Saint John Paul II Pastoral Unit
  • HOME
  • ABOUT
    • Our Mission Statement
    • Our Patron Saint >
      • JP II's quote of the month >
        • Quotes 2017-2019
        • Quotes 2016
        • Quotes 2015
        • Quotes 2014
    • Our Pastoral Team
  • Our Parishes
  • SACRAMENTS
    • Baptism
    • Marriage
  • FAITH ED PROGRAMS
  • PRAYER LIFE
  • THE DIOCESAN PAGE
  • VIDEO SELECTION
  • MASS SCHEDULES
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

An Introduction to Catholic Theology

7/29/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture

In Catholic Theology, a book published in 2017, Australian Theologian Tracey Rowland, a leading figure in contemporary Thomism and a member of the International Theological Commission since 2014, offers us a presentation of four essential Catholic approaches to doing theology which have determined the evolution and have been at the heart of the reflexive endeavour of the Catholic Church since, broadly speaking, the publication of Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Aeterni Patris (1879).

The book is presented as an introduction to Catholic theology for students, and as a useful mapping of the major paths that theological reflection has taken since the end of the 19th century. But its remarkable richness of content also makes it a tool for all seasoned theologians who wish to refresh their knowledge of the history of contemporary Catholic thought. In going straight to the heart of the matter each time, the book allows us to understand the intellectual solidarities and oppositions that have shaped this history and that have influenced the course of events in the Church up to the time of the present pontificate.

Anyone who sets out to read T. Rowland's book is given a real introduction to theology, but it is an introduction of a specific kind. It is not a systematic exposition of the boundaries and foundations of theology, of the nature and purpose of the theological discipline, of its classical subdivisions, fundamental problems and methodological issues. Choosing a half-thematic half-historical approach structured around the major theoretical positions assumed by the great figures of theology on a certain number of essential problems, positions which together have given birth and consistency to the four theological currents analyzed, the author presents the fundamentals of each approach. We discover them not only in themselves, but as they have been defined in the course of theoretical confrontations, and according to the major epistemological and/or generational cleavages that have emerged, as ideological conflicts and profound cultural changes have brought new issues to the fore, thus inviting theologians to rethink the mission of the Church and their own role as intellectual leaders in Peter's bark.

After a brief presentation, in the first chapter, of the great principles and problems structuring Catholic theological thought from its origins (e.g. the Christian mystery cannot be reduced to a theological system; the unity of the theological vision must be maintained in spite of all the conceptual distinctions required by discursive thought; grace must be thought of in its articulation with nature; faith in its articulation with reason, etc.), we discover theology, chapter after chapter, through the concerns, commitments and battles of particular theological schools, thus familiarizing ourselves with the intellectual sensitivity of each one, the metaphysical references that each one draws upon, and the perspectives that they open on the future of Christianity.

Chapter II presents several types of contemporary thomistic approaches to theology ("Strict Observance Thomism" à la Garrigou-Lagrange, Gilson's existential Thomism, Rahner's transcendental Thomism, Lublin's Thomism (to which John Paul II is attached), Toulouse's Thomism, etc.). Chapter III recalls the battles fought by the great thinkers of the "Nouvelle Théologie" (de Lubac, Balthasar, Ratzinger), then the defence and illustration of their theses by and in the Communio journal, founded in 1972 (German and Italian editions).  Chapter IV outlines the main reformist aims of the Critical Theology current, as it has been embodied since 1965 in the journal Concilium and in the theologically questionable works of Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx and Jean-Baptiste Metz. Chapter V describes the anti-hierarchical and subversive dynamics at work in Liberation Theology and concludes with an examination of the positions of Pope Francis, shaped by a particular type of Liberation Theology, People's Theology.

The work thus introduces us to the major positions of the major currents of Catholic theology, based on the major contributions of the major theological figures of Catholicism. Throughout the chapters, we see new theological sensitivities emerging, often in reaction to those that preceded them. Rowland's presentation also allows us to identify when and understand how we went from one theological era to another because of a particular paradigm shift. Moreover, she has highlighted the affinities, influences and filiations that have contributed to the rooting and perpetuation over time of these traditions of thought. In short, it is to a lived theology, which hides nothing of its existential significance, that Tracey Rowland skillfully presents us. The result is quite simply masterful. The Australian theologian deserves all our gratitude.

Clearly, Rowland's book is not for everybody. It is for people who have a real interest in theology, i.e. who like to grapple with tough theoretical questions like the place of philosophy in theology, the primacy of logos over ethos, the conflict between different branches of Thomism, etc. It is therefore obvious that one must have at least a basic knowledge of theology before trying to read Catholic Theology. The minimum would be to have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to be familiar with its content. And even then, one will face a real challenge in reading Rowland sometimes.

But even when one doesn't understand all at once, one learns a lot and draws a lot out of what the author exposes. Especially in terms of how to quickly identify theological positions and affiliations in books and speeches. Thanks to it, we learn about Garrigou-Lagrange or Rahner or Ratzinger or Bergoglio's main theological influences and stands.  About the impact of theological currents on the life of the Church before and after Vatican II. About the confrontation between currents that are trying to "modernize" the Church, while others are more concerned with trying to keep a living connection with our Tradition, etc. It truly is an amazing book.

(Revised and updated on 08-24-2020 at 1:32 pm)


0 Comments

The Presocratic’s Contribution to Natural Theology According to Edward Feser

7/27/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
While I was preparing a new series of blogs on "contemporary approaches to theology" based on a book by Australian theologian Tracey Rowland, I came across a 2008 blog post written by an American philosopher, Edward Feser, who defines himself as a Thomist (i.e. a disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas in the philosophical and/or theological fields). Feser's article, entitled "Pre-Socratic natural theology", begins with an account of how his personal interest in philosophy was sparked by a course in Greek literature, where he discovered the philosophical and scientific approach of "Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides".  Then Feser continues with what is generally said and widely known about the Presocratics :  

It is a commonplace, says Feser, that the defining characteristics of Western philosophy and science can be found in embryo in the Pre-Socratics. Thales and other Ionian monists give us the first attempts to reduce all the diverse phenomena of nature to a single material principle, and their methods (so far as we can determine on the basis of usually scanty evidence) seem to have been largely empirical. Pythagoras and his followers inaugurate the emphasis on mathematical structure as the key to unlocking nature’s secrets. In Parmenides and Zeno we see the first attempts to provide rigorous demonstrations of far-reaching metaphysical theses. The distinction between appearance and reality, the tension between rationalist and empiricist tendencies of thought, and the rational analysis and critique of received ideas are all evident throughout the Pre-Socratic period. 

So as everybody in the discipline, Feser acknowledges the fact that Presocratic philosophers are nothing less than the founding fathers of both Western philosophy and science. The fruits of their efforts were so amazing, he states, that  “it might not be too much of a stretch to say that at least the seeds of what was to come [in the philosophical field] during the next two and a half millennia can all be found in their work.” 

Where Feser’s article gets very interesting is where he asserts that “What is perhaps less widely remarked upon is the extent to which the Pre-Socratics set the stage for the later development of natural theology.” Indeed, as we saw in a previous blog post, the idea that underlies the whole history of philosophy as taught in our universities today is that Presocratic thought was a turning point in human history that marked the beginning of the end of the domination of religious thought over Western culture. In other words, Presocratic philosophers are considered, by current generations of atheist philosophers, proto-atheists who initiated the great process of Western secularization. The important point raised by Feser concerning the impact of Presocratic thought on religious mentality is of the utmost importance, for he does not deny the devastating impact of nascent philosophy on mythology, but makes it clear that what the Presocratic philosophers were seeking was not "less religion" or "no religion at all", but a better religion:

to be sure, says Feser, that Xenophanes criticized the anthropomorphism of Greek polytheism and that Anaxagoras got into trouble for characterizing the sun as a hot stone rather than a god are widely regarded as great advances in human thought. But the usual reason they are so regarded seems to be because these moves are considered steps along the way to a completely atheistic, or at least non-theistic, account of the world. That Xenophanes wanted to replace polytheism, not with atheism, but with monotheism, and that Anaxagoras regarded Mind as necessary to an explanation of the world, are often considered less significant – as if these ideas were not as essential to their thought as the skeptical elements, and as if these thinkers, and the Pre-Socratics generally, lacked the courage of their convictions, and could not bring themselves completely to let go of superstition.

To make this point clearer, Mr. Feser continues:

what the Pre-Socratic thinkers (or some of them, anyway) saw is that in the light of reason, “folk physics” – our crude, commonsense understanding of the workings of the physical world – ought to give way, not to no physics at all, but rather to scientific physics. Similarly, “folk theology” – the crude anthropomorphisms of polytheism and superstition – ought to give way, not to no theology at all, but rather to rational theology, to what has since come to be known as natural theology.

Then, against the failure to understand theism displayed by the "new atheists", Feser reaffirms the most important truth about natural theology, that is to say, that it leads to a rational knowledge of God that is certainly limited, but reliable:

The classical tradition in natural theology [...] holds that the existence of the God of traditional theism is necessary, and rationally unavoidable, given the existence of any causation at all in the world, even of the most simple sort. And as Gerson [a scholar teaching at the University of Toronto] shows, it is evident from what we know of at least some of the Pre-Socratics that they had more than an inkling of this. That is to say, they saw (or some of them did) that it is theism rather than atheism that is the logical outcome of a rationalist approach to the world.

I am not going to quote the whole article, but I would like to underline, with a final quote from Feser, how the Presocratic philosophers contributed to the development of natural theology. Listing some of the ideas forged by the Presocratics (ideas that Christians would incorporate in their reflection on the mystery of God), Feser writes:

In the work of the Pre-Socratics we find precursors of some of the key elements of the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. In Anaximander’s notion of the apeiron or “unbounded” we have an anticipation of the insight that that which ultimately explains the diverse phenomena of the world cannot itself be characterized in terms that apply to that world (or at least not univocally, as the Thomist would add). From Parmenides we get the principle that ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing), which foreshadows the Scholastics’ “principle of causality” and the argument to the First Cause that rests on it. We derive from him too the discovery that ultimate reality must be Being Itself rather than a being among other beings, unchanging and unchangeable, and necessarily one rather than many. In Anaxagoras we find the realization that the cause of things must be a Mind rather than an impersonal absolute. It would take the work of later thinkers – Plato to some extent, Aristotle to a great extent, and the Scholastics to a greater extent still, culminating in Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition deriving from him – to work these insights out in a thorough and systematic way. But as with Western science and philosophy more generally, the seeds are there already in the Pre-Socratics; in particular, they made the decisive break with anthropomorphism in thinking about God.

If you want to read Feser’s article, it’s right here.

0 Comments

Why Is Philosophy an Important Part of Catholic Formation According to Pope Leo XIII?

7/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
In 1879, very early in his pontificate, Leon XIII wrote Aeterni Patris, an encyclical letter entirely devoted  to the theme of philosophical formation. In the very first pages of his letter officially entitled On The Restoration of Christian Philosophy, he gives eight reasons why it is important for Catholics to learn philosophy and to engage in philosophical debates.

Before presenting the first of these reasons, it is perhaps appropriate to recall that Europe, at the time of the papacy of Leo, was in the midst of great political and ideological turmoil, due to the continuous spread of modern and liberal ideas which challenged the political and cultural order of the traditional West, based on the monarchical tradition and the Christian religion. Most worrying for the Church was the spread of philosophical misconceptions, which accelerated the process of secularization among the various national elites, but also at the grassroots level, among the growing working class.

In order to meet the political challenge of democracy, which was still a novelty at that time in Europe, Leo XIII was to write an encyclical letter in 1892 inviting the Catholics of France who were viscerally opposed to the republican order to embrace and evangelize at the same time the new regime, established some fifteen years ago.  To address the problem of economic injustice and poverty, Leo XIII published in 1991 Rerum Novarum, an innovative work that would become the cornerstone of what we today call the social doctrine of the Church.

What is very revealing is that Leo XIII decided to tackle the problem of intellectual corruption by modern ideologies from the very beginning of his pontificate, a clear sign that he was aware of what was at stake: the very understanding of the Truth by Catholics, from which behaviour and practice obviously derive. In the following passage we see how critical Leo saw the cultural situation of society, and how aware he was that the remedy for such a critical problem lay, not entirely, but partly in the "restoration of Christian philosophy":

"Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten, us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For, since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all his will soon follows; and thus it happens that false opinions, whose seat is in the understanding, influence human actions and pervert them. Whereas, on the other hand, if men be of sound mind and take their stand on true and solid principles, there will result a vast amount of benefits for the public and private good." 

Leo was aware that evangelization is the first answer to the spiritual decline of the West, but he was also convinced that philosophy was to play a great role in this endeavour of evangelizing the modern world. Here’s was he says about it:

"We do not, indeed, attribute such force and authority to philosophy as to esteem it equal to the task of combating and rooting out all errors; for, when the Christian religion was first constituted, it came upon earth to restore it to its primeval dignity by the admirable light of faith, diffused "not by persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of spirit and of power", so also at the present time we look above all things to the powerful help of Almighty God to bring back to a right understanding the minds of man and dispel the darkness of error. But the natural helps with which the grace of the divine wisdom, strongly and sweetly disposing all things, has supplied the human race are neither to be despised nor neglected, chief among which is evidently the right use of philosophy. For, not in vain did God set the light of reason in the human mind; and so far is the super-added light of faith from extinguishing or lessening the power of the intelligence that it completes it rather, and by adding to its strength renders it capable of greater things."

Here Pope Leo reaffirms the traditional doctrine of the Church on the complementarity of faith and reason. In the "win-win" relationship between faith and reason, reason clearly benefits from the divine wisdom received from above through grace, a supernatural gift of absolute necessity if "greater things" are to be achieved. But faith also benefits from the help of reason, which is, as Leo XIII has just reminded us in the preceding quotation, a gift of God's Providence. And from this very fact, the Pope draws the following conclusion:

"Therefore, Divine Providence itself requires that, in calling back the people to the paths of faith and salvation, advantage should be taken of human science also [which includes philosophy] - an approved and wise practice which history testifies was observed by the most illustrious Fathers of the Church. They, indeed, were wont neither to belittle nor undervalue the part that reason had to play, as is summed up by the great Augustine when he attributes to this science "that by which the most wholesome faith is begotten ...is nourished, defended, and made strong."

The first reason why philosophy matters for Catholicism, thus, is this: it prepares the mind, the soul and the heart to welcome the Revelation of God. Here’s Pope Leo again:

"In the first place, philosophy, if rightly made use of by the wise, in a certain way tends to smooth and fortify the road to true faith, and to prepare the souls of its disciples for the fit reception of revelation; for which reason it is well called by ancient writers sometimes a stepping stone to the Christian faith, sometimes the prelude and help of Christianity, sometimes the Gospel teacher."

How exactly does philosophy prepare the way for Revelation? By leading to some crucial truths that God has personally revealed to us throughout the history of salvation, but which reason has also been able to conquer by itself in the course of the development of philosophical thought, thus confirming the truthfulness of Revelation.

“It is most fitting, says the Pope, to turn these truths, which have been discovered by the pagan sages even, to the use and purposes of revealed doctrine, in order to show that both human wisdom and the very testimony of our adversaries serve to support the Christian faith-a method which is not of recent introduction, but of established use, and has often been adopted by the holy Fathers of the Church."

We should care about the testimony of reason, asserts Pope Leo, because it confirms and strengthen the testimony of faith, and therefore it is a strong incentive to enter into the supernatural experience of encountering God, listening to His Word and obeying Him in Faith.

“...who does not see that a plain and easy road is opened up to faith by such a method of philosophic study?” asks Pope Leo at the end of paragraph 4 of Aeterni Patris.

This capacity of reason to corroborate the revealed truths received in faith is the first of the eight reasons why philosophical formation is important for Catholics, according to Leo XIII. If you want to know what are the seven other reasons, I invite you to read numbers 5 to 7 of the encyclical.

(revised and corrected on 07-21-2020)

0 Comments

The Love of Knowledge and The Desire for God in Ancient Greece - Part IV

6/19/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
1.The influence of religion on nascent philosophy

The birth of philosophy happened in a sociological context in which those who dedicated themselves to this new type of intellectual activity were in contact with other ;types of intellectuals, namely poets, historians, astronomists, engineers, legislators. These people all shared a culture, i.e. common understanding of the world and of human society rooted in and fashioned by the mythological tradition.

Interestingly enough, this tradition conveyed knowledge and value that were to determine the philosophical search, both in a positive and a critical way. Indeed, on the one hand, the cultural climate created by it inspired the first philosophers and helped them shape important concepts; on the other hand, philosophers opposed the mythological understanding of reality, because of its lack of rationality and universality.  

From the myths, the first philosophers inherited the ideas of divinity, causality, order, unity, but rejected the idea that capricious entities, who were pretty much like capricious human beings, would be the explanation to what was going on in the cosmos. From the myths, they also inherited the idea that gods were separated from human beings, living in a world inaccessible to man, but also that interaction with them was possible.

That being said, the philosophers distanced themselves from traditional mythical knowledge because they considered nature to be, to a certain extent, self-explanatory. Instead of drawing explanations for the existence and the structure of things from gods’ random interventions, they looked for an impersonal cause, an archè, whose effect would be the cosmic reality itself, as an orderly reality.             

2. Against a false narrative

This limitation of the philosophical research field to “the given realities of human experience” and the concomitant rejection of the traditional understanding of the divine, has been interpreted for decades by a great deal of rationalists scholars as a fatal blow to the religious mind of man. For them, the birth and rise of philosophy is primarily a freeing of the rational faculties of man, a dispeling of the darkness of religious superstition.

That idea still prevails today in our secularized philosophy departments. However, this view was strongly contested by one of the greatest Hellenists of the 20th century, Werner Jaeger. Let me quote at length from his book The Theology of The Early Greek Philosophers. You’ll see that the rejection of mythological explanation and the use of observation and rationality in the Greek attempt of understanding nature didn’t disqualify once and for all the question of the divine, but rather give a rational consistency to it that would foster the constitution of an enduring rational theology.

Here’s what Werner Jaeger says about the empirical approach of nature and its impact of greek thought:

One might well expect anyone with such a point of view to wash his hands of everything which we have been calling theology and banish it to the realm of the imaginary. Indeed, the fact that these new men are referred to as natural philosophers or ϕυσικοί [phusikoi] (the term is comparatively late) might seem to express in the very idea of ϕύσις [cosmos, nature] a delimitation of interest that automatically rules out any concern with the θεοί [the divine]. In confining themselves to facts ascertainable by the senses, the Ionians would thus appear to have taken an ontological position [i.e. a position on the things that exist] which is frankly non-theological.

But the surviving testimonia, scarce as they are, still show clearly that this rather obvious way of interpreting the intellectual attitude of the first philosophers is a false modernization. Quite apart from any testimonia, this falsity must be evident to the philologist [i.e. the specialist of ancient Greek], for he need only to reflect that to translate the word ϕύσις [physis] by our word ‘nature’ or ϕυσικοί by ‘natural philosophers’, fails to do justice to the Greek meaning and is definitely wrong. ϕύσις is one of those abstract formations with the suffix -σις which become fairly frequent after the period of the later epics. It denotes quite plainly the act of ϕῡναι [phunai] - the process of growth and emergence; that is why the Greeks often use it with a genitive, as in ϕύσις των ὄντων [phusis tôn ontôn] - the origin and growth of things we find about us. But it also includes their source of origin - that from which they have grown, and from which their growth is constantly renewed - in other words, the reality underlying the things of our experience.       

In sum, Werner Jaeger is telling us that the quest for an explanatory principle of all the things that are in nature, the quest for a first cause through an inquiring into nature, lead the first philosophers not to utterly and definitively reject the idea of divine causation, but rather to purify it to some degree, so as to maintain an important distinction (that had already been implicitly made by the myths) between the source of nature and nature itself, that is, between the cause and the effect.

If this process of purification is not obvious in some Presocratic theories resembling ancient myths and explaining the cosmos by one or many of its elements (water, air, fire, etc.), it gets quite clear when we look at others theories, who find in an abstract principle (love, the undefined,  the mind), the origin of all things. Down the road, the combination and articulation of all these abstract principles will give birth to natural theology, understood as a rational way of knowing God.

0 Comments

The Love of Knowledge and the Desire for God in Ancient Greece - Part III

6/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
We know very little about the Presocratics, because what’s left of their works (for those who wrote some, which is not always the case) are only fragments in the form of more or less short citations. Along with these quotes, reports about the Presocratics’ life and theories from later authors have been collected, classified and scientifically edited in the first half of the 20th century by two German philologists: Hermann Alexander Diels and Walther Kranz.

The “Diels-Krauz” collection (or one of its many translations) is, to this day, the authoritative work to read, when studying the first generations of Greek thinkers and their ideas. In it, a chapter is dedicated to each of these men who pioneered both in the fields of empirical science and philosophical speculation, and coined some of the most important and enduring concepts (“cosmos” (universe), “physis” (nature), “archè” (principle) and “logos” (discourse/reason)).

Given the fragmentary state of our sources, it is very difficult to determine the exact content and scope of the theories put forward by the Presocratics. Commentators rarely agree with each other when it comes to define what exactly these philosophers were asserting. There is a history of the early Greek thinkers, but there is also a history of all the commentators on Presocratics philosophy, some very famous, such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, and some less well known.

To avoid perplexity or disappointment, it’s always good to keep that in mind. But this state of affairs shouldn’t stop us from surveying these “philosophical ruins”. Although we rarely reach the level of certainty we would like, we’re always drawn back to them, because of the paradoxically very rich conceptual heritage they give access to, and because this is our heritage. It is a shattered mirror from the past that we can scrutinize, hoping to see what we looked like 2500 years ago.  

The gradual development of philosophical thought took place on three main reflexive fronts: theological (to address the question of God), cosmological (to address the question of the world) and anthropological (to address the question of man). In the process, the last two objects (the world and the human being) gradually appeared as signposts pointing toward the first one. That is to say: 1) that both the cosmological reality and the anthropological reality proved not to be self-explanatory, and 2) that the more thinkers were digging into both the mystery of man’s existence and the mystery of nature, the more they were led to further explore what was beyond the physical realm, namely what was to be identified as the metaphysical realm (in Greek, “meta” means “beyond”), where a satisfying answer to the mysteries of man and the world could possibly lie. This is why, in the review we begin of some Presocratic thinkers and the account we will give of their ideas, we will pay attention to their cosmological and anthropological ideas to the extent that they are related to their theology, hoping to shed some light on what will remain our focus: the development of natural theology in its earliest stages.

In two previous articles, I’ve already pointed out two or three things that were new in the Presocratic project of inquiry into nature. In finishing this introduction, it is fitting to describe more thoroughly the beginning of the “philosophical revolution”, before we start looking in greater detail at how this new way of thinking unfolded in each particular case. So here is a ten-point description of the intellectual revolution initiated by the Presocratics.

  1. What Presocratics philosophers/scientists study before anything else is nature (phusis), but they also reflect on political and logical matters.
  2. The Presocratics see the natural world around them as a “cosmos”, an orderly and harmonious totality, a unified system.
  3. This orderly character means that nature is comprehensible in itself, without constant references to divine interventions to explain every single aspect of it.
  4. Their inquiry into nature is aimed at discovering the cause, the first principle, (the “archè”), the driving force inside nature explaining the existence and the continuation of the world.
  5. This inquiry is mostly conducted by observation and reasoning.
  6. The success of that quest for intelligibility depends on the development and the mastery of a technical philosophical vocabulary, whose purpose is to properly name and identify what is the object of their inquiry.
  7. Presocratics abide by certain logical principles ensuring the validity of their thought (even if logic is not yet the fully developed art of thinking it was meant to become in the works of Aristotle).
  8. In dedicating their life to scientifically and philosophically study the natural world around them, they laid the foundations of what would end up being called science and philosophy.
  9. This dedication informed their whole life and prompted them not only to think, but also to live in a more and more specifically philosophical way. Thanks to them, philosophy was to be construed in the long run as a way of life.
  10. This understanding of philosophy not only as an intellectual activity but as a complete way of life would be aimed at living to the full the supreme activity of man on earth: living the good life, i.e. a life rooted in contemplation (“theoria” in Greek) and flourishing in wisdom (“sophia”). 

Before studying the particular theories of some Presocratic thinkers, we will, in our next article, examine the thesis of the Hellenist Werner Jaeger, according to which philosophy did not disengage from thinking about God, but rather advanced the theological reflection of man.

Revised and modified: 2020-06-19

0 Comments

Philosophy As a Way of Life - Part III

6/2/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Ancient philosophy was based first on the choice of and the commitment to a certain way of life, promoted by a particular philosophical school, in which friendship, teaching and constant spiritual exercising would make conversion possible. For Stoicism, this conversion consisted mainly in the control of our emotions, the appeasement of our mind, its speculative elevation to and communion with the "eternal reason" at work in the universe. The first spiritual exercise of the Stoic philosophers consisted in maintaining a state of spiritual self-consciousness. Through this constant spiritual tension they were able to know and fully desire what they were doing at all times.

This constant striving for self-consciousness is very much like what Eastern Christians try to do when they "keep watch over the heart".   The full consciousness of the Stoics also allowed those who lived it to remain focused on the present, leaving behind what was no longer, and not worrying about what was not yet. In welcoming each small moment of life taken for what it is, the Stoic strengthens his ability to acquiesce to the cosmic order as a whole. This attitude resembles that of the Christian who welcomes every moment as part of God's mysterious Providence, even the difficult moments, knowing that God's goodness is at work anyway.

As a spiritual exercise, memorization of biblical verses plays a key role in the Christian life, since the Word of God is very much like a weapon (a sword, says Paul in Ephesians 6), to be used in spiritual warfare. So it was for the Jews already, centuries before Christ’s coming. For instance, we read in Deuteronomy 11, 18: “Therefore, take these words of mine into your heart and soul. Bind them on your arm as a sign, and let them be as a pendant on your forehead.”  Memorization of the key principles of Stoic philosophy (the first one being to distinguish between what depends on us and what doesn’t (1)) is also a basic Stoic spiritual exercise.

By keeping these principles in mind, the Stoic can apply them to each new situation to help him determine how to react and behave.  Meditation on these principles is also instrumental in the conversion process. This meditation usually takes the form of a mental exercise involving imagination and anticipation (especially the anticipation of death), to prepare for difficult times, in order to better cope with them and accept them as they are. Jews and Christians also ponder upon their finiteness, to remember what they really are and better prepare themselves to die: ”For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Gn 3:19)

To foster memorization and meditation, reading and listening were also part of the spiritual equation.  The works of the master and those of other great poets or thinkers were used to produce the expected inner transformation. Thus, when a Stoic read a philosophical text, he was not only nor primarily looking for ideas, but also and above all for the transformation that the text was supposed to produce in him in the first place. This is exactly what the Jew and the Christian seek when they read the Bible, they who know the performative dimension of the word of God (see Is 55:11).

Moreover, the thorough study and exegetical commentary of their philosophical works was not considered by the Stoics as a mere intellectual experience, but, again, as a spiritual one. This helps us to understand that the books we have inherited from Antiquity were not written for the sole purpose of transmitting the knowledge of the masters to the disciples. They had a pedagogical function, for they were supposed to lead their authors and/or readers to an ever deeper conversion through reading, meditation and writing. In the same way, Christian exegesis (knowledge of God) and spiritual intimacy (love of God) are supposed to grow together in the life of a biblical scholar.

These few examples suffice to show us how similar some of the Stoic spiritual exercises are to our Christian ascetic and devotional practices. They are not identical, their main purpose is different (participation in the divine life is not the conformity of the mind with eternal reason construed as the soul of the world), but at least in their technical aspect, the two groups of exercises obviously have something in common.  To describe this similarity in more detail, we could give other examples, this time taken from the Epicurean school. We would see, for example, that the idea of having a spiritual director was central in the Epicurean philosophy.

The Epicureans also encouraged the examination of conscience, as well as confession and fraternal correction, to overcome the guilt fuelled by the awareness of one's faults. But the essential point is that ancient Greco-Roman philosophy was a way of life and, as such, was articulated in daily life around a whole series of spiritual exercises aimed at an ardently desired inner transformation. This makes ancient philosophy resemble the Christian religion in many ways. There is something beautiful and moving in this Pagan attempt to reach the divine realm through a tenacious commitment to a demanding way of life.

These ancient philosophers deserve our admiration and gratitude. Their example both inspired the Fathers of the Church and forced them to better define and present what specifically the Christian way of life was offering to mankind.    
__________
(1) HADOT, Pierre, Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique, Albin Michel, 2002, p. 26.   

0 Comments

Philosophy As a Way of Life - Part II

6/1/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
In ancient times, Greco-Roman philosophy (the Romans inherited their understanding of culture from the Greeks and perpetuated the Greek philosophical tradition in Latin) was both a way of thinking and a way of life, the synthesis of which was a way of being that was meant to be "lived wisdom" or, at least, an expression of this love of wisdom that gave the philosophers their name. For the word “philosophy” means exactly that; it is composed of two Greek words: philo, “loving”, and sophia, “wisdom”.

This quest for wisdom was aimed at fighting inner turmoil caused by untamed passions, behaving in a rational and righteous way and finding lasting equanimity. To achieve such goals, the philosophers in these days gathered in different schools (Plato’s Academy, Aristotle’s Lyceum, Zeno’s Porch, etc.) and devoted their entire lives to their psychological, intellectual and ethical transformation, that is to say, to a conversion which they pursued through the regular practice of what Pierre Hadot calls "spiritual exercises".

These exercises were spiritual in the sense that they involved the whole of the human psyche, in all its dimensions: reason, will, memory, imagination, etc. This “spiritual” aspect was obviously different from what we Christians consider to be spiritual; for there is no true Christian spirituality without the active participation of the Holy Spirit to our interior life, and there is nothing like this in these pagan spiritual exercises. But notwithstanding this crucial difference, a comparison between Christianity and Greco-Roman philosophy is possible.

It is actually enlightening to consider the Pagan spiritual exercises from a Christian perspective. The differences are certainly made obvious, but so are the similarities. A comparison also shows that the Christians, to whom God revealed himself in the Word, benefited from the earlier spiritual quest of the Pagans, despite the fact that these Pagans remained in the “antechamber” of the full truth about God, trying to find their way to the living God with the sole forces of reason and will, in the hope of truly satisfying their spiritual longing.

Christians have been influenced by the Greco-Roman set of spiritual exercises, especially in reading philosophical works in which such exercises were on display. The early Christian way of understanding spirituality and undertaking a spiritual journey reflect that cultural influence.  An influence purified, perfected, Christianized, and passed down to us by the Fathers of the Church, along that of the Jewish tradition. If we look, for the sake of the argument, at what Stoicism has promoted, we will realize to what extent certain practices have anticipated those of Christianity.

We first notice that these exercises were meant to have a therapeutic effect on passions, so as to help man: 1) long only for what he can reasonably hope to acquire 2) live righteously, and 3) stop fearing what is unavoidable, like death. This “spirituality” implies detachment from all sorts of unnecessary goods, abidance with moral law, and the submission of the mind to “eternal reason” (logos), a divine principle discernible in the workings of the universe. The outcome was supposed to be perfect peace found through regular spiritual exercising.  

Like Christianity, Stoicism was well aware of the spiritual damage caused by disordered passions. Stoic philosophers also knew that human beings were in great need of curing their covetous and fearful heart. Like Christians, they believed that they had to order their lives according to a higher principle, and for that they engaged in askesis (Greek word for asceticism of “spiritual exercises”). But unlike Christians, they believed that the higher principle to conform with was a supreme element at the foundation of the cosmos, but not separated from it.

They did so, with no other resources than those of human nature: i.e. with their human intelligence and their human will. Their spiritual journey was life-long and only ended with death. We Christians also know that there is no respite in spiritual warfare until life is over.  What differs very much in Stoicism from the Christian experience though, is the “existential loneliness” where philosophers found themselves, when it comes to “fighting the good fight”: they could only count on their human capacities, whereas Christians can count on the grace of God.

But as far as the Christian type of spirituality also involves, somehow, the participation of the human will; and as far as it requires human decisions and commitment, the disciples of Christ also need to adopt a set of good ascetical habits, fostering their spiritual growth, both in a purgative way (to get rid of bad habits) and an illuminative way (to grasp the true understanding of life). And this is where the comparison with ancient Pagan askesis gets very interesting. In our next article we will look at a few typical exercises practiced by Stoic philosophers.

0 Comments

Philosophy As a Way of Life - Part I

5/25/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
In previous articles, I’ve stressed the fact that, at the dawn of Greek philosophy, the main goal of Presocratics thinkers was to find rational causes to natural phenomena, and that, through a constant attempt to understanding and explaining nature, they were also confronted with two major problems: the question of God and the question of man. As time went by, these two other topics grew in importance. As we will see later, anthropology and ethics became central issues with Socrates. Then, Platon and Aristotle each played a key role in the acquisition of enduring metaphysical knowledge. The study of the physical world led to the study of the soul and of God.  

Indeed, the search for an "archè", i.e. for a foundational principle explaining the cosmos, led Greek philosophers to define ever more clearly the nature of that underlying one cause of everything, which would be explicitly identified with God in Aristotle’ works (3rd century BC). Furthermore, the cosmological knowledge philosophers were trying to acquire couldn’t help but impact their understanding of man as a spiritual being, and of good human life as a way of properly interacting with the world as well as with other-worldly realities so as to achieve the philosophical ideal of wisdom, which alone allows human beings to live up to their spiritual vocation. 

All this makes Greek philosophy very interesting in the eyes of Christians, who consider that the knowledge of God is the climatic experience we are meant to live in Heaven (“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God” (Jn 17:3)); and who are themselves in search of a way of life attuned to the highest knowledge possible, a way of life worthy of the wisdom they were blessed to receive through God’s graceful revelation. The only difference between Greeks and Christians here, is that the knowledge Christians rely on is primarily revealed, and that their effort to live wisely depends on their good will for sure, but mostly on God’s grace.

What we ought to understand about what was said so far is this: the philosophical quest for theoretical knowledge was really just the first aspect of a broader and engaging endeavour, that of living wisely a good human life, a life lived in accordance with the highest knowledge possible about human nature, the cosmos, and its ultimate principle. Therefore, we shouldn’t see ancient philosophy merely as an intellectual endeavour aimed at knowledge. It was an existential commitment to the pursuit of wisdom, understood as a way of thinking, behaving and being all together. In sum, it was seen as a way of life. So just as Christianity can’t be reduced to a simple theological worldview, ancient philosophy can’t be studied as if it were only a theoretical “game”.

The similarity between the Christian religion and ancient Greek thought goes even further. We know that Christianity is calling for conversion, that is to say for an inner and outer transformation of man. So does ancient Greek philosophy, especially from the moment Socrates (c. 470 – 399 BC) appeared on the stage of History, and focused most of his discussions and debates with other philosophers, not on cosmological problems, but on anthropological ones. If Christianity is not merely a way of thinking, but a way of life, the same thing is true about philosophy. And, in both cases, the purpose of preaching and/or teaching is the same: to urge or enable conversion. Christianity offers a path of inner enlightenment and moral improvement that reshapes the whole self and reorient it toward truth, goodness and happiness. Ancient Greek philosophy claimed to do the same, in its own ascetical and contemplative way.  

We are indebted to a French scholar named Pierre Hadot (1922-2010), for having rediscovered ancient philosophy for what it really was, namely, a school of spiritual and existential growth,  rather than a purely “scientific” attempt to better know the world. This understanding of “philosophy as a way of life” and as an ongoing effort to comply with the basic philosophical and ethical rules implied by this way of life, is particularly adequate and relevant when studying the Hellenistic period (332 BC - 30 BC), where six philosophical schools, offering six different “ways of life”, were flourishing. They were all presenting themselves as fellowship, where a master/disciple relationship, friendship among its members, and the constant practice of spiritual exercises (understood as the shaping of mental discipline through reflection, imagination, and sensitivity) were all used as levers allowing the disciple to advance on the path of true lived wisdom.

Platonism, Aristotelism, Stoicism, Epicurism, Cynicism and Scepticism were promoting different ways of life, the aim of which was, no matter the theoretical, ascetical or ethical differences between each school, to reshape one’s worldview and one’s behaviour, so as to master one’s passions and live in accordance with the cosmic law (oftentimes assimilated to a divine principle) and fairly with all men. This renewed way of looking at ancient philosophy helps us to relate more easily to these men of the past, because, as Christians, we can spontaneously identify with their eagerness to become better men, through the understanding of a new vision of the world and the putting into practice of a new spiritual and moral behaviour, strengthened by spiritual exercises aimed at a profound and complete transformation of the self. These men were looking for the truth. They were also looking for justice and happiness. Just like us.


0 Comments

Two Reasons Why Catholics Should Bother About Ancient Greek Culture and Philosophy

5/21/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
One can understandably wonder why the Catholic faithful should familiarize themselves, at least at a basic level, not only with the Jewish roots of their faith, but also with ancient Greek culture and philosophy. After all, Pentecost happened in Jerusalem, not Athens. That is true, as it is true that none of this intellectual and cultural baggage is of absolute necessity to make our way to Heaven: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor 12:9)

One could arguably say that sometimes it is even better not to pay attention at all to this complicated philosophical stuff, since, as the apostle Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 8:1: “knowledge inflates with pride.” That is also very true. And this is why the entire Christian tradition is filled with testimonies of saints and great theologians, reminding us that holiness comes through the listening of God’s whispers, which we primarily find in silent prayer, not books. 

See, for instance, what Isaac of Nineveh (c. 613 – c. 700), a famous saint and theologian of the Orthodox Church, says on this topic: "Many seek eagerly, but only those who remain in constant silence do find... Every man who delights in the abundance of words, even if he says admirable things, is empty deep inside. If you love the truth, be a lover of silence." And this is only one among many reminders of our utter powerlessness to grasp God’s mystery with words.

But, at the same time, Jesus is called the “logos”, in the prologue of John’s Gospel. “Logos” is a Greek word, which we translate into English as “Word”. In coming to dwell among us, the divine Word not only acted, he spoke to us, using human words. And in doing so, he revealed something of God’s mystery to us. Which means that human words also are effective conduits of the divine truths, if filled with grace. Therefore, we shouldn’t underestimate the role of words. They can also foster an encounter with God. “Thus, faith comes from what is heard.” (Rm 10, 17)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear about both truths. Firstly, that “our human words always fall short of the mystery of God”. And secondly, that, “in speaking about God like [we do], our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless, it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity.” (CCC, 42-43). In sum, human words echoing those of the divine Word offer a reliable glimpse of God's real identity. Just as the Word is a bridge between God and us, our human words can be bridges leading to God. 

It is also said: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Mt 22: 37). Which means that our whole self, our mind included, is meant to actualize our commitment to love God. And that’s exactly why Paul tells the Ephesians he is writing to that he prays for them, so “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give [them] a spirit of wisdom and revelation resulting in knowledge of him.” (Ep 1:8). It follows from what we have said that thinking is also a means of knowing, loving and serving God.

It so happens that thought develops and unfolds through the use of language and that most early Christian thinkers meditated upon God’s unfathomable mysteries in Greek. The founding texts of our ecclesial tradition (namely the four Gospels, the book of Acts, the apostolic letters and the book of Revelation) were all written in Greek. The most sublime truths human beings were told by God were “imbedded” into a pagan language, into Greek words carrying with them an array of ideas, cultural references, linguistic possibilities that were originally foreign to the Biblical thought.

The Bible reveals us God’s heart. So, it is as if, to present himself before us, God clothed his heart first with the Hebrew language, because he wanted to speak first and foremost to his chosen people. But when he undertook the job of revealing to the whole world the greatest mystery of all (that of the Trinity) through the sending of his Son and his Holy Spirit, he decided to clothe his heart with the Greek language. That is the first reason why learning a few things about ancient Greek culture and philosophy is relevant to us. But there are many more...

One other good reason is that Judaism itself, though opposed to any kind of paganization of its faith (see the two books of the Maccabees), also underwent a process of Hellenization of their culture, i.e. a process of adaptation to Greek culture and adoption of some Greek cultural features), resulting, for instance, in the writing of some important biblical texts in Greek, those we call deuterocanonical (1). The Book of Wisdom, last book of the Old Testament to be written, was originally composed in Greek, “most likely in Alexandria, Egypt”, around the year 50 BC.

And there are many more reasons... 

__________

(1) Hellenization, for better or for worse, started with the expansion of the Greek Empire and the Macedonian conquest of Judea and Samaria by Alexander’s army in the year 333 BC. Prior to that, the Jewish people had been living under Persian rule for about two centuries. 

0 Comments

The Love of Knowledge and the Desire for God in Ancient Greece - Part II

5/15/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Kalamitsi beach, Lefkada island, Ionian sea, Greece.
Because of their revolutionary method (empirical and logical rather than merely traditional and mythical) and the type of causation they sought in their inquiry into nature (natural causes rather than supernatural), the first generations of philosophers, those we call the Presocratics, have undermined traditional beliefs based on mythical thought. Nonetheless, they remained forever indebted to religion in that they attempted to answer questions religion had formulated in the first place from time immemorial (questions about the ultimate origins and foundations of things).

In their attempt “to explain the world in terms of its own inherent principles” (1), the first philosophers mainly dealt with cosmological problems, but also ethical and theological ones. Why exactly? Firstly, because their desire to know knew no boundaries. Secondly, because they believed these questions were interconnected, just as all existing things were. In doing so, they  were again the inheritors of another particular aspect of mythical thinking, which was keen to detect analogies and explain interactions between the natural and the supernatural realms.      

Before we go any further in this little account, in which the emphasis is placed on the innovative aspect of philosophy, it may be useful to recall that ancient Greek philosophy never ceased, throughout its history, to measure itself against mythical thought, sometimes to criticize and reject it, but also, like Plato did, to borrow from it something of its evocative force, and share in its power to grasp the mysterious depth of things. That said, it’s undeniable that a group of perceptive men has forced the Greek people to drastically change its outlook on the divine.

This group of inquisitive minds comprised all Presocratic thinkers, including the very first ones, who lived in Miletus. In the 6th century BC, Miletus was a prosperous coastal city of Asia Minor (Present day Turkey). Between c. 640 and c. 523, three important philosophers/scientists (the distinction between science and philosophy didn’t yet exist) lived there, making this port of Ionia the cradle of Greek philosophy.

Their names were Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. The three of them attempted to answer the same question, based on the same method of examination of the physical world. That question was: “What “single enduring material stuff” (2) is nature made of?” The idea was that, starting with an acute observation of the natural world, one could rationally determine what basic element every natural creature was made of.

The question the Milesians asked was revolutionary. It implied that there was not only a chaotic plurality of things and causes in the universe, but rather that what they called the “cosmos” (the Greek word for “order [of the  universe]”) was characterised by its fundamental unity and harmony. Which means, firstly, that all things were forming an orderly and beautiful totality (i.e. a single, though complex, entity) and secondly, that this one entity was explicable by one single systematic physical cause. To better appreciate its scope, we can rephrase the Milesian interrogation like this: “What is the primary physical cause of all what is in nature, understood as a unified and harmonious, though complex, orderly system?” Thus began the history of science. 

The three Milesian philosophers diverged in their proto-scientific responses. Thales concluded that all things were made of water, since water is absolutely vital to all living things. Anaximander had a more abstract and complex approach, when he suggested that the archè (i.e. the first principal, the root cause of everything) had to be construed as an “undefined” (we’ll get back to that somewhere else). Ananximenes, for his part, put forward the idea that “air” was the material cause of all natural realities, since all living things were sustained by a “breath” (a “pneuma”, in Greek). These physical explanations, based on the study of the elements, shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that Milesians were “materialists” in the modern philosophical sense of the word.

Unlike some Modern scientists, they never held it to be true that the world was made of matter alone, to the exclusion of any other principle. Their views were “materialists” in the sense that their inquiry, (guided by some fundamental methodological options) relied on empirical research, and therefore on the examination of matter. In order to explain a physical effect, they looked for a physical cause. But one must never overlook the fact that their cosmological theories, however “materialistic” they may appear to us in comparison to mythology, “encompass what we today call physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, astronomy, embryology, and psychology (and other areas of natural inquiry), as well as theology, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.” (3)

This remark helps us understand why Thales, for instance, also shared the view that “all things are full of gods”, thus acknowledging that the divine was everywhere at work in the physical world. The same also thought that the “psychè” (the soul) was “mingled” to everything that is. Beyond nature and beneath the surface of matter, non-physical “forces” were at work, he assumed. This is why we cannot describe him or others Presocatics as proto-scientists whose theories have anticipated those of the atheistic positivists of the 19th and 20th centuries. And this is why a fair presentation of the Presocratics must always highlight both the embryonic or unfinished aspect of their views, and the complexity (and sometimes confusion) we find in them.

Consequently, we cannot declare one-sidedly that theological matters didn’t matter anymore because of the new Presocratics approach. A more systematic and methodological use of reason, characteristic of the philosophical endeavour, and it’s demythologizing effect, only opened the way to the development of a new type of knowledge about the divine.  Through their sometimes very surprising and bizarre reflections of the world, the Presocratic enquiries progressively shaped both the way later thinkers would formulate the problem of God and the way rational answers would be given to it. Their pioneering works gave birth and contributed tremendously to the development of a specialist branch of philosophy traditionally labeled as "natural theology".

From this turning point in the history of Western thought, the desire for God - a desire “written in the human heart” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church - takes more and more clearly the form of an ever deeper and purer empirical, logical and rational quest, aimed at acquiring knowledge about this "first principle" we name God. After an exclusive reliance on mythos, the logos becomes the privileged instrument of this search. Up until Aristotle's culminating speculations, collected in his Metaphysics and in his Ethics, the desire for God will have the countenance of reason. And contemplation (“theoria”, in Greek), will be defined as the ultimate form of human activity, thus preparing the way to the coming Christian spiritual life. 

__________   
Quotes (1) (2) and (3) are from Prof. Patricia Curd’s presentation of the Presocratics we find in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:  

(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/#Bib)

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Author

    Alex La Salle is currently working as a pastoral agent for the Saint John Paul II Pastoral Unit, which is part of the Diocese of Saint-Jean-Longueuil, Quebec.

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    September 2019
    January 2019

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.