesus: Searching for Tash in Aslan's Country?
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
Hello fellow Fools (I of course mean in the surreptitiously wise 'King Lear's fool' sense)
I am currently working (bumbling) on my Phd thesis proposal and this week I had a tutorial style disputation with a very learned Greek-orthodox priest on my point that :
Concerning much of the neo-Platonic influences of the early church Fathers in Christianity; St. Paul Proclus, Porphyry, Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine etc: how do we (Christians) feel about the fact that many of the old philosophy schools of ancient Greece and the East all 'spoke to' the natural theology of the revelation of God as the early Christian church understood it?
The grand old priest was of the view that for men like Gregory of Nyssa and others the 'foolishness to the Greeks'(1 Cor, 1:23) was seriously that as they were too puffed up in their Areopagus dinner party philosophy . So blind and pagan is much of the talk of Forms, Archetypes, the Real, 'Being-and beings', said he, that there was actually little love for the Academy's ideas amongst early Christians.
'What business hath Athens with Jerusalem?'I believe Tertullian said.
However having read most of the 'Canon of Western secular philosophy' up to the enlightenment (the German schools!-oh boy! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) the overwhelming feeling I get is a group of people 'looking through a glass darkly' and Christ is the Logos they truly seek. Other Christian theologians, say Radical Orthodox types of the (John Milbank school),would disagree:
"Exterminate the secular, modernist and non-Christ centred philosophy in 'the academy' and plant the flag of Christian theology as Queen of sciences again!" In a caricatured summary (my bad.)
Do people think this is a fair way to go for the thinking Christian at home or in academia?
Should we take the philosophical ball of the pitch and say 'Athens for thou-Jerusalem for us?' Plato for you and Jesus for me?
Or do we say regarding Christians involved in philosophy/theology, per Aslan in the Last Battle,:
"No service [or philosophy] which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him [lets take that as the ultimate opposite to God]"
Comments galore please!
[ 05. January 2015, 01:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
First of all, top marks for the work you've clearly put in to prepare your PhD proposal. Reading most of the 'canon of Western secular philosophy' sounds like no small feat to me. I hope you get your proposal approved and funded, and get to have a great time delving even more deeply into a subject you clearly love.
I found some bits in your post of interest. Needless to say, nothing I or (probably) anyone else hear can say as we ramble on around the subject will really help your academic progress towards a PhD (we're not here to do your homework for you, even if we were qualified to do so).
The other week I preached on both the Beattitudes and the 1 Corinthians "foolish to the Greeks" passage. My sermon was quite heavy on "poverty of spirit", in particular humility in relation to gifts we might have from God. In the case of the Greek philosophers that would be the recognition that although there may be much of value in secular philosophy, it is ultimately in an event so far beyond the realm of what the philosophers accepted as wise that we find salvation - ie: in the Incarnation. Likewise, for the Jews seeking miraculous signs (and, one might add some contemporary Charismatic Christians) there needs to be the humility to recognise that the work of God is often present in the ordinary and mundane without the celestial fanfare of the extraordinary. And, of course for those aware of their relative purity compared to the sins of others, poverty of spirit beign the opposite of the pride of the pharisee who stands in the Temple thanking God he's not a sinner like others there.
So, before I ramble too much more, I think there's much to be said for 'Athens for thou-Jerusalem for us?' if by that you mean the humility to accept that philosophy may be a useful tool, but ultimately won't get you where only revelation and Incarnation leads. Also, that you have the humility to accept that 'Jerusalem' isn't sufficient either.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
Thank you for your well directed comment and knowing thought concerning funding (*rubs hair in existential dismay* )
"Athens for thou-Jerusalem for us?' if by that you mean the humility to accept that philosophy may be a useful tool, but ultimately won't get you where only revelation and Incarnation leads."
You identify brilliantly the tension I, and I suppose all of us face in this business, in your above quote. In theologi-speak the poesis of the often too rarefied life of the Christian of whose ministry is, say apologetics, where I feel called: and the praxis of ministering to lives in the equally important sense of your identified sermon concerning the poor.
For example coming across Aristotle's idea of Eudamonia or 'the good life'. *whistles* I mean at first I thought:
"All good, enough to read, enough money to live well (not too well) talk amongst learned friends, delve deep depths, despise extremes of emotions, and never be too 'passionate' (a filthy word to the stoics) about anything."
But then you think: "Did Jesus do that?" and ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) you put down the port and Church Times crossword!
I found it hard to imagine that after the presentation of Christ at the Temple the Lord just set about contributing to the 'Jerusalem Rabbinical Studies Journal'.
hmmm 'pastor and philosopher' would be the happy medium in serving people holistically in the field I suppose.
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I can't pretend to anything like the comprehensive grasp of intellectual history that both you and Alan have.
But I think that Christians have every reason to philosophize and no reason not to. To dismiss philosophy as having no legitimate meaning or interest to a Christian would be anti-intellectual, and we have too many anti-intellectual Christians already.
Your question was more specifically about (neo)-Platonism and how compatible it is with Christian thought. It seems to be more compatible with it than many other philosophies. On the other hand, a Christian can sympathize with objections to Plato on religion-neutral grounds, e.g. by a Karl Popper. I'm rather skeptical of Plato's ideas myself, while happy to imagine that the Greek thinkers in general were mostly on the side of the angels and we could do much worse than to emulate their inquiring attitudes.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
-Alogon
Indeed neo-Platomism is the crux here, and on your point of it being:
"... more compatible with it than many other philosophies."
I sympathize greatly. One finds, strangely enough considering his ultra-conservativism with many other matters of theology, Pope Benedict is very pro-Plato has a lot to teach Christian theologians.
On your second point that grabbed me:
"On the other hand, a Christian can sympathize with objections to Plato on religion-neutral grounds, e.g. by a Karl Popper."
Are we talking here about falsifiability? If I were to utilize Popper (something I rarely do)in an apologetic setting I'd probably say something along the lines of 'Christ being that Reality which cannot be falsified' 'the pre-signified signifier'
Hotter-colder?
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
Indeed neo-Platomism is the crux here, and on your point of it being:
"... more compatible with it than many other philosophies."
I sympathize greatly. One finds, strangely enough considering his ultra-conservativism with many other matters of theology, Pope Benedict is very pro-Plato has a lot to teach Christian theologians.
Not presuming to take arms against such a sea of philosophers, but on the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Platonism, it always struck me that one more or less had to be a Platonist to make any sense of Transubstantiation - surely it's very much about Platoinic essentialism? Feel free to tell me I've got Plato all wrong!
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
-Chris
You're premise is sound as far as Platonic essentialist theory goes however, no Roman Catholic I, wouldn't know if the present Pope sees transubstantiation as such an occurrence of the inseparability of 'substance and accident'.
From my extensive reading of the Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger/theologian as Bishop of Munich and professor at Regensberg (a role I think he was far better used in) his Platonic writings seem to be concerned with the idea of Christ being the capital 'T' truth as Logos and the transcendental nature of God in relation to all possible reality.
Here enters Aquinas too, I mean the Church Fathers are positively dripping with the language of the Academy-
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
Here enters Aquinas too, I mean the Church Fathers are positively dripping with the language of the Academy-
Wasn't Aquinas the man who introduced Aristotle - at that time the property of those "godless infidels" - into the Christian church?
This article mentions his debt to Aristotle.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Thomism#General
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What MSHB said. Also, transubstantiation is founded on an Aristotelian understanding of matter, not a Platonic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
MSHB: On the Thomistic-Aristotelian, though correct, for Ratzinger's writing purposes he would have taken them (does take them) to carry heavy shadows (NPI) of Platonism. I mean, who taught whom at the time?
Aquinas, whilst playing up to Aristotle an awful lot, who himself focused on Beauty far more than the Platonic truth question: does not in the Summa Theologica altogether forgo many aspects of Platonism that Aristotle seem to have umbridge with.
In fact even the Aristotelian trek from the Academy (Assos, Lesbos,Macedonia etc) is not as far as some like to think. The
Mousetheif:I take the point on matter issue being Aristotelian
Though, once again, Neo-Platonism is the crux of the matter as it is believed it went far far further in it's mixing and matching of 'heathen' and 'sacred' than any of this 'old' stuff. This is obvious because the question:
"Jesus who?"
Would have been the confused response by any of the aforementioned Greek masters (unless, as some do, you class their truths as Revelatory).
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What MSHB said. Also, transubstantiation is founded on an Aristotelian understanding of matter, not a Platonic.
Thanks MT - take it you're referring to Aristotelian substance theory, as opposed to Platonic Forms? Anyway, thanks for correcting a long-term misunderstanding!
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What MSHB said. Also, transubstantiation is founded on an Aristotelian understanding of matter, not a Platonic.
The Thomist understanding of transubstantiation, which has become the semi-official line, uses Aristotelian terminology. It's not clear that it makes any more sense in Aristotelian philosophy than in any other secular philosophy.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Thomist understanding of transubstantiation, which has become the semi-official line, uses Aristotelian terminology. It's not clear that it makes any more sense in Aristotelian philosophy than in any other secular philosophy.
Being a Kantian, I believe in Transnoumenation.
What the hell this means is left as an exercise for the reader.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Thanks MT - take it you're referring to Aristotelian substance theory, as opposed to Platonic Forms?
Yes. The substance/accidence thing is Aristotle's.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Being a Kantian, I believe in Transnoumenation.
What the hell this means is left as an exercise for the reader.
I know what transnoumenation means MSHB, but it sounds too much like alchemy to be plausible imnsho.
Why would God go to such lengths to allow communion?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
"On the other hand, a Christian can sympathize with objections to Plato on religion-neutral grounds, e.g. by a Karl Popper."
Are we talking here about falsifiability? If I were to utilize Popper (something I rarely do)in an apologetic setting I'd probably say something along the lines of 'Christ being that Reality which cannot be falsified' 'the pre-signified signifier'
I'm not too sure that Popper particularly objected to Plato. He presented a refinement on a philosophy of science (of which 'falsifiability' is a generally misunderstood step in his argument, one that he ultimately found unfruitful as he realised that if you can't prove a scientific theory to be true then you're equally unable to prove it false). In common with the vast majority of philosophers of science, he was a realist - the material universe is a reality that exists, and scientific enquiry grants us ever increasing understanding of that reality. As I understand Plato he basically said that the material universe is a reality that's not intelligable and there's an additional level of existance that is intelligable but not directly accessible to our senses, where the ideal forms of the material universe are found. Scientists, and philosophers of science like Popper, tend to reject that whole notion. Which is probably linked to the fact that we're gaining an increasing ability to understand the material universe that Plato stated to be unintelligable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Being a Kantian, I believe in Transnoumenation.
What the hell this means is left as an exercise for the reader.
I know what transnoumenation means MSHB, but it sounds too much like alchemy to be plausible imnsho.
Why would God go to such lengths to allow communion?
Hmmm, I thought I'd better do a quick google in case I had made up a word that already exists. There was one hit ... my original post, already indexed by Google. So it's my word ...
Well, I must say that I was being tongue in cheek with that suggestion, although my interpretation of "transnoumenation" would be: what we eat and drink in the Eucharist has the appearance (empirical properties) of bread and wine, but we cannot know what it is in itself (i.e. what God intends it to be), but we may believe (as a regulative principle) that the things in themselves are the Body and Blood of Christ.
Kant used the appearance/thing in itself dichotomy to explain several other theological paradoxes (e.g. how I could be justified and yet also still sin) in his "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone". He was opposed to the idea of Communion as a means of grace, although I can think of a way that one might construct such a Kantian sacramental theology (as noted above).
Not sure where the alchemy comes in ... perhaps to make the chalice and paten?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/KelchbarockSchreibmayr.jpg
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we're gaining an increasing ability to understand the material universe that Plato stated to be unintelligable.
Indeed, one might even say that, 'the God who comes to us', Jesus, is another instance of Thecore of the unintelligible, material, universe making Himself quite, quite known.
Hence the feeling one begins to get in neo-platonic reading of the mantra 'Jesus is the 'unintelligible' you know to be out there guys!'
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Hmmm, I thought I'd better do a quick google in case I had made up a word that already exists. There was one hit ... my original post, already indexed by Google. So it's my word ...
That's how I found out what it 'means'.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My question was really - what's wrong with plain bread and wine to commune with God - why should it need to change in any way? Surely it's US that do the changing, not the elements?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question was really - what's wrong with plain bread and wine to commune with God - why should it need to change in any way? Surely it's US that do the changing, not the elements? [/QB]
whistles!
That might need a new thread! I'm not going to attempt an answer (inter-splicing time currently between an essay and another thread) but only say...
IMHO having being raised in a Church tradition that takes quarterly communion (not unusual in some hyper-protestant Swiss-infused churches as it was) then, due to moving city, to a rather 'hip-mega Church' that took communion in the most bizarre and rather casual manner and then coming 'Home' to the Church of England's Eucharist: and where I worship their often Uber-Solemnity style Eucharist is beautiful and powerful;
Such levels of deep veneration and seriousness means I'm not sure I'll ever be able to eat Doritos and drink Ribena again (no word of a lie this was offered to me once at a church!)under the understanding that 'it's what the communion means to me.'
Now of course some of what I like about the 'Higher' (I take it I can use the phrase without having to go into an exhaustive account of what I mean by High-Church?) approach to communion the above is aesthetics but
(enter Plato-Aristotelian fanfare) I reckon those very aesthetics, even calling it 'the sacrament' speaks to a spiritual and metaphysical truth of the matter once the 'Words of Institution' go down. And believe me-this is a big change to my attitude to communion. I used to think the Eucharist, done in the way I now gladly take it was priest-craft! -lol
But someone more qualified than me on the matter (No pun intended!) can probably give you a more authoritative answer
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why would God go to such lengths to allow communion?
Because She loves us and wants us to commune with Her? I don't understand what you're asking, I think.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question was really - what's wrong with plain bread and wine to commune with God - why should it need to change in any way? Surely it's US that do the changing, not the elements?
There's nothing wrong with plain bread and wine. These are things I gladly consume. But when I come to Communion I want to receive Christ.
PS: hopefully it is God who does the changing: "Behold! I make all things new." Wouldn't that include the bread, the wine, and us?
The Letter to the Hebrews reminds us that we are on Mount Zion, in an assembly of angels and saints, with Christ at the centre. But this is not something we can see with our physical eyes. Communion is the same.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
"On the other hand, a Christian can sympathize with objections to Plato on religion-neutral grounds, e.g. by a Karl Popper."
Are we talking here about falsifiability?... Hotter-colder?
Colder. Popper wrote a two-volume book The Open Society and its Enemies characterizing Plato as prominent among the latter. As I recall, it's fairly independent from his philosophy of science, although of course the same mind produced both and we can find consistencies and occasional cross-references. Perhaps the relationship is similar to that Chomsky's linguistic and political writings.
[ 21. February 2011, 18:43: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
There is a core conflict between classical philosophy and modern science, that came first to a head in the Galileo case (and no, I'm not talking about religious issues). Basically, classical philosophy tries to derive necessary truths from first principles, whereas modern science tries to empirically test predictions from hypotheses.
Religion is intrinsically compatible with classical philosophy - in some sense playing the role of a tie breaker between philosophers that have somewhat different first principles. The problem is that our societies have been bedazzled with the practical success of modern science. Essentially, modern man does not believe in first principles anymore, nor in the ability to derive necessary truths. This is regrettable, the intellectual equivalent of poking out your eyes because once you saw something really ugly. (The ugly thing being that some classical philosophers derived necessary truths that were falsehoods - which somehow did not get blamed on the philosophers, but on the method.)
As a result, classical philosophy is dead and religion is dragging the decaying corpse of its playmate around in mourning. The solution that most people favor - chucking the corpse into the bin and turning religion into an emotional management method - is not one that I find particularly appealing. I think we need to reassert the ability of reason to find and operate on first principles, revive classical philosophy, and give religion back its favorite playmate. The development of modern science was necessary, essentially delivering to us now a comprehensive system of checks and balances against wild speculation. Yet reason is bigger than modern science, and we should discover that again.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
IngoB, that was a really interesting post. I'm a little confused, though, about how you view these "checks and balances" of modern empirical science. Surely the lesson to be learnt from the fact that "some classical philosophers derived necessary truths that were falsehoods" is that the attempt to derive necessary truths without those checks and balances is fraught with difficulty and liable to produce gross error? We have leaned far more truth from reason coupled with empiricism than by Aristotelian armchair speculation.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
We have leaned far more truth from reason coupled with empiricism than by Aristotelian armchair speculation.
Indeed, that is true Chris, however (bearing in mind we are talking some thousands of years ago with Aristotelian what not)I'm not sure whetehr it is so much a case of learned anything more per se of the 'truth of a situation' from empirical science but rather we have better understood the inarticulacy of philosophies/religous explainations of said truths searched for in the past. ?
To illustrate: There may have been a situation where 'The Horrible Multi-coloured Snake Demon' is feared and vilified in an ancient community's folklore due to its reported "terrible power to end life with a single touch!" Subsequently when said tree snake appears the group go into a panic, start praying to said demon for mercy and run away. Every year they leave gifts for said demon for appeasement.
1000 years later we know that said snake is simply poisonous its colours are an evolutionary display to 'stay away from me' and it's all very simple: here's David Attenborough to explain.
But both communities knew the 'truth' and gave a 'reasoned' response-"that damned snake is deadly"! I guess what I'm saying is that we have things to learn from both forms of learning. lab coats and gowns yet some recent trend in empiricism have become almost evangelical in their denial that we have anything more to learn from 'the old ways of philosophizing-religious reflection' 'what do they prove?!'
IngoB : astute as ever.
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question was really - what's wrong with plain bread and wine to commune with God - why should it need to change in any way? Surely it's US that do the changing, not the elements?
A lot of people outside the church consume the same (if it is the same) bread and wine but it doesn't change them in the same way. What's the difference?
In a memorable Corpus Christi sermon a few years ago, my rector noted that "The Body of Christ" can refer to three things: Jesus's own body born, crucified, risen, and ascended; the Church; and the consecrated bread. This is not, er, accidental. The Eucharist is the channel, like the neck of an hourglass, whereby the 'bodyhood' of Christ passes from heaven down into the Church.
[ 22. February 2011, 16:22: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question was really - what's wrong with plain bread and wine to commune with God - why should it need to change in any way? Surely it's US that do the changing, not the elements?
A lot of people outside the church consume the same (if it is the same) bread and wine but it doesn't change them in the same way. What's the difference?
But, by that reasoning, don't you have to explain why so many people who take communion remain unchanged?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I observe that everyone seems to assume that "philosophy" means "philosophy in the Western tradition" or even specifically in the Greek tradition.
I think there are good, devout, intelligent Christians in various parts of the world (China, India, parts of Africa) who nonetheless do not identify with the Western tradition of philosophy. How does this discussion apply to them?
Likewise, unless I am mistaken, there was a Christian branch of the decidedly-not-Greek Existentialist movement. How does that fit in?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I observe that everyone seems to assume that "philosophy" means "philosophy in the Western tradition" or even specifically in the Greek tradition.
Assume? I'm not sure about that. The question in the post was with specific reference to the various platonic/neo-Platonic schools and their derivatives.
Though other perspectives about Christianity's relation to other philosophical traditions are of course welcomed.
Perhaps you have an example of other (non-Greek) influences of other philosophies on Christianity?
Cardinal Newman does a sterling job in a quote that I'll have to find after dinner
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Likewise, unless I am mistaken, there was a Christian branch of the decidedly-not-Greek Existentialist movement. How does that fit in?
You're not mistaken. I did wonder when non-classical schools of philosophy would get a look in, but the OP seemed focussed on the classical, and besides, I'm no expert. There is a larger theme of suspicion to secular (or perhaps I should say non-theological) philosophising in some quarters, dismissed as "wisdom of the wise." I think Alan's post made a good deal of sense on that subject.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
That's a reasonable reply. When you speak of influences on Christianity, you are thinking specifically of first-century influences, and indeed only of philosophic influences.
My objection to this is that the world has actually continued. We do not live in the first century. In two thousand years, lots of ideas have come along, such as the abolition of slavery, large-scale representative governments, various civil rights movements, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, the structure of the solar system, the work of Mendel and Darwin, modern medicine, etc. Christianity has not stayed the same and should not have stayed the same and should not in the future remain the same.
Ah, you may say, these are not for the most part philosophies. That is true, but not all first-century influences on Christianity were philosophic, either. It was influenced by the details of the Roman empire, by the geography and by the limitations of the technology of the times.
This thread is about one end of an interesting larger discussion.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Surely the lesson to be learnt from the fact that "some classical philosophers derived necessary truths that were falsehoods" is that the attempt to derive necessary truths without those checks and balances is fraught with difficulty and liable to produce gross error?
Well, that makes it sound as if those checks and balances are still not in place - which is not the case. Natural science and philosophical inquiry are complementary, one could perhaps say that one investigates the accidents of the world, and the other the essences. For example, how gravity works is accidental: it could have been otherwise. That's precisely the reason why we need observation and experiment, and a systematic assessment thereof: to determine what actually is the case. But for example, what causality means is essential: we cannot conceive a different manner of causing, merely the absence of cause. That one thing causes another is an organizing principle of the world which no observation or experiment can disprove, because what we look for in observation or experiment is precisely causation.
Hence the very development of natural science improves philosophy: the more precisely we know what the accidents of the world are, thanks to science, the less confusion can exist what the essences of the world are, namely the rest. Our advantage over the medievals is basically that we can say for a lot more things: don't use philosophy for that, that's a matter of science, it's accidental. There is however no indication that all is accidental. Rather to the contrary, in fact. Practically no philosophical issue that has been considered "deep" since time immemorial has been accidentalized. But science may well be essentializing some unexpected topics, e.g., the act of observation.
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
We have leaned far more truth from reason coupled with empiricism than by Aristotelian armchair speculation.
A ton of apples is more than a single orange. By weight. But if one happens to want an orange, then a ton of apples is less than a single orange.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Thanks for the reply, IngoB - that clarifies your original point for me, and I find myself in substantial agreement with you. I might quibble with the Aristotlean terminology, but I take that to be the accidents of your post rather than the essence of it .
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
markprice81
Shipmate
# 13793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
I sympathize greatly. One finds, strangely enough considering his ultra-conservativism with many other matters of theology, Pope Benedict is very pro-Plato has a lot to teach Christian theologians.
I'd be interested in knowing where Pope Benedict expands his views on Plato. If memory serves there is some in the first few chapters of Introduction to Christian Theology but have not seen it elsewhere.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markprice81:
[/qb]
I'd be interested in knowing where Pope Benedict expands his views on Plato. If memory serves there is some in the first few chapters of Introduction to Christian Theology but have not seen it elsewhere. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Markprice81
Howdy: See, Ratzinger, J: Eschatology (especially his chapter on the immortality of the soul) Plato features tacitly throughout, though with obvious qualifications. The third edition I think is 2007, it's the one I have
Also: Tracey Rowland: Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict (2008,Oxford University Press) has some interesting things to say.
Journal studies are awash with info, such as:
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF J. RATZINGER - BENEDICT XVI
IN THE LIGHT OF HIS THEOLOGICAL BIOGRAPHY by
Jesús Martínez Gordo
I hope they give you an idea.
R
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
markprice81
Shipmate
# 13793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
Howdy: See, Ratzinger, J: Eschatology (especially his chapter on the immortality of the soul) Plato features tacitly throughout, though with obvious qualifications. The third edition I think is 2007, it's the one I have
Thanks, have just been making a list of presents as I am having a 30th birthday party next weekend and not only was this on the list, someone has already agreed to get it for me.
Now, just need to finish my complete works of Plato. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
classical philosophy is dead and religion is dragging the decaying corpse of its playmate around in mourning.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
You may have just summed up the whole crisis of our civilisation.
The Conservative Project is indeed to somehow revive the corpse. The Liberal Project is to bury it - to make sense of Christianity in the context of modern philosophical & scientific understanding.
While you're right that some attempts at the latter are profoundly unsatisfactory and unsatisfying, that doesn't mean that there isn't a "right" way of doing it.
The former would be an act of collective lobotomy that would forever ghettoize religion.
If I've understood you right...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How awesome that Thom had a theophany of God's perichoretic love that resulted in him regarding his work as eight and a half million straws.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How awesome that Thom had a theophany of God's perichoretic love that resulted in him regarding his work as eight and a half million straws.
And yet, for some, those straws are all we have to work with. I'm all for the "God is greater than our imaginings" but at the end of the day, we can only speak out of our imaginings, if we wish to communicate with each other.
Also wanted to give props to IngoB for stating the problem so cogently.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed. Quality. And Thanks Dr. B. for the link in 'another place' to the imitation of Christ.
Despite my zenning out in Hell part of me still wants to hammer on your door about what the accident of indeterminism does to the essence of omnipotence (and YES I AM being ironic).
But it can't matter can it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wowwwww!!! IngoB. Your 3rd para of the 1st missive of the 22nd inst. of the 2nd. That has GOT to be explored. I read up threads for my sins often and therefore just got there.
Are you post-Thomist?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think we need to reassert the ability of reason to find and operate on first principles, revive classical philosophy, and give religion back its favorite playmate.
I do not believe this is how the Orthodox understand the role of philosophy.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Are you post-Thomist?
I'm not sure I'm qualified to be post-Thomist. I'm presumably more pre-clue.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I do not believe this is how the Orthodox understand the role of philosophy.
And? Personally, I don't care much what "the Orthodox" think of philosophy. But if you feel that you can speak for "the Orthodox" on that matter, then maybe you simply should? Or is that not how "the Orthodox" understand the role of discussion?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Basically, classical philosophy tries to derive necessary truths from first principles
<snip>
Religion is intrinsically compatible with classical philosophy
<snip>
Essentially, modern man does not believe in first principles anymore, nor in the ability to derive necessary truths.
Perhaps it is possible to derive necessary truths from first principles. But not religious truths. Not theology.
Martin PC avers that theology has been infected by Greek philosophy. My understanding of the Orthodox approach to theology is that the Church Fathers were learned in Greek philosophy and found in it a conceptual apparatus for expressing truths already revealed. This revealed truth is what the Orthodox mean by Holy Tradition. If the Fathers had been Chinese they would have used Chinese philosophical language. This is quite different from using philosophical methods and applying them to first principles, be they the data of revelation (e.g. Scripture) or anything else.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Indeed. Quality. And Thanks Dr. B. for the link in 'another place' to the imitation of Christ.
Despite my zenning out in Hell part of me still wants to hammer on your door about what the accident of indeterminism does to the essence of omnipotence (and YES I AM being ironic).
But it can't matter can it?
Everything matters to some extent, though it depends on priorities. The demands of my immediate existence sometimes make it tricky to spent a lot of time contemplating existential immediacy.
I think indeterminism can be understood as the will of the omnipotent that desires freedom for the marginally-potent. Determinism undermines free will, and I think (like any good Wesleyan) that God has put quite a premium on our free will. It's a rather high cost, but who am I to second guess the ineffable?
I'm merely a Master of Divinity, and a relatively recent one at that, though I appreciate the compliment (if by "Dr. B" you mean me.)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Obviously, Gwai's last post was supposed to be from me. Apologies for any confusion.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
My understanding of the Orthodox approach to theology is that the Church Fathers were learned in Greek philosophy and found in it a conceptual apparatus for expressing truths already revealed. ... This is quite different from using philosophical methods and applying them to first principles, be they the data of revelation (e.g. Scripture) or anything else.
Yeah, well, bollocks. "I have called the Cappadocians revolutionary thinkers in the history of philosophy." - Metropolitan John Zizioulas. The unfortunate fact that Orthodoxy often presents itself as anti-intellectual these days, in particular where it tries to gobble up Protestant malcontents in the West, says very little about the historical contribution to philosophy of the Greek Fathers.
There is only one way to do philosophy, really, and merely dressing up with its vocabulary is fruitless and not worthy of Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai in persona Bullfrog.:
I'm merely a Master of Divinity, and a relatively recent one at that, though I appreciate the compliment (if by "Dr. B" you mean me.)
I'm afraid the Dr. B in question is almost certainly me, since I provided the mentioned link to René Girard on the imitation of Christ (and am indeed a doctor, albeit only rerum naturum, of natural things).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Bless you, Ingo, you're on top form! Unfortunately, I'm no kind of doctor at all, so there's nothing I can do about your spleen. But I will read the good Metropolitan's article and get back to you.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Can I just say that in my time away that I had forgotten just how learned and marvellous threads on Ship of Fools could get? And how I had forgotten the quality of the brains we have here (IngoB, how I have missed you)?
Bravo, ladies and gentlemen. Bravo.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Martin PC avers that theology has been infected by Greek philosophy. My understanding of the Orthodox approach to theology is that the Church Fathers were learned in Greek philosophy and found in it a conceptual apparatus for expressing truths already revealed. This revealed truth is what the Orthodox mean by Holy Tradition. If the Fathers had been Chinese they would have used Chinese philosophical language. This is quite different from using philosophical methods and applying them to first principles, be they the data of revelation (e.g. Scripture) or anything else.
Yeeeess... sort of. But when you look at S. Augustine's take on the nature of God and being in Confessions X through XIII, I don't think it's all that cut and dried.
I mean, that's exactly what dear old Gus Hippo said he did, and I think it's what he believed he did, but as we know, we read things with our preconceptions. I think what Augustine actually did was take Neoplatonic thought, and mesh it with the Christian philosophy of his day, and come up with something which was new and strictly neither.
Before S. Augustine, was the conception of the Trinity defined in that way? Did Christian thought express its view of God in quite the same way before the Fathers latched on to the (Neo)Platonists? Did the Trinity look quite as much like the Intellectual-Principles of Plotinus*/Porphyry before Augustine?
Do you know, I am not sure it did.
And if the Fathers were really just "spoiling the Egyptians"**, why did folks like S. Jerome warn against the use of classical philosophy (like in Ep. XXII to Eustochius, where he talks about having a vision where God says to him, "You're not a Christian — you're a Ciceronian!"***)
____________________________
* Ever read Plotinus' Enneads? It's... something transcendent and beautiful and really really hard to understand. It's also written in really hard, really weird Greek. I had to resort to Steven McKenna's translation, which is beautiful and strange and lovely and sort of washes over you like a mid-70s Nico album.
**To quote Augustine. Can't remember where.
** Yes, Cicero was a Stoic, but that wasn't the Blessed Father's point, was it?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
