I think men philosophize, well or poorly. We wonder, we are made to wonder and to try to explain what a "thing" is, what we mean by "cause." We ask, "What do you mean by that?" We sort things out.
But then we come to a point wherein the meter to measure such a thing must be invented... How does one define 'well or poorly'? By what standard? And within that, Only 'well' OR 'poorly'? Can it be so truly binary? Is there only 'value' or not?
And finally, is there no point at where man's reason must inevitably fail? Is there something too big for man to define or even begin to comprehend? Where is that high-water mark?
Informed by Scripture, for example by Thomas's calling IHS, "My Lord and my God," and by the First Commandment, we wonder how Jesus can be God and yet there is One God, whether and how we can say, "God suffered and died," How we can talk about IHS' being tempted.
So one MUST devise an answer, even if it is not proven? Are we not supposed to 'prove all things'?
I think we humans just make statements about what thought, knowledge, cause, and justice are, and then we explore those statements.
AND I think it's a good thing to do. For example, (WAY oversimplified!) do we have too know something to love it, or love it to know it? However you answer (I use the Gospel according to Certs: Wait! You're BOTH right!) how does it related to knowledge of God, which is a gift and grace?
If asking a question like that doesn't spur you to prayer, I don't know what would! But it would also help structure and inform a conversation with people who think, and I quote (while throwing up a little in my mouth), "Love is a special way of feeling."
So I think we DO philosophize (wait, I said that,) just as we eat and make love. And in all three exercises it's best to do them with attention, enjoyment, skill, gratitude, and love.
I think the metric is coherence.
I was speaking loosely but, yes, I think one cannot do it both well and poorly at the same time and in the same respect.
And finally, is there no point at where man's reason must inevitably fail? Is there something too big for man to define or even begin to comprehend?
Of COURSE there are things too great to comprehend, things before which reason will fail. I am not coming down against revelation or against the need for revelation. I LOVE it when my reason is overmastered!
We don't even have to look for great big things. I think sexuality in rational animals is too much for us. There are reasonable social arguments against homosexual marriage and polygamy, but I think in the relationship between husband and wife one has to appeal to revelation.
And while I'm a convinced Trinitarian (and my Christology is, or tries to be, Chalcedonian) I am aware that the Nicene Formulation confronts us with a mystery much bigger than the idea. In fact I think both Nicea and Chalcedon give us principles for theological investigation(and more) but they are in a certain sense like being hit in the face with a cold, wet towel.
In passing, I know the whole Catholic thing about the Sacred Heart is a problem in lots of ways for others. But at its heart (yuk, yuk) it is about the meaning of Chalcedonian Christology: In Christ God loves us as he always has but also with a human heart. In the Resurrected Christ, he loves us with a resurrected Human Heart! I think that's an awesome idea!
And that idea, which arises from theological speculation and inquiry leads to a sweet and grateful devotion and prayer. I think that's a good thing.
Okay, back to my cave.....