The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

Modern philosophy: Oxymoron?
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=35795
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Csquared [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Modern philosophy: Oxymoron?

Is it just me, or does modern philosophy not deserve the name? It seems to be simply making up excuses for one's prior beliefs rather than a search for truth now.

Author:  Michael Francis [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think Oxymoron is to generous.

Author:  Max Majestic [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:09 am ]
Post subject: 

It depends upon what you consider to be "modern". Don't fall into the fallacy of dismissing everything post-scholastic.

Author:  BobCatholic [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:55 am ]
Post subject: 

And don't confuse modern with contemporary.

Author:  Csquared [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
It depends upon what you consider to be "modern". Don't fall into the fallacy of dismissing everything post-scholastic.


Microprocessor age philosophy.

Author:  dsbrown [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

William Barrett has an excellent account of the development of modern philosophy in Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer. Also good is The Death and Life of Philosophy by Robert Greene (St. Augustine's Press, with a nice blurb from Catholic philosopher Ralph McInerny). McInerny has a good short little book A Student's Guide to Philosophy where he gives a brief history and concludes with why he is a Thomist. And, of course, Etienne Gilson's The Unity of Philosophical Experience.

Some of the books I recommend for my students when they are troubled by the developments of modern philosophy.

David

Author:  Dionysius [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

BobCatholic wrote:
And don't confuse modern with contemporary.


whats the difference? (I am not disagreeing; just asking)

Author:  tom jeffords [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  A couple of things

One the term "philosophy" covers a great deal of territory metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. so saying philosophy is such and such is too general a statement. Second I think the ultimate problems are ones of epistemology and ethics/moral theology. Much of our culture (for want of a better term) doesn't believe in or accept ultimate truths or a standard of right or wrong that they find inconveinent. So if there is no ultimate truth or right or wrong, how can you have "philosophy" which means love of wisdom?

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A couple of things

tom jeffords wrote:
Second I think the ultimate problems are ones of epistemology and ethics/moral theology.


In this, you are a thorough modern (for better or for worse). Until about the time of Descartes, metaphysics was primary. The advent of "scientific thought" lead to attempts to put all knowledge on the same sort of certainty as experimental science, which brough epistemology to the fore. I'm antiquarian, so I don't think epistemology is the ultimate problem--it's only a tool.

Author:  forumjunkie [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A couple of things

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
tom jeffords wrote:
Second I think the ultimate problems are ones of epistemology and ethics/moral theology.


In this, you are a thorough modern (for better or for worse). Until about the time of Descartes, metaphysics was primary. The advent of "scientific thought" lead to attempts to put all knowledge on the same sort of certainty as experimental science, which brough epistemology to the fore. I'm antiquarian, so I don't think epistemology is the ultimate problem--it's only a tool.


I'm not pulling a Socratic Method on you when I ask this... I truly want to know... Is what you say here true?

My understanding is that all knowledge looked to metaphysics and theology for its foundation, but when that was destroyed by the reformation, then scientific thought became the foundation... I'm not convinced that the problem was that there was a shift to bring all knowledge together because it wasn't before, but because it WAS before, and that unity was destroyed by the reformation... Am I off base?

FJ

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think so. In The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argues fairly convincingly that the protestant rebellion was a result of nominalist philosophy.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/