The same reason someone would draw a distinction between art and modern art?

He asked for an introduction. We don't introduce people to science starting with quantum physics. I think an introduction to philosophy should start with the ancients, because everything we have is more or less built on their work. Is that a bizarre approach?

I generally don't like reading philosophy books about philosophy books, but that's my preference.

k2aggie07 said:

---

We don't introduce people to science starting with quantum physics.

---

Not sure Principia is the place to start either, though.

Edit: not saying St. John is Principia in this analogy since I'm totally unfamiliar with him, just a general comment on one's approach to learn complicated ideas.

Agreed, but ancient physics has been falsified in many ways by modern. I'm not sure we can say that ancient philosophy has been falsified. So, while I wouldn't begin someone's physics training in Aristotle's Physics, I think his Metaphysics is still "required reading" for someone who wants to learn about philosophy.

You can learn algebra and calculus without delving into the history of the development of the concept of infinity or the infinitesimal etc,. and there's not much benefit to starting mathematics with a deficient stance that those don't exist.

Regardless, St John's philosophical chapters are pedagogical, and they give a good overview of the elements of classic philosophy (albeit without footnotes) up to the 8th century, which is a nice place to start.

Never thought I'd have to go to the mattresses to defend a book recommendation. Sheesh.

Sure, not attacking the book recommendation at all. As stated earlier, I presently know nothing about it aside from what you've posted, and I'm sure I would learn a lot by reading it. My comment was more meant to probe at the following comments:

"I think an introduction to philosophy should start with the ancients, because everything we have is more or less built on their work."

"I generally don't like reading philosophy books about philosophy books, but that's my preference."

I brought up Principia instead of others such as Aristotle's Physics because Principia's results are still valid. While much of physics is built on ideas Principia is foundational to, I don't think there is much value in reading it, not from a physics perspective anyway. Instead, when students are taught introductory physics they use textbooks that take ideas from Principia and developments in physics since and distill them into a pedagogical form that is more digestible. I suppose I'm curious as to why you would prefer the approach of starting with the ancients when it comes to philosophy as opposed to the approach given above.

I don't think you need to read the ancients to follow modern philosophy, but you definitely need to read them to make the context of philosophy make sense. Until the last few hundred years, everything in philosophy was a response to or modification of Pythagorus, Plato, and Aristotle. If you understand those writers, then the arguments make a whole lot more sense. Even Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicena, and Mulla Sadra are all very much entrenched in these ancient Greeks, as were the major contributors of the Renaissance.

You have to go all the way to Descartes to find a philospher who intentionally broke from this tradition and tried to "reboot" philosophy. So from 1600 or so you could follow most philosophers without that background I think, if you stayed entirely in European philosophy. But I think almost any philosopher would tell you to start with the classics.

Would a modern introduction to the classics not give the requisite exposure? I've tried to read some of the classics, and found them quite difficult for the most part. I found the annotations of others helped me make a lot more sense of the classics, which is why I wonder if a pedagogical resource on the classics may be more valuable than the classics themselves, at least for the beginner. That was my experience, anyway.

I think with Plato you could read some of the dialogues. They read pretty easy. Aristotle apparently reads like a textbook so I wouldn't recommend it.

I would definitely recommend some sort of overview of the most important arguments of the ancient Greeks along with their treatment by philosophers since. Like I said before, I'm working through a really awesome podcast during my commutes that aims to do just that. I think k2 was advising something similar with his recommendation.

If you are more interested in modern Western philosophy, then I think you start with Descartes and work forward. Even then, I really don't think you need much philosophical background at all to engage in current day philosophical arguments. The background helps though as does any sort of logical training. But logical training is pretty much taught universally in mathematics, rhetoric, and computer science, so most people are already pretty grounded in this.

Cool, thanks for the advice.

Thanks Ramblin, that's right on.

And darg, the reason I recommended St John is because his philosophical chapters are pedagogical and sort of a synthesis of a wide range of classic philosophy without necessarily feeling like a textbook (Chapter 1: Plato, Chapter 2: Aristotle etc). He just says: this is philosophy, starting with some basic concepts and ending, if I recall, with why earthquakes happen (this kind of thing is, to me, one of the more endearing things about reading the classical works).

If you read the Philosophical Chapters you could go backwards and read Plato and follow along, or go forward and read medieval work based on Plato and follow along. I also think you'd be better equipped to follow more complex philosophical arguments in reading modern stuff. Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

He just says: this is philosophy, starting with some basic concepts and ending, if I recall, with why earthquakes happen (this kind of thing is, to me, one of the more endearing things about reading the classical works).

---

My last episode was Peter Damian's take on whether God could make a woman a virgin again. (According to Damien He can)

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

From hanging out here for a few years it seems like:

(a) Catholics aren't too interested in understanding many philosophers after, say, Aquinas.
(b) Evangelicals and Protestants aren't too interested in anyone before, say, Luther, or much of anything after, say, Calvin.

1. If these are unfair generalizations, tell me why.
2. If you're a Christian, do you feel it's important at all to understand the heavy hitters of philosophy, morality, and religion? (Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and so forth). Do you ever challenge your own beliefs about the nature of faith, or nature of God, or hermeneutics by reading philosophers that have different views from what you've been taught?

---

Nietzsche......... In 1889 at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward, a complete loss of his mental faculties. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister. Nietzsche died in 1900.

Real interesting guy there. If you like crazy people.

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

From hanging out here for a few years it seems like:

(a) Catholics aren't too interested in understanding many philosophers after, say, Aquinas.
(b) Evangelicals and Protestants aren't too interested in anyone before, say, Luther, or much of anything after, say, Calvin.

1. If these are unfair generalizations, tell me why.
2. If you're a Christian, do you feel it's important at all to understand the heavy hitters of philosophy, morality, and religion? (Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and so forth). Do you ever challenge your own beliefs about the nature of faith, or nature of God, or hermeneutics by reading philosophers that have different views from what you've been taught?

---

Nietzsche......... In 1889 at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward, a complete loss of his mental faculties. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister. Nietzsche died in 1900.

Real interesting guy there. If you like crazy people.

---

I'm reading Twilight Of The Idols right now. Which of his books have you read?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Most people on here balk at a post with more than 150 characters. You can't have a philosophical discussion without some words.

Christianity in the East very emphatically stated that Christianity was the only true philosophy, and others grasped at what a Christian person who has been illumines has direct access to. Any philosophy not rooted in the experimental and liturgical life of Christianity is - or perhaps I would say should be - suspect. This doesn't prevent Christians from being exposed to or even utilizing other philosophy. But this is a baptizing of terminology to express what we have as truth. We've been doing this continuously since the beginning. You can see St Paul, as someone pointed out; or St John's use of Logos to describe Christ, or the later Christianization of neo-Platonist language and concepts.

---

The claim is that it is the one true philosophy that really matter ultimately. Eternal implications.

Not that there is no worth in other philosophies. Philosophers back in those times were seen as heroes/role models/whatever...almost how we view modern athletes of brilliant minds. I think Jesus and the apostles engaged regularly with them and had respect for them and probably agreed with much of what they had to say.

The tone of this thread is just pretty condescending, but sounds like that wasn't your intention.

Quote:

---

Not that there is no worth in other philosophies.

---

Define "worth"? If Christianity is true philosophy, other philosophies are true only insofar as they participate in truth.

This is kind of like saying Chemistry is true, but that doesn't mean there is no worth in Alchemy. Even if Alchemy does, on occasion, produce desirable results, that doesn't mean it itself is of worth.

Maybe for things like metaphysics and ethics where you would expect broad overlap between secular and religious discussions.

But I think other branches like epistomology and natural philosophy can be very worthwhile despite not being "Christian" per se

Sure, I agree with that. I'm using philosophy somewhat literally - love of wisdom, as in seeking truth or maximizing the good.

No, 99.5% do not care about philosophy. I don't. And have never heard it mentioned anywhere except here. So congrats to the .5%!!

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not that there is no worth in other philosophies.

---

Define "worth"? If Christianity is true philosophy, other philosophies are true only insofar as they participate in truth.

This is kind of like saying Chemistry is true, but that doesn't mean there is no worth in Alchemy. Even if Alchemy does, on occasion, produce desirable results, that doesn't mean it itself is of worth.

---

Just because something is true doesn't mean it's comprehensive. There are subjects of interest to humankind that are not exhaustively treated in Christianity. Taking your point to its most extreme, why do you quote those 5th century saints if we already have the Bible?

To use your analogy, maybe there's no inherent worth in alchemy that isn't also covered in chemistry, but what about physics or biology?

Yeah, now we're just talking about what is philosophy, which has been (and probably will continue to be) a moving target.

This is when the physicists lean forward and just say "ah...ahem." Haha

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Most people on here balk at a post with more than 150 characters. You can't have a philosophical discussion without some words.

Christianity in the East very emphatically stated that Christianity was the only true philosophy, and others grasped at what a Christian person who has been illumines has direct access to. Any philosophy not rooted in the experimental and liturgical life of Christianity is - or perhaps I would say should be - suspect. This doesn't prevent Christians from being exposed to or even utilizing other philosophy. But this is a baptizing of terminology to express what we have as truth. We've been doing this continuously since the beginning. You can see St Paul, as someone pointed out; or St John's use of Logos to describe Christ, or the later Christianization of neo-Platonist language and concepts.

---

The claim is that it is the one true philosophy that really matter ultimately. Eternal implications.

Not that there is no worth in other philosophies. Philosophers back in those times were seen as heroes/role models/whatever...almost how we view modern athletes of brilliant minds. I think Jesus and the apostles engaged regularly with them and had respect for them and probably agreed with much of what they had to say.

The tone of this thread is just pretty condescending, but sounds like that wasn't your intention.

---

personally i am trying to learn something about
(a) whether and to what extent Christians feel philosophy is necessary or useful to engage with
(b) why that is.


Let me throw out a different thought. OK so Christianity is basically a merger of christ's teachings with aspects of platonic philosophy. Clearly the early church felt it important to draw from what was then cutting-edge philosophy to elaborate their faith and make it relevant to societies they wanted to convert. Later, you get the scholastics engaging with Aristotle. That's pretty much what Catholicism still is, right? In my experience Protestants are usually ignorant of all of that (i certainly was raised to believe that anything pre-reformation was unimportant) and since their guys are really theologians and not philosophers per se (luther and calvin), the various strains of protestantism ostensibly exist in a philosophical and historical vacuum (outside of the seminaries, of course).

My question, then, is to what extent do orthodox and catholic folks engage with any philosophical developments since, say, Aquinas, and for protestants, any philosophy at all, really.

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

From hanging out here for a few years it seems like:

(a) Catholics aren't too interested in understanding many philosophers after, say, Aquinas.
(b) Evangelicals and Protestants aren't too interested in anyone before, say, Luther, or much of anything after, say, Calvin.

1. If these are unfair generalizations, tell me why.
2. If you're a Christian, do you feel it's important at all to understand the heavy hitters of philosophy, morality, and religion? (Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and so forth). Do you ever challenge your own beliefs about the nature of faith, or nature of God, or hermeneutics by reading philosophers that have different views from what you've been taught?

---

Nietzsche......... In 1889 at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward, a complete loss of his mental faculties. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister. Nietzsche died in 1900.

Real interesting guy there. If you like crazy people.

---

I'm reading Twilight Of The Idols right now. Which of his books have you read?

---

Why would I read a book written by a crazy man?

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

From hanging out here for a few years it seems like:

(a) Catholics aren't too interested in understanding many philosophers after, say, Aquinas.
(b) Evangelicals and Protestants aren't too interested in anyone before, say, Luther, or much of anything after, say, Calvin.

1. If these are unfair generalizations, tell me why.
2. If you're a Christian, do you feel it's important at all to understand the heavy hitters of philosophy, morality, and religion? (Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and so forth). Do you ever challenge your own beliefs about the nature of faith, or nature of God, or hermeneutics by reading philosophers that have different views from what you've been taught?

---

Nietzsche......... In 1889 at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward, a complete loss of his mental faculties. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister. Nietzsche died in 1900.

Real interesting guy there. If you like crazy people.

---

I'm reading Twilight Of The Idols right now. Which of his books have you read?

---

Why would I read a book written by a crazy man?

---

Surely you must know he wrote his entire corpus -- about 15 books -- as a perfectly sane person before he suffered his mental breakdown in 1889.

It really depends on the person. I have a good friend who is getting his PhD in analytic philosophy. His advisor is also orthodox. My sons godfather has a philosophy minor. Both are extremely well-read, including more modern stuff like Kierkegaard, Kant, or Heidegger. But, when reading, their touchstone always comes back to either synthesizing it into something compatible with the truths as experienced in Christianity or rejecting it as false because it is not.

To be honest I think the incidence of interest in philosophy is kind of a given regardless of faith... most people aren't all that interested.

I do think that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have something to offer for those interested in this type of thing that Protestantism in general lacks. In the American Evangelical movement there is kind of a general anti-intellectual trend, and that is even more pronounced in matters of faith.

Of course in Orthodoxy we profess that our faith is experiential, not rational, so the expression of Orthodox Christian philosophy is always rooted in the experience of the Faith. So a "pure" rational or intellectual approach is rejected.

No one knows when the breakdown actually occurred.

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

From hanging out here for a few years it seems like:

(a) Catholics aren't too interested in understanding many philosophers after, say, Aquinas.
(b) Evangelicals and Protestants aren't too interested in anyone before, say, Luther, or much of anything after, say, Calvin.

1. If these are unfair generalizations, tell me why.
2. If you're a Christian, do you feel it's important at all to understand the heavy hitters of philosophy, morality, and religion? (Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and so forth). Do you ever challenge your own beliefs about the nature of faith, or nature of God, or hermeneutics by reading philosophers that have different views from what you've been taught?

---

Nietzsche......... In 1889 at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward, a complete loss of his mental faculties. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister. Nietzsche died in 1900.

Real interesting guy there. If you like crazy people.

---

I'm reading Twilight Of The Idols right now. Which of his books have you read?

---

Why would I read a book written by a crazy man?

---

Have you read the Bible?

I've read the Bible cover to cover several times as I'm sure most on this board have.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It really depends on the person. I have a good friend who is getting his PhD in analytic philosophy. His advisor is also orthodox. My sons godfather has a philosophy minor. Both are extremely well-read, including more modern stuff like Kierkegaard, Kant, or Heidegger. But, when reading, their touchstone always comes back to either synthesizing it into something compatible with the truths as experienced in Christianity or rejecting it as false because it is not.

To be honest I think the incidence of interest in philosophy is kind of a given regardless of faith... most people aren't all that interested.

I do think that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have something to offer for those interested in this type of thing that Protestantism in general lacks. In the American Evangelical movement there is kind of a general anti-intellectual trend, and that is even more pronounced in matters of faith.

Of course in Orthodoxy we profess that our faith is experiential, not rational, so the expression of Orthodox Christian philosophy is always rooted in the experience of the Faith. So a "pure" rational or intellectual approach is rejected.

---

Could you say more about that last bit? Specifically does the emphasis on experience as opposed to just reason contrast w the RCC? Is that a valid distinction?

I don't know where to start. It sort of cuts to the heart of the whole filioque controversy.

My understanding is that the RCC side ultimately believes that our heavenly end is a contemplation of God in a rational way. I am open to correction hear, but this is what I have gathered in my studies. They even come to describe God in rational terms. Aquinas says contemplation of God is an act of the intellect, and heaven is contemplating God as pure truth eternally.

The East is much more apophatic, that God is unknowable in His essence but deigns to be known, so creates humans with a capacity to know Him...but not in a rational way. St Maximos says God is even beyond knowing and unknowing because we can handle these concepts rationally, so He is supra-non-knowable. But insofar as He reveals Himself to us He has created us with a capacity to supra-non-know Him. I know it's gobbledygook but the point is how we know God is different and distinct from our knowledge of anything else, and so it's not rational.

A good way to see this can be seen in either sides use of Aristotle. There's a really good book called Aristotle East and West that reviews this, and my take on it won't do it justice. It was a good read though - lots of "ah ha!" moments.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't know where to start. It sort of cuts to the heart of the whole filioque controversy.

My understanding is that the RCC side ultimately believes that our heavenly end is a contemplation of God in a rational way. I am open to correction hear, but this is what I have gathered in my studies. They even come to describe God in rational terms. Aquinas says contemplation of God is an act of the intellect, and heaven is contemplating God as pure truth eternally.

The East is much more apophatic, that God is unknowable in His essence but deigns to be known, so creates humans with a capacity to know Him...but not in a rational way. St Maximos says God is even beyond knowing and unknowing because we can handle these concepts rationally, so He is supra-non-knowable. But insofar as He reveals Himself to us He has created us with a capacity to supra-non-know Him. I know it's gobbledygook but the point is how we know God is different and distinct from our knowledge of anything else, and so it's not rational.

A good way to see this can be seen in either sides use of Aristotle. There's a really good book called Aristotle East and West that reviews this, and my take on it won't do it justice. It was a good read though - lots of "ah ha!" moments.

---

I do not believe this to be the catholic position. It is a part of it, perhaps, but we rest in mystery and hope.

As for an apophatic approach, which I am not very familiar with, how would one address the fact that God has made Himself knowable, even intimate, and his creation is ordered and reasoned?

I would hope one would never think a fully negative theology would be all that is useful. God draws us to Himself through revelation, and reason is a gift He gives us in this work.

Right - I don't think the catholic tradition precludes mystery, but it is much more rational and from Aquinas on really has some strong statements about which part of us is eternal or divine.

The apophatic statements are about God Himself, as He is. So, in His essence - what it is that's makes Him God - He is ineffable and unknowable, beyond knowing or comprehension or anything.

We experience His energies or workings, which are eternal and are therefore also divine and God. So our cataphatic statements (Love, Good, etc) are about these.

The whole proper use of theology is to describe the ineffable revelations which are experienced only in correct rational terms. But even a perfect explanation of a divine experience under defines the reality. Hence the suggestion that we don't experience these things rationally.

This energies vs essence distinction, the mechanics of how we experience God (with our senses or mind or something else), and whether the grace we experience is eternal or created is what the debates between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas were about.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The R&P book club sounds like a good idea. We should actually do that.

---

My first recommendation: All Quiet on the Western Front. I think anyone looking to join the military should read this before signing anything. Such a powerful work. Really does a phenomenal job of critiquing the idolatry of war and militarism that can become pervasive in a society, especially among those who have no skin in the game. Remarque's portrayal of the physical and emotional stresses of war is spot on. It's easily my favorite book. My wife started listening to the audio book and had to take a break after the first chapter. It is just too intense for her and she hates crying.

I'll read it if you start a thread.

I was going to suggest either Plato's Timaeus or Descartes Principles of Philosphy, but we can also read a "war is bad" book.

Seriously though, just having heard the Hardcore History account of the WW1 Western Front it sounds like hell on Earth