Philosophy Notes The Development of the Western Mind

The fire or Light source        People and objects        Chained viewers      The Shadows

At first the people who are chained can only see the shadows, but they take them to be the full reality, but because of their constraints they do not understand the full measure of the reality.

Do you think this could happen today? Not physically, but metaphorically?

There was a contest among nations that concerned the technology concerning electric cars. During the Cold War both Russia (USSR) and the United States participated in the contest. I believe the Russian newspaper (Pravda - literally meaning truth in Russian I believe) reported that the Soviets finished in second place while the Unites States finished second to last.

Who did better, the Russians or the American?

Oh, by the way the story failed to mention than only two nations were competing!

Does the story tend to let people draw "truthful conclusions"

The Recent Tsunami inflicted over 140,000 casualties to date. A huge cataclysmic disaster universally eliciting an outpouring of global support. Why is the world so slow to respond to the problems in the Sudan, or the slaughter of innocents as the result of dictatorial regimes that are common place in the world?

Those who saw the shadows can be seen to be people who think they are seeing the fullness of reality, but only see the shadows. Many popular shows often put forth an image of they being the enlightened ones while others are merely superstitious or radically misinformed.

A contemporary example where this is so evident is the Science fiction series SG-1. They often run into peoples who have been duped, as where, according the story line, the ancient Egyptians. The story suggests that the ancient Egyptians were subject to the gods who were nothing less than space aliens.

The question that the truly humble person must ask is, "Am I seeing the shadows, or am I really seeing the fullness of the reality? Many will swear by the shadows, they are convinced that they know everything. It is difficult to open our minds to new ways to look at things.

I suggest the following as some helpful categories to think about. The two key concepts will be called "grammar" and "practice". In any game there is both an object and certain rules that must be followed if one is not to cheat. Then there also be different strategies that persons will employ and many people adopt different strategies whether it be in chess or any game that has any degree of complexity. So the object and the rules of the game are seen as the "grammar" of the game. This is something that is not open to doubt. (It doesn’t make much sense to sit down and play chess with someone if they are not willing to play by the same rules.) On the other hand, various strategies can be adopted without compromising the rules. These categories I posit are not only helpful in playing a game but can be more broadly understood and utilized in understanding a host of different situations.

Look at religion as a general phenomenon. What would be the object and the rules of such a pursuit, what would be its "grammar? And likewise in turn, what would be its "practice"?. I propose that all who enter into a religious reality are attempting to escape the mundane. In other words, they are trying to find a way to escape from the hum drum of every day life. Obviously since all who are pursuing religion are bound to living in nature, they would be bound by the laws of nature. Hence escaping the mundane (the object) and natural law (rules) comprise the "grammar" of religion. The strategy would be the practice of each particular brand of religious faith. The practice of the faith is open to question, so how does a person go about making judgements about the particular practice?

I think the key lies in understanding natural law and its implications. But one is always open to question particular strategies, and by the same token I believe some strategies are far superior than others.

Socrates and Euthypho are brought to court, but for different things. Socrates has been indicted, while Euthypho is doing the indicting. Socrates portrays himself as the one who knows less, but it is clear that he realizes the issues are more complex than Euthypho first had imagined.

Socrates demonstrates this by his questioning. The Greek gods provide little consistency in trying to make sense out of peoples experience.

Humility: It effectively is the balance between ignorance and arrogance. Humble people are those who have a true grasp of the truth as it is. They recognize shadows as shadows and reality as reality

There are two groups of accusers, those who have seen Socrates as an enemy for some time, and those who would be more recent. It seems that Socrates’ greatest fault was pointing out and demonstrating in a very obvious way to those who consider themselves wise in their own eyes are often mistaken and there understanding of various things is quite lacking.

The charges stem from his lack of fidelity to the Greek gods, and his attempt to corrupt the youth. His defense is simply that he has no intent to corrupt the youth, but his followers often imitate his style and hence calls into question the presumed perennial wisdom.

It is also noteworthy that in the dialogue that Socrates claims that his attempt to question the wise was the result of testing one of the gods’ claim that he was indeed the wisest, hence he set out on his quest to see if he could find someone wiser than himself.

In the dialogue is chief adversary is often shown to be inconsistent in his accusations, and Socrates seemingly has the ability to reveal the inconsistency in the charges that are stated.

He also expresses his involvement in the city as a once council member under the old regime and believes he would have lost his life for disagreeing with a judgement that sentenced some generals to death, because a storm prevented them from getting survivors from the battle.

In his conviction he also reflects on the two possibilities of death, and eternal dreamless sleep, or a "transmigration of the soul" to another place to be with those who have died before him.

Socrates claims that he had been guided in the past by presumably some force or power or god that would often seem to encourage him to hold his tongue. He felt confident in his approach because the divine light he claimed to have did not impede him in making his defense in the way that he saw fit.

What do you think Socrates meant that man can more successfully work for justice in a private life as opposed to a public one?

Why do you think world leaders are hated to the point of others desire to kill them? For example in the early 80's when Ronald Reagan or John Paul II had assassination attempts on their life?

Any examples today?

Socrates' friend is trying to talk him out of dying for his cause. He tries to convince him that he should escape because he is being unjustly convicted. Socrates however is not willing to subvert the rule of law for his own benefit. It could be a bad example and encourage anarchy (no organized ruling body - it would be a kin to "mob rule".

Socrates is awaiting his death and in a way is looking forward to it. He asks that his followers take care of themselves. That would be a loaded term for Socrates, for he would be suggesting that they know the Good and pursue it. Only in this way can one truly take care of oneself.

Clearly Socrates seemed to believe in the immortality of the soul and that something more would follow. He saw is body as something that was less then essential for existence. It is interesting to note that his final instructions were to offer a sacrifice to a god who was know to effect healings. He presumably saw is death not as an end, but as a beginning of a truly healthy life

The main discussion seems to revolve around love, its essence or whatness, it is an attempt to reflect on what real love is. It would be helpful to know the distinctions that the Greek language has regarding love.

I think it is interesting to note some of the points that are brought out by Socrates as he reported his conversation with his friend. The points emphasize how love would lead to fruitfulness. I think this points to the natural basis for families. Homosexuality could seemingly simulate the first three types of love above, but ultimately it cannot be love in what I believe to be the truest sense, that which leads to new life.

On of the overriding aspects of Aristotle’s reflection is what is called "teleologically based" in other words it tries to reflect on the "end" or the ultimate object of things.

On Happiness: Three kinds relating to the pursuit of happiness, pleasure, political, and contemplative. Aristotle seems to suggest that the first order relates to aspects of the common folk, the "vulgar", in our language this has pejorative intimations, but it would be those who live the simple daily life. Then next order would be the pursuit of managing the world. Working towards making society a place of peace and security. Without such order, it would be much more difficult to enter into the contemplative pursuit of happiness

Happiness is seemingly both a state of being and a way of acting. At the heart of happiness is the Good. Pleasure is good, a tranquil city is good, and the ability to reflect and think is also good, the point worth reflecting on would be to consider which of these can exist without the other?

On Friendship, There are three levels of friendship and the ideal form relates to two "friends", mutually aware that the each person’s main concern is for the welfare of the other. This is the kind that will endure. The second form seems to be political in nature, the relationship can provide a benefit for oneself, a self-centered friend ship. This second type entails connecting with others so that you may benefit from them, and they too may benefit from knowing you. A third would be more carnal, you are friends because it is a source of personal pleasure.

Aristotle attempts to discuss the aspects of pleasure. He notes how some thinkers suggest that pleasure is a good, while others see it as bad. He seems to take the former position in thinking that pleasure is ultimately a good thing because both humans and beasts seek it intrinsically.

The pursuit of virtues are really important in Greek philosophy. An extremely important virtue is the virtue of moderation. This is the virtue that helps keep all things in balance. Eating brings pleasure, for most desserts are the best, but if we do not balance our consumption of desserts we get fat and then our health will be damaged and we will be miserable. Moderation is very important in all things. There is great pleasure in a monogamous relationship in marriage, love is exchanged and needs are met, and there is a security. Those who fail in this pursuit not only bring difficulties to the relationship, but also can threaten the lives of those involved as a result of disease.

General Comments Today it seems like many would follow the adage, "the end, justifies the means". This would be at the heart of the "Bush doctrine of "preemption". I do not think one can justify the current actions of the war in Iraq with such workings, with that said, I think you can justify the war in Iraq because the conditions of the first Gulf War were not met, so it technically they had the right to enforce the situation by the means of military action.

Augustine is a person who seemed to be very familiar with Plato. He also was a person who struggled with and attempted to account for the "form" or nature of evil. I think he comes up with an interesting concept that is quite helpful in struggling with the concept, "How could a good God allow evil in the world?"

At the heart of the insight is the recognition that evil is not "some Thing". Evil for Augustine has no "material" existence. Evil is a reality to be sure, but there is no "substance". Evil is what is call a privation or a lack of being. So God the creator of all "things". Did not create evil, the reality of evil results from the defect of our own actions, or the actions of others.

For Christians, the concept of Original sin accounts for the corruption of nature and the disorder that one finds in the natural realm. This conception of evil recognizes that God is not the source of evil and in a mysterious way in preserves human freedom. It is some pretty good thinking.

A blind person, blindness an evil, is a result of the eye not functioning properly. A good eye sees, a bad one does not. There are natural evils, earthquakes, floods meteorites, etc, then there are also the evil that results directly from our bad choices.

On Marriage

Augustine obviously sees that offspring is the most important good of marriage.  From a logical perspective he merely recognizes that society cannot function if it has no people.  So for Augustine, this openness to life is the key to living what he would call a chaste life.

Many modern commentators would be very critical of Augustine's assessment, but I think it is very important to recognize what he is really saying.  To make sense out of his writings one needs to be aware of the distinction he makes between Mortal and venial sins.  For the Christian faith at this time, and still today in the Catholic Christian faith, a distinction is made between sins that cause death (e.g. mortal sins) and sins that do not cause death (e.g. venial sins), see 1 John 5: 16-17.  So what Augustine is saying, if anyone chooses to use their spouse merely for there own personal gratification, this venially sinful. 

I think that any couple would be moved if one was not merely acting to gratify oneself but to bring joy to the other.  This is chaste love. Would not couples be moved to much deeper love for the other if such an attitude was maintains?

Augustine(Continued)

It is really important to understand the underlying aspects of what Augustine is trying to say regarding marriage. Clearly he is placing a strong emphasis on propagation of the species. Marriage’s "first good", is to assure humanity’s survival. It is his second point that many in our world would take issue with, namely that it would be venially sinful to engage in sexual relations for selfish pleasure, even in marriage. I think honestly this is profoundly insightful. How many people want to be used? I have not met any mentally healthy people who would want to be sexually used. It is understandable how two persons would be willing to collaborate for merely selfish pleasure. Augustine is merely saying that this is not a good thing.

John Paul II in his reflections on the Theology of the Body, his anthropology, or his understanding of the human person says that sexual relations if understood properly are a good thing when striving to serve the other, while at the same time always being open to new life. Taking Augustine’s thoughts one step farther, he recognizes the good of conjugal relations when they are always done as an act of love directed towards and serving another. Note how this must be done in a mutual way for it to have its full benefit.

Thomas is a philosopher in what is commonly known as the "scholastic period". It is marked be an exceedingly specialized vocabulary and "distinctions" were eminently important. The precision of language was recognized and respected in a profound way.

In our world today language is constantly changing. One hundred years ago, if someone said, "That is cool!", one would be likely to think that something was colder than something near it. Or "That’s groovy", has nothing to do with small ridges or grooves. At one point the question, "Are you gay? meant, "Are you happy?" Language is important if we hope to communicate clearly. So Thomas is trying to define terms and the various levels of meaning.

There is an attempt to make a distinction between Being and Essence. In a general sense Being is lest restricted in meaning than Essence. Aquinas recognizes something can have being, but no essence. For Thomas it seems that Essence is what the Greeks called quiddity, or whatness. For Aristotle this meant both its "form" and "matter". So while being could have a form, it would not necessarily have matter or substance. Augustine’s understanding of evil would seem to fall into this category. Evil in some sense has "being", it is a reality, but there is not accompanied with any substance.

Another important distinction would be what Thomas calls "accidents". Accidents is not to be understood in the sense of a "wreck", but rather things that are attributes but do not contribute to the essential nature of the reality under study. For example there are certain characteristics of a sphere or ball. The color or the ball does not effect if it is a ball or sphere, but contributes to aspects of it. A ball could be any color and it would still be a ball.

Aquinas goes on to attempt to get at understanding God. He begins with revelation and notes that God calls Himself.... "I am". This is the first person singular of the verb "to be". God is pure "Being", which takes on a substantial component in history in Jesus Christ. The philosophers seem to have an obsession with God. They are trying to prove that God exists or that He does not exist. I believe that philosophy can take a person to the point of realizing that God is a reality, but can go no farther than that. Philosophy can be an instrument to lead a person to faith, but when one comes to recognize that God is a reality, then the discipline moves from what is called philosophy to "theology"... the study of God.

Philosophy can hypothesize about specific attributes of God, which Aristotle concluded was the "unmoved mover". One could also hypothesize that if God is love, then there must be a multiplicity within the unity for love to be actualized, for it to truly have being, for it to be real (e.g. a lover, a beloved, and a means to communicate that love)

Aquinas was born in the 1200's and died in 1274. In the middle ages God’s existence was assumed for the most part, but it was important to make an attempt to explain in a reasonable way why God exists. The following is Thomas’ attempt. It is customarily called the 5 "proofs" for God, many people would seem to question if Thomas himself would have been satisfied with that description.

Anselm lived at the turn of the first millennium. He puts forth the statement that God exists because God is clearly a reality because God is greater than that which cannot be thought. I do not know about you but this sentence seems to be a duct tape moment (caution wrap your head in duct tape so it does not explode trying to figure this one out!)

Some may dismiss this as simply rhetoric, but I think he has a valid point worth reflecting on. If there is something that created out of nothing, then that something is "transcendent". It is outside of our experience. Since we presumably were created by this entity we can never fully conceptualize or perfectly understand what or who that creator is. God will never be able to be fully comprehended because He is our creator.

Some examples or analogies. Can a golf ball know about the factory worker who made it? Does a painting know its artist? Because we are a reality and we think, we have self-awareness, there must be something greater that cannot be thought by the very fact that we have the ability to think.

The only reason we ultimately know so much about God, is because God became man and told us about Himself in Jesus Christ

DesCartes(1596-1650)

Rene Descartes was a gifted mathematician of his time. He in fact is credited with the concept of Cartesian Coordinates, a method that helps conceptualize mathematical equations. He seems to be arguing for the existence of God along the lines of Anselm and even Aquinas. Recall that one of Aquinas’ "proofs" entailed the idea that there must be something that is best. Descartes seems to depart from Anselm in so far is he seems to believe that God is there because it "can" be thought, where Anselm noted how God is greater than that which "cannot" be thought.

I would argue that Descartes lays the groundwork and the movement that lead to nihilism as the result that being is thought. Somehow thought is the "proof" for existence. I believe that this is ultimately quite silly. If I am not thinking about you, you still exist. Thought is that which gives us the awareness of existence, but has nothing to do with existence in an of itself.

This issue of God is a thorny one, I believe the fundamental reason for this is the concept of faith. On one level faith cannot be credibly challenged no more than can one’s dreams be questioned. The idea though does not make something "real". Descartes talks about the distinction between dreams and what would be commonly understood as waking moments. He has no problem making a distinction about the two different experiences, but I wonder if a person can hold such a distinction when he seems to suggest that what can be thought is the reality.

On one level Descartes attempts to "stop thinking". He tries to put everything out of his mind, he cannot do it, which lead him to his insight, Cogito ergo Sum! .. I think, Therefore I am.

I really believe that this is a key point in many of the thinkers who follow. He seems to suggest that truth or being, or existence is somehow linked to the human person’s conception of it. Hence the famous question, "If a tree falls in the woods does make a sound?" Many intelligent people believe that it only makes a sound if some person is there to hear it. This is absurd.... the bunny rabbit will jump out of the way, even if no human person is there to hear it.

This is a particularly attractive way to think, because now there really is nothing wrong, unless we believe it to be wrong. This has caused great hardship in our world. Ask the over 6 million Jews or the 3 million Christians that died at the hands of such a philosopher... Adolf Hitler.

It seems obvious that there are transcendent truths that are to be discovered, not defined. If they find a cure for cancer it will be the result of a discovery, not just believing that something will work. There are clear mechanism in our world that are predictable, that is what science strives to do, sadly many who consider themselves to have a scientific approach reject the most obvious of conclusions... things do not depend on how well I understand them!

We can find solutions and have found a great many solutions to things, but is because we find those things are universally reliable.

We now will see how people will start taking things into their own hands. Truth is not something to be found but to be forged. Reason becomes the driving engine behind progress, an unfettered reason that is believed to have no real limits. It sets the stage for human experimentation and a culture that fails to recognize human dignity, ultimate it fosters a culture of death.

Machiavelli (Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527)- The Prince

He puts forth that every one assumes that the prince should be noble and just, but seems to question the logic of that. He says that a prince needs to have the attributes of both a lion (fearless and powerful) and a fox (able to avert snares). It would seem that effectiveness is measured in terms of control for Machiavelli.

It seems clear that he sees the prince as having a superior value above others. He notes how brutality can be advantageous because of the fear that it instills, but to make sure you do not wrong those around you. For though he it admits that it is rare, a person must be willing to die if he is to challenge the prince, so one is encouraged not to brutalize those who might be afforded the opportunity to attack the prince.

Clearly there is something to be said about the values of peace and tranquility, but fear and power are seemingly the tools that are advocated by Machiavelli. The higher values of justice seem to be simple the advantage of the stronger and the more cunning.

He also reflects on the value of fortresses, a good thing if the people already hate you, a bad thing if your primary enemies are abroad. It would seem that local fortresses that are constructed exert great taxation and a burden on the local people, hence there will be growing animosity or anger. If the people love the prince, when the enemy comes, they will be thwarted by the people’s dedication to the prince, and he would have no need of a fortress.

He is attempting to see liberty in terms of the human person being able to do what he desires. He clearly though limits man’s will by what is considered natural law. He recognizes the commonwealth and a "person" unto itself with its own respective rights that are aimed at providing the human person to have true liberty and freedom. His writings are very influential in the development of our system of governance in the United States.

By developing the "state" as a type of person, it seems to lay the groundwork for establishing governments that exist for their own sake. If one abandons the idea of natural law, and the law that governs merely becomes subject to those in power, profound abuses can take place, and indeed have taken place as can be seen from the tragic results of Fascism, National Socialism (the Nazis), and Communism. The fundamental believe that the Commonwealth exists to serve the human person, is lost and infact reversed and sees that human’s an not individuals, but merely "objects" to serve the state.

Hobbes clearly recognizes that life and freedom for the individual is supreme, and the Sovereign (King or political leader) has no more rights over the individual. One sees the seminal stages of human rights in these writings. It would be unheard of to see the peasant and the king on the same level in any aspect. The "Divine Right of Kings" seemed to set them up with ultimate authority, the king wanted the land, he could kill you for it if you happened to be living there. Quite an alien concept to us today, but it was common place in our recent past. Laws were laws because the king said so, there was no recourse to reason or any higher natural order.

Hobbes sees nature as an overriding factor that is master over even kings and Sovereigns. Being subject to this natural order, states are set up as a "person" of sorts. We will come to see that this "person" of sorts becomes the "subject" and takes one a higher priority than the individual. This is epitomized in the Philosophy of Marx and Engels and lead to the devastating experiment of Communism and Socialism.

John Locke 1632-1704 Locke’s discussion on liberty understands it to be far more then merely doing anything one wants to do. Men are not free to do anything, they cannot jump of a cliff and fly like a bird. (Airplanes excepted of course) He has a profound sense of the importance of human nature and you can see the clear beginnings of an articulation of human rights.

He sees happiness in terms of pleasure, and at the same time realizes that there seems to be an aspect of delayed gratification. He recognizes that one may deny himself something, but this is no limitation on true liberty, but in fact in a sense may preserve it. One may have a desire to steal some money, but by doing so it may truly jeopardize his future liberty.

He also seems to provide the framework for the ideal that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He notes how discipline is key in obtaining this objective

We now will see how people will start taking things into their own hands. Truth is not something to be found but to be forged. Reason becomes the driving engine behind progress, an unfettered reason that is believed to have no real limits. It sets the stage for human experimentation and a culture that fails to recognize human dignity, ultimate it fosters a culture of death.

Hegel 1770-1830 Hegel is famous for his dialectic. He sets the stage for his approach in his attempt to define being. He seems to suggest that in a way being and nothing are the same thing. Simply put he notes that there is a thesis or idea, its contrary idea or antithesis, by letting one engage in the dialogue between the two concepts, it will lead to synthesis. Ultimately there is not Right or Wrong, it is the process that matters most.

He seems to believe that one can never gain any concrete insight into the reality of an object. In his writings he develops categories and a language to describe his experience. If there is no difference between being and nothing than it would seem that the pursuit of truth has no real purpose.

There are some redeeming qualities to his approach, but it is his fundamental premise which limits the application of his approach. Ultimately he emphasizes his "hegalian dialectic" as the attempt to put forth a "thesis" and an "antithesis" and "dialogue and come to convergence or "synthesis". For some issues this is and excellent approach. For example a person proposes, "no taxes" and the antithesis, "taxes", one can ultimately synthesize these approaches and come to an amenable resolution. What if one looks at the concept of slavery? No slaves, Slaves..... Not... we must never enslave another human being.

Frederick Nietzsche 1844-1900 Nietzsche seems to take Hegel’s work even one step further. He seems to suggest that it is man and man alone who imparts meaning on anything. Hegel seems to question the ability to know anything, but Nietzsche seems to posit that the only thing that is anything is the persons ability to will it into existence. He ultimately argues for the "superman" who with an iron will can forge society into what He wills it to be. For Nietzsche nobility lies in the ability to dominate others. Individuals are seen as valueless, merely instruments to be used by the superman to feed his ego. There is no sense of the common good, actually there is "no" sense of anything... "nothing" is the driving force. There is no objective right and wrong, good becomes solely contingent on the individual’s perception of what has value.

I believe all the foot soldiers carried in the equipment some writings of Nietzsche in their nap sack during World War I. This thinking seems to have led to the maniacal thinking of Hitler and the reign of terror that he perpetrated on the world and which led to the destruction of 60% of the world’s population of Jews. There were 6 out of every 10 Jews on the face of the planet lost their lives in Hitler’s reign of terror, while Hitler was only able to kill 1 out of 1000 Christians.

I had recently heard an interesting distinction on the difference between a sociopath and a psycho path. Both are obviously serious mental illnesses, but the sociopath actually has a moral sense that what they are doing is egregiously wrong, but they do not care, while a psychopath is not mentally aware that what they are doing is wrong.

I would go so far as to say that it is likely that many pedophiles are so sick that they do not even realize what they are doing is so ugly and nasty. They are convinced that what they are doing is not harming anyone. Pathological liars, I am convinced, are not even aware that they are lying ins any serious fashion.

Karl Marx (Manifesto published in 1848) Marx and Engels couch the problem of human history in class struggle. They set up sides the Bourgeois (the powerful and those in power) and the proletariat ( those being subjected to the powers at be) A simple distinction exists, the oppressed and the oppressor.

The fundamental difficulty that lies in this approach is that the individual is not distinct from the state and is in fact inferior to the state. It seems to takes Hobbes distinction of the state having a "personality", but unlike Hobbes it power is not limited. The "greater good" is more important than individual freedom. The concept sets up the idea that all happiness is rooted in material goods and if every one has enough stuff, everyone will be happy. The concept, no one person can have two cars until everyone has one car. Humans are relegated to being seen as nothing more than a cog in a machine that will serve the state.

It was this kind of thinking that led Stalin to starve 20 million of his own people. It unleashed massive devastation and violates the very heart of the true anthropological dimensions of the human person.

Emmanuel Kant Kant is a philosopher categorized as an existentialist. The existentialist is a person who may believe in objective reality, but would seem to suggest that it is ultimately inaccessible. The world today in my estimation is driven by these assumptions. Nonetheless there are some very valid points worth reflecting on.

This is his attempt to provide a tool to assess actions and their moral worthiness. There are two aspects or "tests" to assess a specific act under question, namely:

Metaphysics This is one of the fundamental battles between the ancients who believed that "metaphysics" was something that could be pursued, while the moderns seemed to believe for the most part that is was unattainable.

Language is a very tricky thing. It is very difficult to communicate with someone when they speak a different language. There was an episode in Star Trek the Next Generation, that had an encounter between the captain and a person from another race that only spoke in metaphors. For example, if the person was trying to express shock or anger or outrage he might just say, 9/11. That day evokes powerful emotions, but you can see how difficult it would be to communicate only in metaphors.

Philosophers try and develop a system of language and often times they maybe the only ones who truly understand what they are attempting to say. That is why it is so important to build the ability to listen carefully and try and truly understand what the person is intending to convey.

The remainder of the class will be spent on reflecting on John Paul II’ encyclical, Fides et Ratio. It is an attempt to reflect on how faith and human reason are not contradictory, and are also something that is complementary.

Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)

Introduction: JP II relates how the ancients used the adage, "Know thyself". An easy phrase, but very difficult to truly put into practice. For him that is part and parcel with knowing natural law. He does not mean be true to what you think is best, but rather, discover truly what is best and do it. Let the truth govern your actions and your life.

The church really as the self understanding that she is the bearer of the Good News that God Himself as revealed to the human family. This truth reveals to the world Jesus Christ the God-Man. Using the basic principles of logic, either Jesus Christ is who He said He is, or He was just a man whose body was never recovered. Fundamentally things are as they seem in most cases.

We can know things in two different ways, we can know them by the means of scientific knowledge, or we can know them by faith. Some people know that Australia is a continent by scientific experimentation, they have been there. Others know it through faith, they believed the experience of another. The truth of Australia is evident, just as the truth of Jesus will be evident when He reveals Himself at the end of the age.

Philosophical knowledge is limited to sense perception and experience which is advanced by the intellect alone; "while faith, enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit, recognizes in the messages of salvation the "fullness of grace and truth" which God chose to reveal in history and definitively in His Son, Jesus Christ." (n. 9)

History becomes a "special arena" where God reveals Himself to the human family. Only faith can we come to understand history in a coherent way. Faith will help us to apply our reason to give us a glimpse of comprehensibility in the face of ambiguities such as evil and injustice in the world.

Ultimately both philosophy and reasoned faith (theology) aim at the same purpose, to make sense out of our existence and point to the "path of life".

"Belief that Reasons" - Faith seeking understanding is a key phrase from antiquity. From both the old and new testaments many references were taken to demonstrate the longing of the human heart to make sense out of their encounter with God through His scriptures and His prophets. Its limit is found in the Pascal Mystery:

Chapter III "Reason that Believes"

All humans want to know things, it is in our nature to question. The point is made that this shared desire must point to a reality, it would seem irrational if there were no truth and our existence would be vain, and meaningless. Scientists "follow their intuition" as they embark on their query.

One of the obvious insights relates to the reality that humans are not meant to be alone, they are born into a family and they are truly meant to live in community. In this cultural milieu we find ourselves in a flow of knowledge, beliefs and cultures. Implicitly we learn to trust what we have been told. Then there comes a point when we start to question the conclusions of others. Life is a journey of discovery, and Jesus is the ultimate end of that discovery that is consonant with the insights gleaned from history.

This chapter surveys the history of philosophy and the great contributions that are made when philosophy remains true to its ultimate purpose, gaining insight regarding the absolute. Modern philosophy has seemed, by and large, to have abandoned such a quest, but still should not be dismissed as evidenced by the following quote:

Philosophy has its own autonomy, so the Church has never limited itself to one philosophical system. The Teaching Office of the Church however must help to disclose to errors that are often put forth and can lead people to draw erroneous conclusions.

"The human person by nature is a philosopher". This chapter does not intend to define a certain philosophical method but rather it is to remind the theologians of the true task of theology and how true philosophy can serve that end.

There are two tasks to respond to, auditus fidei (the heard faith - revelation, sacred scripture and tradition) and the intellectus fidei (the reasoned faith - principles discerned from right reason). The first category philosophy helps to interpret the cultural contexts and language and the modes of understanding that are necessary to ultimately have a sense of what was intended to be conveyed. The second relates to putting that Divine Revelation into practice and application in our daily living.

The current tasks are summarize in this chapter. It is essential to take seriously the pursuit of "meaning". This is difficult because of the vying approaches that can fuel skepticism and ultimately lead to a nihilistic view which denies are real value to meaning at all. It is key to maintain a passion for truth (n. 81)

If the human person is only a means to develop technology, then the technology itself could ultimately be the destroyer of humanity (Battlestar Galactica style)

Truth can be known, even if imperfectly. If a system denies this possibility itself has ultimately betrayed the fundamental purposes and has failed and been blinded by the ultimate arrogance, effectively stating that "I know perfectly that nothing can be known!" This is obviously a patently false philosophy.

True philosophy as the ability to transcend merely empirical data, there is a metaphysical dimension to its core. This metaphysical sense is not some system from the past, but is able to include the human person as being central in grasping the ultimate meaning of the significance of being and its comprehensibility.

Things to be avoided:

Eclecticism - this is an attempt to use certain parts of the whole without consideration of integrity of the whole system. It may be like trying to play a guitar with one string, or a game of golf with one club..... It gets very clumsy.

Historicism - this tends to relativize truth and constrains it to a certain historical period. It ultimately fails to recognize the transcendent characteristic of truth. Truth must be something that is ultimately universal and not only relevant for a certain period.

Scientism - This would be a radically materialistic view of the world, and has absolutely no room for metaphysics.

Pragmatism - summarized as the end justifies the means.

Theology’s task includes challenging philosophy, but working together with it so as to come the idea of truth. Truth has an absolute component to it, while some may suggest that this will lead to intolerance, the opposite is true. Only if there is a truth, can dialogue be meaningful and fruitful.

Also it is very important to understand the distinction between Meaning and Truth. Regarding revelation it is important not to limit the sacred text to a simple literal meaning of the text. It is important not to dismiss the literal meaning of the text, but theology’s task is also to get beyond the literal meaning and discover the deeper truth that may be evident in the text. n 94

Ultimately the task is to help people live well. There must be awareness that there is not your truth and my truth, but one truth that leads to a moral theology that truly servers the dignity of the human person. It will help people live well and equip them to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, humanity’s saving truth.

The following quote is quite telling:

I think an interesting insight concerns the critique of the radical individualistic view. The document notes how such a view is only developed as the result of many people work being studied and developed. It notes that implicit contradiction that exists in what they propose, that which has championed the individual as an isolated, autonomous "governor" of truth was developed as a communal effort! One could categorize such thinking as oxymoronic.

It is ultimately philosophy that is the only true grounds where true ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue can occur. A statement from the second Vatican council:

The document concludes by encouraging the various disciplines, philosophers, theologians, scientists and how these must be wedded to an appreciation of the human person, whose grandeur is to never be reduced to an individualistic, autonomous, self-determining and ultimately self-centered being with no real ties to the creature. In other words man is never truly viewed as a creature (one created)