This is a really interesting thought. I have heard it said that Reason leads us to the light of truth, but perhaps this is like fumbling through a room in the darkness looking for a light switch. Beginning at the font of Truth and letting reason flow from that is surely more direct--and its somewhat confronting to encounter. To abbreviate such an argument, it might sound like “God loves us therefore the sky is blue”--which doesnt follow the modern rules of engagement. But theres no reason you HAVE to if you can draw your logic out from Truth. I hope I am understanding you correctly but please point me to the right path if Ive gone astray.
You sound on track to me! "...if you can draw your logic out from Truth" is precisely the point. Thank you so much for reading and responding! I am happy it gave you something to think over.
I'm a doubters here because of History. Faith in Jesus, even faith in Yahweh, come to us through scripture which began as historical accounts. In other words, faith's genesis came through the senses and then, in Aristotelian fashion, proceeded "upward" in it's conclusions. It did not begin with Platonic contemplation of Forms.
Jesus worked hard to convince his Apostles, relying on signs and wonders to wake up their faith.
Hi David. I don't think you're missing anything in your basic premise. We received Faith, not philosophy, from scriptures and the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. We are a historical faith as you point out. I'm talking about something a little different. I'm talking about how we filter what we receive which is a philosophical orientation and how the Church has filtered it over the centuries. Augustine was more Platonic, while much later in the 13th century, Aquinas demonstrated that Aristotelian principles were not in conflict with the faith. The Summa is basically an expression of our faith demonstrated by Aristotelian methods. So, I'm looking at how we have changed our natural philosophical filter over the centuries. I am not supposing that philosophy is the primordial grounding of our faith.
Very interesting article. This seems to tie in with a problem I often wrestle with - the need to rationalise and quantify everything. Schools and universities teach us to think in this way, and it means I now feel an impulse to question every instinct, making it difficult to connect with anything transcendent.
Thank you. I agree. I grew up going through universities with the same understanding of the world you expressed. Then I had a revelatory encounter through the life story of Joan of Arc, and I found a more expansive way to contemplate the world.
What a profound article! Certainly there is much here to think about. It’s been said that we’re all either Platonic or Aristotelian in our thought orientation. For years I wanted to “self-identity” as Aristotelian (lol) but as I’ve come to know my own poetic and symbolic sensibilities I’ve concluded that I’m inescapably Platonic. That said, I don’t think we should pit the one against the other. I’ve been immersed in reading Aristotle these last few months (after spending more than a year with Plato) and I find him quite reasonable and profoundly good willed. And don’t forget that Plato’s God is entirely impersonal, something akin to the Good itself, while in Aristotle we find a God who is more personal in the classical sense of a god. I think it’s a mistake not to embrace and attempt to reconcile both together.
Thanks Amy! I agree. I think we need both, and each brings a specific insight. My points in the article are really around their realism and whose realism we are going to emphasize. Beyond that the two philosphers have much to offer us, as both Acquinas and Edith Stein demonstrated.
This is a really interesting thought. I have heard it said that Reason leads us to the light of truth, but perhaps this is like fumbling through a room in the darkness looking for a light switch. Beginning at the font of Truth and letting reason flow from that is surely more direct--and its somewhat confronting to encounter. To abbreviate such an argument, it might sound like “God loves us therefore the sky is blue”--which doesnt follow the modern rules of engagement. But theres no reason you HAVE to if you can draw your logic out from Truth. I hope I am understanding you correctly but please point me to the right path if Ive gone astray.
I will think on this, thank you for this article!
You sound on track to me! "...if you can draw your logic out from Truth" is precisely the point. Thank you so much for reading and responding! I am happy it gave you something to think over.
I'm a doubters here because of History. Faith in Jesus, even faith in Yahweh, come to us through scripture which began as historical accounts. In other words, faith's genesis came through the senses and then, in Aristotelian fashion, proceeded "upward" in it's conclusions. It did not begin with Platonic contemplation of Forms.
Jesus worked hard to convince his Apostles, relying on signs and wonders to wake up their faith.
But maybe I'm wrong. What am I missing?
Hi David. I don't think you're missing anything in your basic premise. We received Faith, not philosophy, from scriptures and the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. We are a historical faith as you point out. I'm talking about something a little different. I'm talking about how we filter what we receive which is a philosophical orientation and how the Church has filtered it over the centuries. Augustine was more Platonic, while much later in the 13th century, Aquinas demonstrated that Aristotelian principles were not in conflict with the faith. The Summa is basically an expression of our faith demonstrated by Aristotelian methods. So, I'm looking at how we have changed our natural philosophical filter over the centuries. I am not supposing that philosophy is the primordial grounding of our faith.
Very interesting article. This seems to tie in with a problem I often wrestle with - the need to rationalise and quantify everything. Schools and universities teach us to think in this way, and it means I now feel an impulse to question every instinct, making it difficult to connect with anything transcendent.
Thank you. I agree. I grew up going through universities with the same understanding of the world you expressed. Then I had a revelatory encounter through the life story of Joan of Arc, and I found a more expansive way to contemplate the world.
What a profound article! Certainly there is much here to think about. It’s been said that we’re all either Platonic or Aristotelian in our thought orientation. For years I wanted to “self-identity” as Aristotelian (lol) but as I’ve come to know my own poetic and symbolic sensibilities I’ve concluded that I’m inescapably Platonic. That said, I don’t think we should pit the one against the other. I’ve been immersed in reading Aristotle these last few months (after spending more than a year with Plato) and I find him quite reasonable and profoundly good willed. And don’t forget that Plato’s God is entirely impersonal, something akin to the Good itself, while in Aristotle we find a God who is more personal in the classical sense of a god. I think it’s a mistake not to embrace and attempt to reconcile both together.
Thanks for the great article!
Thanks Amy! I agree. I think we need both, and each brings a specific insight. My points in the article are really around their realism and whose realism we are going to emphasize. Beyond that the two philosphers have much to offer us, as both Acquinas and Edith Stein demonstrated.