|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Dec 15, 2010 3:29:44 GMT
Greetings, denizens of Quodlibeta!First of all I would like to thank Dr. Hannam for opening up this new forum. I am quite eager to see how it will progress. I would like to present a question asked on another forum I frequent. I will provide the question below and I hope that this will facilitate a meaningful discussion on this topic. As one who has become recently fascinated by Aristotelian philosophy, this question means quite a bit to me.
Question:
How would you go about convincing someone with philosophical training that classical metaphysics are the right way to think about the world? What rational justification do we have for declaring that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics are right (even though the system does not seem self-evident) and other metaphysical systems aren't?
Also, how can we rationally assume that we can speak about God in human terms? Is the analogy of being something naturally knowable? How?
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Dec 15, 2010 15:24:02 GMT
You are treading on dangerous ground, blessedkarl! For his crime of bringing hard evidence into philosophical discussions, Roger Bacon is still persona non grata in philosophy departments.
|
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Dec 15, 2010 17:43:26 GMT
I like to live dangerously.
|
|
|
|
Post by himself on Dec 16, 2010 1:37:25 GMT
Roger? Bacon
|
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Dec 16, 2010 12:45:23 GMT
Question: How would you go about convincing someone with philosophical training that classical metaphysics are the right way to think about the world? What rational justification do we have for declaring that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics are right (even though the system does not seem self-evident) and other metaphysical systems aren't? Er, that assumes that absolutely no one with philosophical training is convinced that classical (i.e. Aristotelian) metaphysics is the right way to think about the world. Aristotelian metaphysics dominated philosophy until at least the sixteenth century. Many of the technical terms used in philosophy are derived from the medieval Latin/ Greek terms used by scholastic philosophers. So why would anyone need convincing the Aristotle’s views should be taken seriously? ------------ Some modern philosophical and logical terms derived from scholastic philosophy Science Evidence Experiment Metaphysics Logic Substance Essence Necessary/Possible/Contingent Future (in Latin, ‘futurus’ is the future participle of the verb ‘to be’) Specific/Formal/Material Existence Entity Individuation Subject/predicate/copula Inherence Instance Universal/particular Proposition Term Verification Implication/Antecedent/consequent Premiss/Conclusion Reductio ad absurdum Signification Intellection Representation |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 20:02:10 GMT
I don't see any reason why someone should be introduced to Aristotelian metaphysics in strict sense beside a purely historical interest. It's been rendered obsolete centuries ago (Descartes, anyone?). Contemporary metaphysics is the ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Dec 18, 2010 22:58:19 GMT
I respectfully disagree. Edward Feser, Garigouge Largrange, and many others have, over the passed decades, have worked to demonstrate the importance and even the, in their opinion, superiority of Aristotelian-Thomistic (AT) metaphysics over the modern. I am learning about this at present and I find it quite fascinating. I don't believe AT is obsolete by a long shot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 23:17:38 GMT
Have you read anything from contemporary (analytic) metaphysics for a comparison? And I'm guessing the Neo-Aristotelian-Thomists aren't just lobbying for retrograding back to medieval scholasticism but are trimming it and tailoring it, which would make it modern as mainstream metaphysics.
|
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Dec 19, 2010 2:18:51 GMT
Have you read anything from contemporary (analytic) metaphysics for a comparison? And I'm guessing the Neo-Aristotelian-Thomists aren't just lobbying for retrograding back to medieval scholasticism but are trimming it and tailoring it, which would make it modern as mainstream metaphysics. I must confess, no. I am still a philosophy beginner. I am continuing my studies of philosophy. Really I just made this thread to see what people thought of the question someone else posted from another board I visit. As for tailoring it....well over the past few centuries Scholastic thought has indeed evolved. Feser, Gilson, Lagrange, and others have further developed the doctrines of A-T philosophy. It is modern in that sense but nonetheless they do not deny or attempt to diminish actuality, potency, hylomorphism, the four types of causality, the principle of proportinate causality, or any of the other parts of the A-T metaphysical foundation. There certainly are developments but I also see a lot of attacks upon Descartes, Hume, and other modern philosophers. |
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Dec 19, 2010 14:20:52 GMT
Have you read anything from contemporary (analytic) metaphysics for a comparison? What is 'contemporary analytic metaphysics'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 20:21:31 GMT
What is 'contemporary analytic metaphysics'? Metaphysics that is conducted in English-speaking philosophy departments. |
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Dec 21, 2010 10:00:03 GMT
What is 'contemporary analytic metaphysics'? Metaphysics that is conducted in English-speaking philosophy departments. 'English-speaking' makes more sense than 'analytic'. 'Analytic philosophy' is traditionally anti-metaphysical. It is not a different kind of metaphysics, it is against the whole project of metaphysics, holding that philosophical problems are pseudo-problems that can be dissolved away by correct linguistic analysis. There is 'analytical Thomism' (Wikipedia has a reasonably good article on this). Analytical Thomism is a modern reaction to neo-Scholaticism that accepts the basic premiss of analytic philosophy, i.e. anti-metaphysics, and attempts to clear Thomas of the trappings and obscurities of traditional Thomism (i.e. neo-Scholasticism). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2010 10:02:16 GMT
'Analytic philosophy' is traditionally anti-metaphysical. It is not a different kind of metaphysics, it is against the whole project of metaphysics, holding that philosophical problems are pseudo-problems that can be dissolved away by correct linguistic analysis. That's not fully correct, Peter. When Moore and Russell started analytic philosophy, it was a reaction against the speculative, bloated Hegelian philosophy and metaphysics that dominated in Britain of that time, but this wasn't a fully retreat into anti-metaphysics. Russell wrote on the nominalism/realism issue, besides other things, while his and Wittgenstein's logical atomism attempted to give an ontology of objects out of which reality is constructed. Metaphysics was there; it was only more restrained and conservative. It is true that later on, when logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy were in their apex, analytic philosophy was explicitly against metaphysics (Russell disliked the positivists due to their perceived metaphysical agnosticism), but they still were still dealing with traditional philosophical problems, and their presupposition were no less metaphysical. And since the sixties metaphysics makes a fully return to the analytic tradition. Today you have metaphysics courses, conferences, and textbooks without any controversy: for instance, free will, personal identity thorough time, causation, philosophy of time, and the nature of abstract objects are some of the subjects researched on analytic departments. We can say that analytic philosophy is carrying the torch of the traditional, pre-Kantian conception of philosophy; and, what's most important, the God question is brought up again, so you have analytic philosophy of religion. If Analytical Thomism is anti-metaphysical in orientation, it wouldn't be able to say anything meaningfully about God. |
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Dec 25, 2010 3:40:36 GMT
Alright then. So let us get back to topic. Interesting discussion so far but not what I wanted. Therefore, permit me to amend the thread. Let us focus upon the following question: are Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics really refuted or still viable for today?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2011 23:17:20 GMT
Alright then. So let us get back to topic. Interesting discussion so far but not what I wanted. Therefore, permit me to amend the thread. Let us focus upon the following question: are Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics really refuted or still viable for today? I'm afraid many of us aren't well versed in Thomism, Blessed Karl, but I hope the following link will help you: tinyurl.com/6bnu9dc |
|
