Elegy

Alas! We went with high hopes to the Pirates III last night. Alas for the starry-eyed lassy I was! The Decent Films Guy says it all, and I am unable to philosophize further. Drink up, me hearties, yo-ho...

What say you?

I've had a few responses to the Sally Thomas article I posted on homeschool vs. public school. One response asked where Catholic or Christian schools fit into the puzzle of where to send your children (or not send them) for school. Since I have not yet crossed that bridge (to mix metaphors), I'd like to hear from some who have.

Why did you choose or reject the confessional (i.e., Catholic or Protestant) school option for your child? What questions did you ask yourself? What questions would you want to ask if you were crossing that bridge?

Peter and Paul

Augustine~

Both apostles share the same feast day, for these two were one; and even though they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter went first, and Paul followed. And so we celebrate this day made holy for us by the apostles' blood. Let us embrace what they believed, their life, their labors, their sufferings, their preaching, and their confession of faith.

(Sermon 295)

Love alone is credible

Here is a clip from John Paul II on love (1979) ... Something gentle after Nietzsche.

Nietzsche vs. Aristotle: What is truth?

Everyone's seen the billboard or read the bumper sticker:
"Nietzsche: 'God is dead.' ~1885

God: 'Nietzsche is dead.' ~1900"

Very cute. But you have to give Nietzsche a little more credit. He did, after all, diagnose the West's abandonment of God and the its moral and philosophical impotence. Nietzsche is always great fun to dabble in.

Here's a go at some comparisons between a Nietzsche and Aristotle. Try to apply the differences to your own concerns about secularism or, if so inclined, about Christian thought.

In Truth and Illusion, Nietzsche declares that truth is relative because of the mind's irreparable separation from reality. The fundamental differences between Nietzsche and Aristotle lie in their views on this relation of mind to reality, the nature of truth, the validity of thought and language, and th subsequent value of philosophy.

Nietzsche's account of truth rests on the assumption that man's mind, through a series of disconnected intervals, is detached from reality. (He's not talking about trying to live on two hours of sleep per night while nursing.)

These interruptions lie between the mind and things-in-themselves so that man can never grasp the essence of things. The senses distort the thing, for "sensation leads nowhere to truth, but contents itself with receiving stimuli." Man cannot know if the stimuli he receives are accurate images of the thing or are warped signals. When man transforms his sense data into "percepts" (sort of "ideas"), he simply makes a metaphor in his brain for something he thinks he perceived out in the world. From one metaphor, he makes another and another, so that with each hiatus, he "leaps completely out of one sphere and right into the midst of an entirely different one." The workings of the human mind are discontinuous and thus cannot be relied upon to transmit reality. If man cannot know reality, "Then what ... is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms." Not a high estimation of the mind's abilities.

Thus, truth is an illusion and relative to the individual; each man's mind shapes its own reality.

Aristotle's account of truth rests on an entirely different assumption; he declares that reality imprints itself on the human mind, revealing intelligible truths. Because his mind corresponds directly to reality, man is capable of knowing its essence. "Truth means knowing existent objects and falsity does not exist, nor error, but only ignorance." Man can know things as they truly are; ignorance of their existence does not mean things do not exist, but that man has yet to know them.

A thing has its own integrity. Therefore, it cannot be true for one man and false for another. There is one truth, and individual men are more of less ignorant of that truth.

To be continued... (dum, dum, dum...)

Sokolowski on faith and reason

The God of Faith and Reason is actually better than Pieper's chapter for reading about what Christian faith does for reason. It's marvelous and a not-so-hard read.

philosophy and theology, faith and reason

Since I am not in the academic business, I enjoy the distinct pleasure of constantly leaping from philosophy to theology and back again. Here are some musings...

The two disciplines are distinct. In C. IV of Leisure, the basis of culture, Joseph Pieper provides a good distinction between the two. The best discussion of the relationship of philosophy with theology is, of course, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by John Paul II.

Philosophy cannot rely on truths revealed by God; that is, it must rely on reason alone. In theology, reason works with the truths of revelation (therefore, it presupposes faith).

Philosophy strives to acquire through reason what has been revealed by God: e.g., the existence of God, the human condition, the way to happiness, etc... So, why philosophize, if these truths have already been revealed and are accessible to faith? Why seek explanations when we can just accept everything on faith?

Well, revelation and theology give us a clue about the true, the good, and the beautiful, but not rational proofs or fully articulated ideas. The philosopher, because he loves wisdom and seeks truth, desires the knowledge of the theologian. He will never fully explain the truth or exhaust its possibilities. But in pursuing with his intellect the truths offered by faith, he becomes more human: out of a desire to know, he exercises that which is in him most distinctly human, his reason. And by seeking to know more of God with his reason, he enters into a personal relationship with the Truth (because faith tells us that God is personal).

Faith and reason are distinct, but are completely in harmony. When reason purports to give a comprehensive account of reality--abandoning faith--it becomes corrupt. But when reason pre-philosophically submits to truths of faith, it gains an infinite field of inquiry and wonder.

Every human being has pre-philosophical assumptions; every scientist brings a pre-scientific credo to his laboratory. What matters is what those assumptions are.