Posted on 11/10/2008 11:37:17 AM PST by betty boop
Indeed. But it only has to be "decided" by whoever is making the assertion. There's no requirement of consensus.
If you want to invent your own God, thats O.K..
Its done all the time..
WHich is my point.. I believe..
The/A "word" for the God meme will be filled.. even if its several words..
The GOD concept is pregnant..
Bearing philisophical progeny..
Ignored it if you must but you will not murder it..
That concept is transcendant.. like bubbles in wine..
Even denied a humans God will surface anyway..
Some to frothy logic.. others to cogent opinion..
Followed by endless squabbling over patent infingement.
A "pretty strong form of Platonism?" Plato was not a system builder (unlike the philosopher discussed in the article at the top of this thread); nor did he create any "doctrines." He himself constantly insisted that anyone who understood him to be doing that didn't understand what he was doing. But I understand! He created no doctrine, strong or weak. And he certainly didn't elevate reason as the "ultimate good." Pure reason is a tool of analysis; it is not God. When one senses God's "divine pulls" (helkein) in subjective consciousness, this is an event in Spirit, not in reason. It will take reason to analyze the experience into language if it is to be communicated to others. But Spirit comes first, then reason.
Classical philosophy is not at all like what philosophy has become in the post-Enlightenment period. Modern philosophy has tended to gild itself with the prestige of science, aping its methods and virtually divinizing Reason; and so has produced all kinds of "school philosophies" such as scientific materialism, positivism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, etc. All of these are doctrines. (You can easily tell when you're dealing with a doctrine — it has the suffix "ism.")
But Plato's philosophy is not at all like that: It is based on Socratic ignorance.
Some notes on Socratic Ignorance: Socrates, Plato’s great teacher, did not claim to know better than others. He frequently emphasized that he was “ignorant.” The importance of this “confession” is that it “helps to draw the line between dogma and genuine philosophy. It is one thing to state one’s opinion of how things are and should be…. Socrates, on the other hand, started from a position of ignorance and sought the truth. In the end, he has no dogmatic program for us to follow, just a method for seeking truth for ourselves, without any guarantee that we will find it. Philosophy as practiced by Socrates is an open system,” not a doctrine or dogma.
In Plato’s Apology — a word which here does not imply an admission of guilt, as it does in modern usage, but an intention to give a justification for some action or position — Socrates explains why he follows this philosophical path even unto his death. In the dialogue, Chaerephon asks the Oracle of Delphi, “Who is the wisest of men?” Now this Oracle, a/k/a the Pythia, was a priestess reputed to be possessed by the gods and so able to get answers from them. She replied: “No one is wiser than Socrates.”
Socrates evidently was enormously perplexed by this answer. Plato has him say in response:
When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? And what is the interpretation of this riddle? For I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him — his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination — and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is — for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretentions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him…. Therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was.“Socrates concludes that it is better to have honest ignorance than self-deceptive ignorance. Socrates may not know the ultimate answers to the questions he raises, but he knows himself. It is this self-knowledge and integrity that constitutes the wisdom of Socrates. The open invitation is for all of us the ask ourselves how much we truly know of what we claim.” See Link for More
Indeed, the practice of Socratic/Platonic philosophy begins with the injunction, “Know thyself.”
In the autobiographical sketch which Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates in the Phaedo (96a ff.), Socrates tells us that when he was young he had a passion for natural science. This, of course, is as we should expect, for, like all intelligent young men of his time, he must have been intrigued by the speculations of that amazing blaze of thinkers from Thales to Anaxagoras.In like vein, the 19th-century Italian priest and philosopher Antonio Rosmini writes:He tells us that he was busied with such questions as, What is it that makes things come into being and cease to be? But he soon came to the conclusion that that form of inquiry was not for him. He found that he was befogged by those speculations; that by observing objects with the eyes and trying to comprehend them with the senses, he was in danger of blinding his soul altogether. It is important to understand clearly what this means. I take it to mean that Socrates came to realize that the investigation of things, whatever it gave him, could not give him the understanding he sought. He discovered the limits, or rather the limitations, of objective knowledge; the fact that objective knowledge, and the methods productive of objective knowledge, cannot answer any of our philosophical questions.
His dissatisfaction with natural speculation meant that his interest lay elsewhere. The focus of his thought was on those ideas and ideals which are all-important to the humanity of man. And the understanding he yearned for was not to be won by the acquisition of a mere mass of objective facts….
The business of philosophy is to deal with ideas that do not reside in nature, but only in the mind of man, in the sense that they do not come to us from outside, and can by no means be discovered by any objective approach.
There may or may not be an instance of justice in the actual world. What is certain is that ‘justice itself’ is not to be found anywhere in the actual world: we did not find the idea ‘out there’: the idea is neither a description of nor a counter for any existent in the world. It is only in the intelligible world that we find justice pure and simple.
The business of philosophical thought is with ideas; ideas that give shape and meaning and value to our lives; ideas that have their reality in themselves; ideas that can only be understood through their own proper form. The way to understanding is not to search around us, but to examine our minds; to examine our ideas, those ideas which we ourselves bring into being.
Without the particulars of sense there may be no world at all, but all of the particulars of sense put together do not constitute a meaningful world; all of the particulars of sense put together do not give me a moment of reality. That is why Socrates was not concerned with the factual world, but with the forms that give meaning to the world….
He concluded that wisdom is not in objective knowledge. Search as we may, the world will not give us answers to the questions that concern us most. Unless we acknowledge that all of our knowledge is as nothing, unless we avow our ignorance, we shall not even have set foot on the endless road to wisdom. For God alone is wise; and he is the wisest among men who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. — D. R. Khashaba, Here
“…Philosophy is a word invented by the founder of the Italic school. Cicero describes how Leontius, king of Phliasi, asked Pythagoras to state the art which gave value to his life. The reply was simple: he knew no art; he was a philosopher. From that moment, people who engaged in the investigation of the most important truths were no longer called ‘wise’ … but ‘philosophers’ … that is, lovers and seekers of wisdom.I'll toss in my own two-cents-worth here: All I know is that the more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know; there is no certainty in human knowledge. And so I place my full faith and trust in God's revelations to us.“This remark by Pythagoras was an extremely noble, moral statement whose intimate truth is felt by all. No one, as we know, can call himself wise. The darkness besetting our intellect is profound; our ignorance as mortals is extreme even after a lifetime of meditation. Prolonged efforts and innumerable frustrations, often accompanied by error, bring forth as their fruit only a tiny particle of truth. God alone has the right to be called wise; it is a lie and a pride to call human beings wise. In uncovering this lie and rebuking its pride, Pythagoras made philosophical humility the solid base for the investigation of what is true.” — Antonio Rosmini, Psychology, Denis Cleary and Terence Watson, tr. Durham: Rosmini House, 1999, p. 3f.
Truly, God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His name is I AM. And I've known Him personally for half a century and counting.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9
Man is NOT the measure of God.
Job and his friends tried to be the measure of God - they were speaking words without knowledge - and God responded in chapters 38-41. Job's reaction:
Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes. - Job 42:1-6
It is always good to give thanks and praise to God! And Gregorian Chant is wonderful for evoking a sense of tranquility — that's good for the soul!
Thank you ever so much for writing, weston, and for your kind words!
Absolutely agreed, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you ever so much for this glorious essay-post!
Truly, your post at 224 and mine at 225 are like hand and glove as are most all of our conversations whether on forum or by private email. I thank God for you and for the privilege of working with you on various book projects.
LoL...
Now thats on the cusp of wisdom.. for all men and Angels..
Human arrogance even hubris is rebellion and a mask costumed with attitude..
What do you know for sure?.. is usually answered by denial and "fits"..
This is excellent. Thanks for posting.
Thank you so very much for your kind words, Lancey Howard!
Dearest sister in Christ, it has been a joy and an honor for me to collaborate with you! It’s been such a wonderful experience. I’m so looking forward to our next project!
Romans 1:20-22 says: For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
God gave man the ability to look around himself and reasonably conclude some basic things about creation and a creator. But man, in his vanity, elevates this reasoning ability to Godlike status, thinking he can know all that is known. In doing so, he becomes a fool.
Socrates reached the same conclusion as the writer of the Proverb "Be not wise in your own eyes"
It's like Michael Behe, the scientist, looking at the "simplest cells only to discover flagellum and all these complex machines; Leading him to conclude they are 'irreducibly complex'. As dear bb concluded her essay post: All I know is that the more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know;
Socrates reached the same conclusion as the writer of the Proverb "Be not wise in your own eyes"
Truly, the very same words of God are spirit and life to the Christian who is on milk as well as the Christian who is on meat. And yet Truth is hidden in plain view from those who do not have “ears to hear.”
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matthew 22:29
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. - I Corinthians 1:24
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. – Matthew 13:13-16
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Spirited Irish, per your comments on Dionesyians, pinging you to this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2148511/posts
The dualism exist exactly at the distinction between Form and Matter. Now I find it difficult to believe that as well read as you are you feign any knowledge of Platonic dualisms. Stanfords Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes:
In Phaedo Plato presents a variety of arguments for the immortality of the soul, but the one that is relevant for our purposes is that the intellect is immaterial because Forms are immaterial and intellect must have an affinity with the Forms it apprehends (78b4-84b8). This affinity is so strong that the soul strives to leave the body in which it is imprisoned and to dwell in the realm of Forms. It may take many reincarnations before this is achieved. Plato's dualism is not, therefore, simply a doctrine in the philosophy of mind, but an integral part of his whole metaphysics. One problem with Plato's dualism was that, though he speaks of the soul as imprisoned in the body, there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a particular body. Their difference in nature makes the union a mystery.
It is here that the Gnosticism rears its ugly head and we hear notions of trying to escape the body so we might become one with the Form. Even in orthodox Christianity a theology of negation in which only by negating particularity could one come to a knowledge of God and hence a whole period of time in which ascetitism became the mode of existence for many in the Church.
For Plato escaping the world of particularity was to achieve the ideal world of the Forms. Knowledge was not possible in the world of becoming only can man have knowledge by participating in the world of eternal truths, abstract reasoning, only conceptual knowledge of the ideal world was participation in the divine. Thus this ideal world of abstract concepts is set apart as something that both God and man can participate together in.
Christianity teaches something wholly other than an abstract ideal world in which God and man participate. Christianity teaches that God is a se, that is, God is not correlative or dependent upon anything besides his own being. God is self-sufficient and is the only being who is self-sufficient. Everything else that is must, by virtue of God's aseity, be dependent upon and derived from that unique being and be an altogether different kind of being. Unfortunately Romanism holds to a synthesis of Platonism and Christianity via Aquinas' Analogia Entis. In this schema he makes God correlative to creation or creation as an emanation of the Godhead through the great chain of being thus reducing God's aseity. But God's aseity is clearly self-contained in his ontological trinitarian being not needing any complementation or fulfillment for he has absolute unity and absolute particularity within himself.
That being the case what can be said of the creature? First we must dump any notion of a general being and any of idea of man participating in the being of God. As Christians then we must acknowledge a two level ontology that comes to expression in the Creator/creature distinction. Having thus disposed with any notion of a univocal metaphysics we come to realize the uniqueness of God's being and that everything else exists derivatively and dependently based upon God's fiat creation and that which was not but called into existence before any extraneous knowledge of him existed. Creation then was the first step in extra divine knowledge.
The question becomes how can man have any knowledge of God when such a great distinction exists between the Creator and the creature? Simply, that God condescended himself to make himself known by way of the imago dei in which he reveals something of himself by way of nature, through mans conscience and his providential ordering of history.
In summary we could say that created reality is not being but meaning. It is dependent and refers to God and created things are only the bearers of meaning and in no way self-sufficient. In this we no longer need to have being and meaning as two different things. Ontology and Epistemolgy are united. Here then we avoid the notion that only meaning refers to God but being only refers to itself. The two layer level of ontology is the uniquely Christian ontology that refers all created reality to its dependence on God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.