I have Kierkegaard's works on my shelves, but haven't got around to them...yet! I bought them because of the many strong recommendations I have read about him, from Christians, and particularly Catholics, I respect. Two that come to my mind right now are Malcolm Muggeridge and Walker Percy. Kierkegaard stood up for God at a time of extreme scepticism in his native Copehhagen, when it was deeply unfashionable and unpopular. It certainly did him little good in this world. St. Paul was rightly wary of philosophers. In his time, Greek philosophy had gravely declined from the great heights of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle of several centuries before. All the so-called philosophers he would have encountered in his preaching in Athens would have been sophist charlatans. This doesn't mean that we should dismiss philosophy per se. The Church teaches us categorically that we must avoid the extremes of both rationalim and fideism. To rely solely on either is actually heretical, I think, so we must use both our Faith and our God-given, though very limited by comparison to Him, faculty of Reason in our encounters with the world. Of course, our own isolated reason would be very weak, so we must refer to the sum of great reasoners approved by the Church or who are at the very least, obviously in sympathy with Her. In that respect, although a Protestant, Kierkegaard seems to be a great asset, but my knowledge is second-hand; however, Muggeridge and Percy would be far better guides than me. There have been many great philosophers who have supported the Faith. Unfortunately, the number of sophists is far greater and they're the ones that get the respect in the secular world. From my very limited experience, I'd read Augustine (simply the best), Aquinas (a huge respector of Aristotle), Scotus, Pascal and from more recent times, the aforementioned Kierkegaard (bearing in mind that he's a Protestant, but possibly the only safe Protestant philosopher), Unamuno, St Edith Stein, Elizabeth Anscombe (a Catholic convert who advised CS Lewis and ensured a priest was present at Wittgenstein's death-bed), del Noce and Marcel (a very difficult, but very Catholic, answer to Sartre). Given Anscombe's association with him, and from what else I have heard of him, Wittgenstein might be the most famous 20th century philosopher who was sympathetic to Christianity. Sartre, the most famous of the last century represents an example of the possible danger of philosophy to atheism as there is strong evidence he died in the Church, much to de Beauvoir's chagrin. The late Cardinal Jean Danielou, an orthodox Jesuit philosopher, used to say that the antiChristian philosophers, certainly of the twentieth century, were unbelievers who took the non-existence of God as their first assumption and merely built all their thought around that premise. In other words, they were merely playing with language, because as Sartre appears to have shown, to consider Truth, standing on its own feet, ran the risk of taking one straight to God. Highly commendable also, is the late Father Stanley Jaki, who was a doctor of theology, a doctor of physics and also had a very knowledgeable grasp of philosophy and history-a genuine polymath who could link it all together; and an absolutely orthodox Catholic.
It might seem like it, but I am not. No, I am not judging people who disagree with Pope Francis. I do not agree with him, either, on the ways he has deviated from Church teaching. But I am focused on my salvation. I can't change the Pope Francis situation. And I have heard so much dissent on this forum that you might THINK I am uncomfortable with it. I just reread your post this morning on the East Coast.
Padraig often brings up the subject of obedience. This is crucial. No matter what Pope Francis says or does, we have to obey everything that he tells us to do if it does not contradict the teaching of the Church. He's the Pope and one must obey a pope...in as much as he's acting as a pope. If we don't obey the pope in these conventional matters, we'll fall off the tight-rope he has laid down for us. If we criticise him for opposing the Church or for behaviour inappropriate to a pope, we'll stay on the tight-rope. That's how I reckon it. It's a fearful test. How much easier it was to walk the wide, solid road we had under Popes Benedict and John Paul II. One consolation might be that, the harder the test, the more prestigious the honours...if one passes. And we're receiving one hard and mighty lesson in human character.
Thanks DeGaulle, there is so much here to consider. I think I will create a thread on Kierkegaard but it may well be a kind of placeholder until there is more knowledge on the subject. I do think that Kierkegaard had a high regard for the Blessed Virgin Mary but I do not know any more about his Mariology than that. Time may tell if Kierkegaard is a profitable topic or not. The sentance of yours which jumped out at me most was: I am interested in Existentialism as a kind of evangelism to the Atheist. However, having been an atheist or agnostic myself I am fearful of going there as it may be a kind of temptation for me which weakens my Faith. And so rather than learning how to evangelise the atheist I might end up in losing my Faith again. As Padraig has said before, when one starts out on a journey one never knows for definite where it will take them. In the case of both Kierkegaard and Jordan Peterson, I can say that the small exposure I have had to their ideas has had a weakening effect on my Faith - in that it raises questions. Any endeavour to wrestle with existentialism will need all the help we can get from keeping our eyes fixed firmly on Jesus, in the Spirit, through Mary, with the Angels and the Saints.
Most of the existentialists were trying to undermine the Faith, even if they had to sacrifice logic, reason and truth, in the process. Gabriel Marcel was the exception, Truth being his only intended destination, as he was a devout Catholic. Marcel was particularly interested in treating man as a subject, as opposed to the materialist tendency to treat him as an object, but he is not an easy read. Perhaps, you should consider something unambiguously Catholic like Miguel de Unamuno's 'Tragic Sense of Life' (which isn't at all a tragic book). In this book, the Spanish philosopher demolishes quite a few atheistic arguments, in the process demonstrating the value of clear, open thinking. Augusta del Noce is also worth considering, completely Catholic and very topical. The ideas that you consider might weaken your Faith are ones that might not stand up, at all, to a proper examination. C.S. Lewis, though not a professional philosopher, cuts the ground from under many of the materialistic, atheistic arguments in his book 'Miracles'. It is very strong, because the great English philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe sorted out some weaknesses in the first edition, leaving subsequent editions of the book quite irrefutable. It's a great book to get the gist of the a priori foundational arguments for knowledge and gives one a little eye for flaws and errors. Of course, Lewis was a Protestant, but he is highly esteemed by orthodox Catholics for the clarity and orthodoxy of his Christianity. I haven't read Kierkegaard, but maybe others on the forum can row in with a few opinions?
Incidentally, GK Chesterton had no formal training whatsoever in philosophy, theology or science, but being an utter, freakish genius, he could talk about the subjects they represented with incredible astuteness and ability. He was able to shake off all the unneccesary excess and get down to the core of the subject. He's also very easy and enjoyable to read and his works, in digitalised form cost next to nothing. I bought his entire works on Kindle a few years ago for about 3 euro.
There was a philosopher, J.L. Langshaw, who gave a series of lectures that have since been published under the title "How to do things with words". He died at a young age, but it seems to me that his thoughts have led to the phenomena of "word violence" we are seeing today. I put this forward for those who may want to have a look ~ it's all way over my head.... https://iep.utm.edu/john-austin/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin
It is a great test to remain steadfast in your obedience in the midst of the never ending storm of this papacy. There have been moments when the temptation to be critical of Pope Francis and to even question his papacy has been unbearable for me, but you have never lost sight of your salvation. You do not judge HH, you lead by example and for that I thank you.
Thankyou Lois. Word violence would indeed be a serious fault, especially since Austin did say that 'to say is to do'. I am not familiar with word-violence or Austin's role in stimulating it. I am not too inclined to delve deeply into Austin's model of human knowledge (epistemology) and language. From a cursory perusal of it, my impression is that the whole analysis stems from a dissassociative mental state where the moral law has vanished or is nowhere to be seen. The reason being that such mental states are conducive to the action of the 'Muses' or fallen angels who can deceive with impunity. Even Kant had respect for the moral law. Kant said: "Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the Moral Law within." In contrast, I exhibit a little snippet from one of Austin's thought experiments: "We walk along the cliff, and I feel a sudden impulse to push you over, which I promptly do: I acted on impulse, yet I certainly intended to push you over, and may even have devised a little ruse to achieve it; yet even then I did not act deliberately, for I did not (stop to) ask myself whether to do it or not." - Philosophical Papers, " The Meaning of a Word," p. 195, Oxford University Press, second edition (1970). I am not saying Austin would do such a thing, but to experiment in ones thinking with such scenarios of action is very far from having the mind of Christ. Fair enough if such thoughts come uncontrolably into your mind. But to devise such thoughts to extract some perceived philosophical gem would be an illgotten gain. St. John Henry Newman did say in one of his sermons that every thought should be profitably harnessed into virtuous action. I sincerely doubt if the thoughts that go into such thought experiments could be harnessed to such noble objectives. Am I being unfair? Perhaps. Also, it seems very far from Matthew 5:37 : Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.
InVeritatem, Austin's thought experiments night be fertile ground for demonic suggestions and interplay.
A good way of putting it Mario. That's what I meant by conducive to the actions of the fallen angels.
Essentially, he's just another nominalist. Nominalism began with William of Ockham, a scholastic monk, in the fourteenth century and has been one of the single biggest errors in philosophy, being reductionist and ultimately irrational and atheistic. Note Austin's denial of universals. This is central to nominalism. It is to deny the transcendental, and to imagine every instance of something to be only specific to its one singular event. It implies the denial of qualities such as Goodness, Truth and Beauty. It is to say that there is, for example, a woman that one might consider a beauty in one particular instance, but there is no quality of beauty. It begs the question, of course, of how can one know someone is a beauty if there's no general standard with which to compare. Fundamentaly, it's an error, I think, in the definition of thought itself, mistakenly assuming that it is something describable in the same way as matter, an error later compounded by Descartes. Ultimately, nominalism leads one to determinism, the notion that everything, and everybody, is merely a part of a pre-determined sequence of events, leaving absolute zero options for choice or free will or, really, consciousness. This determinism is at the base of most, if not all, current atheistic philosophy, even if the upholders attempt to deny it. If one thinks about it, it is completely self-negating. How can one derive any knowledge or meaning from a pre-determined being that is simply a pre-determined effect of an inevitable cause that preceded it? They and their words are just an unavoidable event that has been determined since the beginning and was just going to happen no matter what, with no intrinsic meaning and no choice, free will or conscious intent in their utterance. Of course, no determinist really believes that. And, if they did, they would have cut off the branch upon which they were distally sitting. Edit: and those, like Austin, who state that there are 'no universals', in that statement make one that is universal...thus contradicting themselves...one can't give these people an inch.
I would ask Austin what he means by an 'impulse'. Human acts are choices. Lack of premeditation might lessen guilt and sometimes saved people from the hangman, but no legal system ever thought it voided murder...at least until these times. To think ourselves slaves to 'impulses' is only a Freudian excuse for sin. Something which 'I couldn't resist'...more truthfully should be expressed as 'something I didn't want to resist'. This philosophy would render man a mere beast and wholly undermine most of his humanity. As for Kant, he was so sure of his self-reasoned moral law, he eventually came under the delusion he was God. Not quite sure where I read this; I suspect it was in del Noce.
Thank you both for the thoughts. I said "word violence" as a description of the discourse one sees on-line or in the news. For example, if one doesn't use the pronoun another identifies as, the offended party will say that it's an act of violence against them; they are what they say they are, not what they in fact are......I wondered if Austin's ideas were possibly a hidden spark to the language of "wokeness" that we're subjected to now......So many, for whatever reason, are living out their lives based on impulse - do what thou wilt. & that is demonic, imo. Hopefully that makes sense ~
Isn't it ironic the way words are now twisted into impossible slots. Jesus is the Word. It seems to me this attack on words and their intent is an attack on the Eternal Word. The devil is really thrashing through the Vineyard of the world taking apart (or trying to) everything in his path.
It makes a lot of sense. There is, as you describe, a demonic attempt to extinguish the universal notions of the two sexes, men and women and replace it with the individualist, specific, self-appointed whatever-I'm-having-myself of the perverted. Of course, all universals are sourced in God. Language, although fragmented due to the Fall and the Tower of Babel is also God-derived. We tamper with its meanings at our own peril.
