When did philosophy go bad?

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Minerva

Philosophy went bad when "baptized Aristotleianism" became Catholic dogma. Big mistake. Once the scientific revolution happened in the 17th century, Aristotelianism was almost entirely discredited. It's metaphysical claims were shown to be bunk for the most part, and unfortunately Aristotle bases everything else upon his metaphysics.

I don't entirely agree. Aristotelian (and Thomist) metaphysics are entirely different methodologies from the scientific method.

True, you can't do science using Thomist methods. But you can't do philosophy using science, especially if you're dealing with the spiritual rather than the physical.

JimG

[frdave20]

I must confess that I am not quite -- rather I should say, not completely anti-Kant. I think that if we were to look at his work, yes there would be questionable philosophical theories. however, if we see a premise of this assertions -- that individuals are not to be use as a "mere means" we can see some of the Catholic philosophy towards the sanctity of life. I will concede that this is but one example; and I will concede that one can easily pick out certain idioms that agree with a philosophical outlook. Given that, I will say that Kant is questionable in other areas -- I am sure, some, more qualified and knowledgable than I can expound upon this matter.


I, do, have a question. What about our Eastern brethren? Who are some of the influential philosophers -- ones in line with the teaching of the Church? Who are the old ones? what about any contemporary and/or modern-day thinkers?

[Minerva]

"No part of Aristotle's metaphysics was shown to be "bunk" in the 17th century. Heliocentrism was refuted, but I do not think this is core to Aristotle's metaphysics. The form/matter - act/potency distinctions are core, and it is true that first corpuscular, and later, atomic, theories did/do threaten the aristotelian-thomistic views of material things, especially the unity of human persons."

Modern atomic theory doesn't just threaten Aristotle, it blows him out of the water. You simply cannot have atoms and an Aristotelian picture of matter/form. Aristotle would've agreed



"I know of no philosopher who thinks that Descartes' bifurcation of the human into mind and matter is an advance in the philosophical understanding of human beings. Problems in viewing humans dualistically were present even in the neo-platonists -- Augustine's anthropology/psychology has many notorious ambiguities/problems."

I know more than a few philosophers who think Descartes was an advance, or at least that Descartes was doing what he had to in order to salvage the soul and free will. Descartes was reacting to Hobbes who had taken the new discoveries in science to their logical conclusion. The universe was a big machine, running by its own mathematical laws. So are the things in the universe...so is the human being. there was no room for a "spooky" soul, it was the unecessary ghost in the machine. Descartes realized this is what happens when you identify the human as a body and which is why he posited the human as foremostly a mind, distinct from the body. Of course there are alot of problems with the view, as there are with any philosophical theory. But what Descartes did was highly innovative, and he, at least, wanted to preserve Christianity unlike Hobbes.





"I think it is ultimately impossible to reconcile atomistic views of material reality with the Catholic understanding of the unity of the human person, and the immortality of the soul. Either the person is one thing (a unity of soul and body (Aristotle-Thomas)), or that unity is only apparent, and the body is really a collection of billions of little things (molecules). Are we our bodies (not alone, of course) or are our bodies a mere pile of molecules that interact and work together (but are metaphysically still themselves)?"

so what will you do, reject the existence of atoms? The question of whether anything is itself or a collection of atoms, is a question as old as philosophy itself. Sorry I can't help you with it, though i have my theories.

"The "phenomenology" of the pope's philosophy is greatly exagerated. Early on in "Love and Responsibility" the Wojtyla makes it clear that his "phenomenology" is methodological, and does not subscribe the inherent subjectivism and relativism of Husserlian phenomenology. He is also quite clear that he accepts the metaphysical anthropology of Aquinas. "Fides et Ratio" renews his endorsement of Aquinas, though not for the matter/form (soul) anthropology, but for Aquinas' openness to the truth wherever it is found. Certainly what is required for any philosophy to be "baptized" is first to admit that there is a truth to be known. The implications of Descartes and Berkeley, and the explicit teaching of Hume, Kant, Husserl, and Sartre, deny this."

Endorsing Aquinas' search and openness to truth is a long way from making Thomism the de facto Catholic philosophy. And I also disagree that Descartes didn't believe there was any truth to be known. Kant didn't believe this either. Hume, Husserl, and Sartre did, but I wouldn't advocate their philosophies anyways.

[Minerva]

"I don't entirely agree. Aristotelian (and Thomist) metaphysics are entirely different methodologies from the scientific method."


exactly, which is why the Scholastic system could not accomodate the scientific revolution of the 1600s


"True, you can't do science using Thomist methods. But you can't do philosophy using science, especially if you're dealing with the spiritual rather than the physical."

true doing science isn't doing philosophy, but what science discovers has enormous impacts on philosophy, especially concerning issues of the soul and free will.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Minerva

true doing science isn't doing philosophy, but what science discovers has enormous impacts on philosophy, especially concerning issues of the soul and free will.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the human soul and free will must be material and therefore subject to the scientific method? Is a scientist involved in a scientific endeavor acting freely and intelligently or is he determined by the rules that govern matter?

It seems to me that there is as much danger in scientists trying to do philosphy as there is in philosophers trying to do science.

JimG

[hermit]

Philosophy went bad when Aristotle was interpreted in a way never intended by Aristotle.

The best overview of philosophy is A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, in spite of his agnosticism.

[Minerva]

Jim,

what I meant was that discoveries in science, especially cognitive science/neuroscience have alot of bearing on free will and the soul. Many scientists are convinced that consciousness, the mind, the will, what have you, is an entirely physical phenomenon. Thus there is no immortal soul. Nor would there be any free will. Philosophers look at what science is saying about the relationship between mental phenomena and physical phenomena and try to see what it means. Can we still be free? Is life after death possible? Sadly most philosophers are already physicalists about this issue, but for us Christian philosophers it's still an open question and a very interesting one. But we have to look to science for help here because the scientists are the ones studying the brain and how it works.

[stubiegirl]

I agree with Minerva in that our problem is that we are preaching of an immaterial world in a society that worships matter and denies the existence of anything else. Actually, this problem goes allllllll the way back to Ancient Rome. Yep. It's all about pursuing pleasure as god and contraception. For more info check out Moral Darwinismhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books by Benjamin Wiker. An EXCELLENT and very thorough evaluation of modern thinking. I cannot recommend this book enough on this topic. I don't know how there COULD be a better book out there on the subject. Benjamin Wiker draws very logical and facinating conclusions.

Check it out!
Pax.

[aridite]

Looking to the neurosciences has its place, and some of their discoveries are revealing. But you can't let physics do your metaphysics for you, and a crude, unnuanced atomism does innevitably lead to a denial of free will and any kind of soul (including an immortal one). Unfortunately, most philosophers today are physicalist, but physicalism is a metaphysical position, not an empirically discovered or verified one. It says that all there are physical entities (atoms or sub-atomic particles and the physical forces that govern their interaction according to physical necessity). Given this starting point, physicalists, like Hobbes and Democritus, will deny free will and the need for any kind of soul. No modern variety of physicalist theory (functionalist, cognitivist, supervenience, emergence), though, adequately accounts for even the natural phenomena like genuine intentionality (even apart from consciousness). Clearly the body and physical states are important for understanding cognitive states, but crude metaphysical atomism isn't sufficient. One needs a more nuanced way to explain how material elements go into making up the human body, without the human being reduced to a collections of such elements. Happily, the thomistic-aristotelian theory does (rather generally) account for material constituents, while not identifying the person with them. This is at least part the function that their version of soul serves in their theory, and why despite the advances in science since the 16th century, their theory is still viable. Physicalist theories haven't fared well despite the enormous promise (wishful thinking?) of cognitive science.

But I think the discussion is drifting.

As to the original question, just about all of the philosophical possibilities (rationalism, skepticism, relativism, atomism, hedonism, dualism, hylomorphism, stoicism) had been tried within about the first 300 years or so of the emergence of philosophy, and they continue to have their adherents in every age. There have always been bad philosophies. It is a mystery why at certain times certain of them predominate. I think it might have something to do with sin.

[Minerva]

actually aridite, the question of atoms and how a human body is more (or is it?) than a collection of atoms, is seperate from the mind-body problem. You can ask the same question about any material object - like the laptop I am writing on right now. Is it a laptop or is it silicone atoms? Like I said, this is an old problem and there are no easy answers to it. Aristotelianism is unsatisfactory for solving the problem since the existence of atoms violates Aristotle and Aquinas' belief in prime matter.

The mind-body problem is also a difficult one and I have no answer to it myself. I do know lots of philosophers who have no problem with being physicalists and see it as a consistent world view. I disagree with this quite vehemently. If physicalism is true, then free will and immortality go out the window. Alot is at stake. I don't see how Aristotelianism helps out with the problem. For one thing, Aristotle didn't even believe the brain was used for thinking - he thought it was used for regulating mucus and humors. This isn't very helpful when you need to go head to head with the latest in neuroscience

you seem to be very well versed in philosophy - did you major in it?

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Minerva

what I meant was that discoveries in science, especially cognitive science/neuroscience have alot of bearing on free will and the soul. Many scientists are convinced that consciousness, the mind, the will, what have you, is an entirely physical phenomenon. Thus there is no immortal soul. Nor would there be any free will. .......
If physicalism is true, then free will and immortality go out the window.

Yes, I do think that many scientists take the view that everything is purely material, composed of various subatomic particles.

If they are correct, there is no soul, no God, no immortality, no free will, and the perception of self identity and self integrity is a mere illusion, since the matter that makes up our bodies continuously changes.

Even the scientist's seeming perception that he is thinking hard about this subject (or that he decided on his own to do so) is an illusion, since physical laws have predetermined what he will or will not do, quantum physics notwithstanding. (If materialism is true, this entire post is nothing more than the result of some neruonal firings caused by the sensory input obtained from reading this thread.)

That is why I think that if Christianity is to have any intellectual foundation, if it believes that God is spirit, that persons are realities, that mind is something different than brain, and that one can choose for or against God, it needs a revitalized realist philosophy.

I've not read much of Aquinas, but I've read Frank Sheed's take on him, and that comes closest to what I have in mind.

JimG

[Minerva]

exactly Jim, the mind has to be different from the brain/body. I don't think Aquinas' Aristotelianism can account for this though. Like I said earlier, Aristotle didn't even think the brain was involved in consciousness. Neuroscience has discovered things that Aquinas never could've dreamed of; his philosophy is simply outdated to deal with this problem. Personally I think Descartes was on to something when he posited the mental as an entirely different substance than the physical (I don't agree with Descartes' skeptical project though)

[hermit]

[quote=JimG]Yes, I do think that many scientists take the view that everything is purely material, composed of various subatomic particles.

I happen to have a doctorate in Physics and neither I nor my colleagues fall into this "many" category that you are quoting. The further you go into the quantum realm the less "material" reality becomes.

As far as the mind/body dichotomy, I suggest reading Plato rather than Aristotle.

I also have an undergraduate minor in Philosophy.

[wolpertinger]

Originally Posted by JimG

Yes, I do think that many scientists take the view that everything is purely material, composed of various subatomic particles.

In other words, scientists believe that matter is comprised of matter?

If they are correct, there is no soul, no God, no immortality, no free will, and the perception of self identity and self integrity is a mere illusion, since the matter that makes up our bodies continuously changes.

No, if they are right it means that science cannot account for, support, prove or disprove the existence of souls, gods, and immortality (if predicated on a soul). You should actually prefer that these concepts are beyond science's scope -- imagine the ramifications of science treating souls, gods, and immortality as natural phenomena...

Free will is a tricky question, even assuming that there is a mutually agreeable definition of free will. As long as there are random processes in nature, the world isn't fully determined. Even if it were, free will as an emergent property of already complex organisms would imply that philosophical and theological nitpicking aside, it wouldn't matter for any practical purposes.

Self-identity and self-integrity as defined as a static arrangement of matter is a straw man.

that mind is something different than brain

Of course the mind is something different than the brain - it's what the brain does.

[aridite]

Originally Posted by Minerva

actually aridite, the question of atoms and how a human body is more (or is it?) than a collection of atoms, is seperate from the mind-body problem.

Since I am think dualism will ultimately not solve the problem, and that in a pretty significant sense, we are our bodies (or our bodies are an essential aspect of who we are), I think the metaphysical status of material components, personal identity and the mind/body problem are all of a piece. The question of atoms is really only an issue for natural kinds -- it is not hard to accept that a laptop, being an artifact, is an aggregate of atoms. The question would impact humans, animals, plants, homogeneous material. Is silicone a thing, or a collection of things (protons, neutrons and electrons) ... and once you go down the elementary particle road, where do you stop? Is anything REALLY what it seems? Aristotle has the best answer, things are what they seem (silicone, water, dogs, humans) but they are in virtue of their forms (souls if they are living).

Originally Posted by Minerva

Aristotelianism is unsatisfactory for solving the problem since the existence of atoms violates Aristotle and Aquinas' belief in prime matter.

The role of prime matter is exaggerated in most people's accounts of Aristotle and Aquinas. It is a sort of theoretical ultimate principle, but both quite often talk about the matter of animals being flesh and bones, and the matter for the eye being water. The matter of bones would be mostly earth (what they considered elementary) and underlying earth ultimately is prime matter, but precisely because it is ultimate and underlies everything, it can never be isolated. (The energy that presumable underlies all forms of subatomic particles comes close to what they mean by this.)

It is true that both of them did not think of matter as bundled in uncuttable (a-tom) little packets; they thought it was continuous. But they did believe that the material things of common experience were composed of elements (ultimately earth, air, fire and water).

Originally Posted by Minerva

For one thing, Aristotle didn't even believe the brain was used for thinking - he thought it was used for regulating mucus and humors. This isn't very helpful when you need to go head to head with the latest in neuroscience

You're right, Aristotle thought that the seat for higher sensitive faculties (like imagination and aparently consciousness) was the heart, but by the time of Aquinas, it was recognized that the brain was important for cognitive functioning. (I guess experience with head injuries helped them figure that out.) But Aristotle is quite comfortable assigning the investigation of the physiology of cognitive activities to another science than philosophy. So while his physiology might have been flawed and great advances have been made, he still has some philosophical insight to offer on the nature of knowledge and of living things.

Originally Posted by Minerva

you seem to be very well versed in philosophy - did you major in it?

Actually I got a doctorate in it, and my dissertation was on these topics, so I tend to get kind of excited when they come up. At the risk of appearing to be engaging in shameless self-promotion, my dissertation was published by Greenwood Press: "Unmixing the Intellect: Aristotle on Cognitive Powers and Bodily Organs" by Joseph M. Magee. It is clearly not the last word on the subject, and I think the treatment of some topics could certainly be stronger, but it does give some account of how material constituents fit into Aristotle's unified account of living things. Hopefully, I make a stronger case for which insights are still valuable and might be relevantly applied to what we have learned from the sciences. I think a lot more work could be done on this by Aristotelians/Thomists, but there are not many working on it that I know of.