I have no clever title.

OiBoyz · 10-01-2009, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Does HTML no longer work in signatures?

They disabled HTML in the sigs for security reasons.

**Ted Logan** · 10-02-2009, 09:54 AM

Digging back a couple months, John, I agree that pastors should "have the balls" to be an Ambrose, an Athanasius, etc. Especially Athanasius. Standing up for the Gospel, preaching Christ crucified, seems so often to be set aside in favor of an emphasis on social causes, or expository preaching, or any number of other things by pastors all across the map. I recently read a post at a blog you may have heard of (Team Pyro, a team blog headed by a Baptist named Phillip Johnson, not to be confused with the grandfather of the Intelligent Design movement) where the author extols Michael Horton and his cohorts for their answer to the question, "What makes a true church?" The answer was, "The Word of God preached."

The thing that bugs me is that pastors often seem terrified of sounding like legalists, so they never preach the Gospel from the Gospels, or they're afraid to lose members, so they don't preach Christ's command to follow, or they forget to mention that following Jesus means making a trek toward a lonely hill outside the camp, where one is either crucified alongside Him or faced with the life-changing fact that in light of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, my life is not my own. I used to tell my kids in the youth group, especially around easter or preaching from Ephesians 5, et cetera, that Jesus calls them to follow Him, but that every real step in His steps will take them closer to death on a cross. Athanasius understood that, and so did Paul. I'll never forget what Jerome said about the decades following Nicaea: "The world awoke and was astonished to find itself Arian." Or take your own namesake, John Chrysostom, who was deposed from his bishopric at least twice and banished for preaching the Gospel and calling the Empress to repentance.

Or consider the final witness of Polycarp, who (though his zeal for martyrdom was certainly ridiculous) when faced with the final chance for recantation said baldly, "These 86 years I've served him and he's done me no wrong; how can I now insult my King, who has saved me?"

Yet, of course, the lived testimony to Christ by the pastor is not dispensable from, or even distinguishable from, the preaching of the Gospel, and the formal preaching must be subsumed under this holistic view of the pastor's discipleship. Augustine understood this, and so while he wrote voluminously, he also preached, wrote personal letters to Christians, supported Christian communities, et cetera.

All this is why, after I complete my M.Div, and a couple years as an associate pastor somewhere (probably), I want to devote my life to a small church somewhere, where I will actually know my people. I absolutely despise the idea of preaching to a congregation of strangers. How can I call myself a pastor if I don't shepherd the flock? And if the Lord should grant numerical growth, my hope is that our church will raise up a leader alongside me who can seed a new congregation, in a repeated cycle, that will allow me to be a pastor in the only way I know how - by being a part of the life of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

You mention in the post that I am only obliquely responding to that you are a "critic, a thinker, a grunt laborer." I think the task of the pastor should be critical as well as constructive, and should help mobilize men like yourselves to become constructive as well as critical, because as a critic myself I am quite aware that one of the key obstacles to my own growth in the community of Saints and in likeness to my Redeemer is my tendency to believe that criticism is an end in itself. It seems, however, that criticism is a work unfinished, and whether the constructive task is left to a subsequent generation or another Christian or taken on by the critic, we can't forget that Christ's own mission was both critical and constructive, both calling on the sinner to repent and promising that He who is to be our judge is also our surety.

One of the ways the pastor can be of help to men like yourself is by inviting them into his circle of confidence, working through the issues in the Church and the mission field together, and then counting on men like you to give example to your fellow brothers and sisters by following through in deed what you confess with your mouth. I hope one day that I can be a pastor who not only delivers the Gospel, not only lives it, but also yokes the Body together to live it together. I hope you, on the other hand, will ever be more consumed by love for Jesus, His Church, and the Lost, so that you don't simply sip lattes with pastors (or, as Augustine did while in Cassiciacum, sip some other beverage and talk about the nature of evil and Neo-Platonic Christianity's anthropology), but instead are driven by holy affection to do for Christ and His children what love compels.

Chrysostom · 10-02-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

You mention in the post that I am only obliquely responding to that you are a "critic, a thinker, a grunt laborer." I think the task of the pastor should be critical as well as constructive, and should help mobilize men like yourselves to become constructive as well as critical, because as a critic myself I am quite aware that one of the key obstacles to my own growth in the community of Saints and in likeness to my Redeemer is my tendency to believe that criticism is an end in itself. It seems, however, that criticism is a work unfinished, and whether the constructive task is left to a subsequent generation or another Christian or taken on by the critic, we can't forget that Christ's own mission was both critical and constructive, both calling on the sinner to repent and promising that He who is to be our judge is also our surety.

Sorry, maybe the triad was unclear. "Thinker" was supposed to include being constructive. And "grunt laborer" is obviously a good bit different from sipping lattes, haha. Still, all three are auxiliary, not primary, roles.

**Ted Logan** · 10-05-2009, 09:58 AM

I didn't intend to imply that you were solely critical, or that you want to sit and sip lattes instead of doing Kingdom work. I was simply saying that given the tendencies among people like yourself, and assuming your own desire to avoid the errors you've already mentioned, my post was simply an exhortation to continue along the path you have already seen by the light of the Word.

I think that's part of the constructive task - to encourage one another to press on to love and good deeds

Chrysostom · 10-16-2009, 04:25 PM

I've been asked to teach a Sunday school class on philosophy. What are everyone's thoughts on this kind of class? What would you want to learn about philosophy? What aspects would be of interest to you, and which philosophers?

Here are some of my thoughts. At the outset, I recognize two things. First, that it takes a unique way of thinking to do philosophy, and most people lack the necessary training, aptitude, or both. Second, that it takes a whole lot of hours of doing philosophy for you to really start seeing connections and grasping the significance of philosophical choices and trends.

With these in mind, here is my basic plan. I concentrate on two things that people are much more familiar with than abstract philosophy: biography and narrative. So, I'll talk about philosophers as people, giving a little bit of implication-laden biography. And, more importantly, I will try to describe philosophies by retelling the stories philosophers tell.

It's much easier to get people to understand stories than to get them to understand a jargonized morass of complex abstract thought. Fortunately, lots of philosophers told stories. Plato told a story about a cave. Descartes told a story about a meditation that he had. Hegel told a story about the conflict between a master and a slave.

Once I go through the story and explain a bit of what kind of philosophy this story is all about, I can relate it directly to concrete phenomena everyone today understands. For instance, where did transgenderism come from? What about RIchard Dawkins? Why does the State distinguish between the public sphere of reason and the private sphere of religion opinion? What is postmodernism, and why is it so tied to relativism in the popular imagination? Why do we frame discussions about euthanasia, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, etc. in the way that we do?

An additional goal is to encourage critical thinking and humility. What is driving this philosopher that is good? What good came of his philosophy? How do we unknowingly agree with him? Should we at all challenge this philosopher? Does that mean I should restructure my actions and the way I use language? Do I dislike some of the results of the kinds of things this philosopher is talking about, all the why believing what he's saying in principle? How did this philosopher overstep the bounds of good and wise thinking, and how might I unknowingly be doing the same?

OiBoyz · 10-16-2009, 06:28 PM

I have the barest of understanding of philosophy or philosophical thought. But I'd totally be interested in this class.

I frequently listen to Greg Koukl of Stands To Reason, and he's a trained philosopher. He does a pretty decent job of breaking stuff down so a lay person like me can follow it. Maybe check him out for some ideas?

And if you were to record your class and podcast it somehow? I'd would love to join in.

**+Donny** · 10-17-2009, 01:05 PM

You obviously know quite a bit more about philosophy than I do, but coming from a non-philosopher who had to read a fair amount, here's what I can give you.

Quote:

I've been asked to teach a Sunday school class on philosophy. What are everyone's thoughts on this kind of class? What would you want to learn about philosophy? What aspects would be of interest to you, and which philosophers?

First, make it a survey through western history. Enabling people to see themselves in history is huge.
Second, it's a survey, which means you shouldn't leave huge gaps, like leaving out medievalism, or postmodernism, or pre-socratics. I don't know why, but it annoys me when surveys concentrate so much on basically just Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc.
Third, dive in for details. Don't stay on the surface the whole time, because that is boring. Think of it as hovering above history and reaching down to pick out little details to show your students, to illustrate your point.
So, for a western survey, pick out a single philosopher for each group or time period (you'll have to do it more by group once you get into more modern philosophy), and use him to not only tell his story (as you talk about below), but to also tell about his peers. That way you don't have to go into detail about each philosopher, but they still get a taste.
And don't concentrate on positive, constructive philosophy; I think that's incredibly lazy. Get into Neitzsche, or Pascal, or Kierkegaard. Besides, if you're telling stories, they're much more interesting people.

Quote:

Here are some of my thoughts. At the outset, I recognize two things. First, that it takes a unique way of thinking to do philosophy, and most people lack the necessary training, aptitude, or both.

No it doesn't. Everyone can do, and actually does, philosophy. Ability matters some, but what I've really noticed is that real interest is what enables people to do philosophy, and that has a lot to do with the teacher. Your approach below is exactly the kind of thing that everyone can care about and get into. Your students will like it, whether they're "philosophy types" or not.

Quote:

Second, that it takes a whole lot of hours of doing philosophy for you to really start seeing connections and grasping the significance of philosophical choices and trends.

To really do it, sure, like anything else. But a good teacher can give an excellent, meaningful summary that people can then go out and use. Of course, part of that excellent summary would be a humble warning telling students not to go out and act like they know more than they do.

Quote:

With these in mind, here is my basic plan. I concentrate on two things that people are much more familiar with than abstract philosophy: biography and narrative. So, I'll talk about philosophers as people, giving a little bit of implication-laden biography. And, more importantly, I will try to describe philosophies by retelling the stories philosophers tell.

It's much easier to get people to understand stories than to get them to understand a jargonized morass of complex abstract thought. Fortunately, lots of philosophers told stories. Plato told a story about a cave. Descartes told a story about a meditation that he had. Hegel told a story about the conflict between a master and a slave.

Once I go through the story and explain a bit of what kind of philosophy this story is all about, I can relate it directly to concrete phenomena everyone today understands. For instance, where did transgenderism come from? What about RIchard Dawkins? Why does the State distinguish between the public sphere of reason and the private sphere of religion opinion? What is postmodernism, and why is it so tied to relativism in the popular imagination? Why do we frame discussions about euthanasia, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, etc. in the way that we do?

This is excellent. Descartes little medication is hilarious, and make sure to mention Kant; I love his hellishly regimented life (then read an excerpt from him, if they can bear it). I'd especially be interested if you included Solomon in this. I'm fascinated with someone doing a thorough, biographical approach to Solomon's writings, including his Psalms, and especially looking to see how David influenced him. But any, yes, Solomon. Throw his philosophy in there.

Quote:

An additional goal is to encourage critical thinking and humility. What is driving this philosopher that is good? What good came of his philosophy? How do we unknowingly agree with him? Should we at all challenge this philosopher? Does that mean I should restructure my actions and the way I use language? Do I dislike some of the results of the kinds of things this philosopher is talking about, all the why believing what he's saying in principle? How did this philosopher overstep the bounds of good and wise thinking, and how might I unknowingly be doing the same?

This is good, of course, and I've got two suggestions.
First, make sure you prepare them for it to be meaningful. Philosophers are always trying to answer real, practical questions about life. Sure, it leads them into really strange, abstract areas, but there's something flesh-and-blood driving them there. Get into that with your narratives, and then show people that they're doing the same thing.
Second, make sure it's rooted in their story. You're already doing this, by tracing western philosophy, but keep the narrative theme through here and I think it'll produce better criticism than annoying logic chopping (the pessimistic student) or equivocation (the optimistic student). They have their own story behind their philosophy.
Third, you should allude to the fact that movies and TV-shows seem to get away with asking almost scholastic questions, and people actually care. The Matrix, for the most part, did it badly, but throw in a couple examples of movies/TV-shows interacting with philosophical questions well. If done well, it shows just how rooted philosophy is in real life.

This is interesting, though; I hope it goes well.

Chrysostom · 10-17-2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

And if you were to record your class and podcast it somehow? I'd would love to join in.

I'll see what I can do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

First, make it a survey through western history. Enabling people to see themselves in history is huge.
Second, it's a survey, which means you shouldn't leave huge gaps, like leaving out medievalism, or postmodernism, or pre-socratics. I don't know why, but it annoys me when surveys concentrate so much on basically just Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc.
Third, dive in for details. Don't stay on the surface the whole time, because that is boring. Think of it as hovering above history and reaching down to pick out little details to show your students, to illustrate your point.
So, for a western survey, pick out a single philosopher for each group or time period (you'll have to do it more by group once you get into more modern philosophy), and use him to not only tell his story (as you talk about below), but to also tell about his peers. That way you don't have to go into detail about each philosopher, but they still get a taste.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how I could do justice to a survey this broad in 13 weeks. Worse, it would seems much more abstract at the beginning (Pre-Socratics) and much more concrete near today (the rise & fall of Cartesianism). In principle I like your idea, but I'm just not sure I can pull it off well. How would you outline 13 weeks? Here are some topics one might cover:

Pre-Socratics (really broad)
Plato
Aristotle
Stoics, etc.
Neo-Platonism, Plotinus
Augustine
Aquinas
Anselm
Duns Scotus
Ockham
Descartes
Hobbes
Spinoza
Malebranche
Leibniz
Locke
Rousseau
Berkeley
Hume
Kant
Hegel
Kierkegaard
Marx
Nietzsche
Frege
Heidegger
Wittgenstein
Logical Positivism
Sartre
Gadamer
Habermas
Plantinga
Foucault
Derrida
Kuhn
Rawls

I'm leaving out most of analytic philosophy (very intentionally), and a half-dozen names could still be easily added to this list. Any recommendations on organization?

Let's say we trim considerably. We might do:

Pre-Socratics
Plato
Neo-Platonism
Scholasticism
Cartesianism
Empiricism
Rationalism
Early Modern Political Philosophy
Kant
Hegel, Kierkegaard, & Marx
Nietzsche
Utilitarianism, Positivism
Heidegger, maybe Gadamer
Sartre, Post-Colonialism, Feminism
Plantinga and contemporary epistemology
Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard
Philosophy of Science

That's really scaled-down, I'm assuming I can do multiple things on several days, and I still get 17 classes. Ick! I think it would almost be better just to start with Descartes, which still makes 13 weeks an ambitious project.

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

To really do it, sure, like anything else. But a good teacher can give an excellent, meaningful summary that people can then go out and use. Of course, part of that excellent summary would be a humble warning telling students not to go out and act like they know more than they do.

This being the problem. I had four teachers in college who were extremely good teachers. They were split in the following way: Two bombarded you with information and you had to take a rigorous two-semester sequence in order to really understand what they were teaching you. One oversimplified to the point that a lot of what he said was ultimately wrong, which made things immediately useful but led to closed intellectual horizons. The last created dogmatic know-it-alls who didn't really know anything about anything. So I'll try to thread the needle -- haha.

**+Donny** · 10-20-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how I could do justice to a survey this broad in 13 weeks. Worse, it would seems much more abstract at the beginning (Pre-Socratics) and much more concrete near today (the rise & fall of Cartesianism). In principle I like your idea, but I'm just not sure I can pull it off well. How would you outline 13 weeks?

It depends on your goal. What do you want the student coming out knowing, and what questions do you want them asking? It seems like a good goal would be to have them coming out knowing broadly where they are in philosophical history (and thus how it developed behind them), and you want them asking where they get certain assumptions. They should be self-critical (something you seem to be big on and good at).

So, there kind of two things. First, a summary, and second, dipping in with enough detail and discussion to teach them to be critical, both of philosophers and themselves. I'd suggest picking 6 philosophers, which represent 6 groups/time periods. Spend two sessions on each one, and leave the last session entirely for analysis of some modern assumptions. This should give you time to really dig into and apply each philosopher. And if you think this is too little, it's not, and I think you know enough to at least take a shot at it. Sure, you have to really know your stuff to do something like this well, but this is your first attempt, so it won't be ideal. I think it would be worthwhile to develop, though; it's something that would be really valuable to Christians.

For general advice, you can't be thorough. A summary's a summary, which means you will leave gaping holes, and probably even lie. I'm hardened to this because I teach languages, but in any subject, that's part of what teaching is. Teaching is not just giving as much information as you can. Especially in a class like this, you're teaching them how to think, how to go about being critical. The quality of the information, discussion, etc. is much more important than how many philosophers you cover, and whether you didn't mention Duns Scotus and Sartre. In fact, maybe it will feel better if you think of it as 6 biographical/analytical nuggets on 6 philosophers designed to give a glimpse into philosophical history and self-criticism. Then you won't feel bad about losing, say, Heidegger.

With that, off the top of my head, here's six:

Augustine (or Plato)
Aquinas
Descartes (or Kant)
Kierkegaard (or Nietzsche or Pascal) -- I think Nietzsche's probably my favorite
Marx
Derrida (or Wittgenstein)

You obviously get more than this, but these seem to be good people to center on. Descartes (or Kant) allows you to mention Hume, Berkeley, Locke, Rousseau, etc. Not diving in, but you can sum them up in a sentence or two while you're dealing with Descartes (or Kant). Augustine gets you Plato (I know, I know, Plotinus...). Aquinas gets you, well, practically everybody before him, and the scholastics that screwed him up. Marx gives you an inroad into politics, especially if you can build some sympathy with him and point out how we, as Americans, view history. And, yes, that gives you Hegel. I'm very weak in very recent philosophy, especially Postmodernism, but Wittgenstein or Derrida should get you there (Wittgenstein I haven't read, but from what I've heard, I would love him).

Now, you could take away the Kierkegaard/Nietzsche/Pascal slot and put another Enlightenment philosopher in there, but I really don't think it's necessary. Sure, there are developments, and it might be best to have both Descartes and Kant in there, but you could probably give a brief Cartesian intro that leads into a Kant study, and that should cover it.

So, make it practical, and get them into it. It means you can't cover as many names, but it'll get the students more interested and asking more questions, which is really what you want. If they come out wanting to learn more about the distinction between Descartes and Kant and how that effects them, you've done your job.

Finally, you'll probably learn more about philosophy teaching this than your students will listening to you. Having to sum things up intelligently is incredibly difficult and requires a lot of expertise. But men like Nietzsche and Pascal managed to do it in paragraphs, even sentences, so I think you can do it in 13 weeks.

Chrysostom · 10-20-2009, 09:20 PM

Hmm. I'm starting to question the value of using premodern philosophy in the course. Modern philosophy has very obviously created our world and defines our hidden presuppositions. Ancient and Medieval philosophy -- in addition to non-Western philosophy -- was very consciously thrown out by moderns. I think Ancient and Medieval philosophy are very interesting and informative as they shape and create each other, theology, and the modern world, but I have to focus on a clear, attainable goal. And I think I can do that by going from Descartes to Derrida.

To put it another way, I can't imagine how I would do Plato and Augustine in a day, or Aquinas and Aristotle. I don't even know enough about Aquinas to do him that kind of quick justice. And I know enough about modern philosophy to know that I couldn't communicate anything meaningful about the half-dozen major names between Descartes and Kant in a sentence or two, but I do think I could do Rationalism and Empiricism in just a class or two.

Descartes
Rationalism
Empiricism
Kant
Modern Political Philosophy
Positivism or Modern Ethics
Hegel, Marx
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Heidegger (I will not give him up!)
Plantinga
Philosophy of Science
Postmodernism

That's 13 weeks, which would still be a whirlwind course. However, I do think it would give a very good sense of how very modern we are. And I think that everything, every week, would be very easy to tie in to today. If I teach another philosophy class later, I can do something more broad in scope.

Is this too narrow? Do you think Augustine and Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle would be valuable enough to shift a third of my time to them? What are some particular things you think are so interesting about them? (These are genuine questions.)

**+Donny** · 10-23-2009, 02:01 PM

How long is each session? The main thing I would be concerned about is interaction. Make sure the way you tell the stories about each philosopher are in some way interactive; philosophy is much, much more effective and entertaining when you get people talking.

As far as the pre-modern stuff, if you're thinking you don't know enough about it to cover it this briefly, then definitely don't try. Better to concentrate on what you know for now; like you said, you can always teach another one later.

Now, your questions:
1. No, I don't think it's too narrow at all. That's still a huge goal, and, based on your expertise, it's probably smart. Plus, I think it's hilarious to start with Descartes, since he does pretty much sum up how most people think about philosophy. Just be careful about the "ism" days. Make sure to keep your narrative flowing.
2. If you don't know enough about them, no. If this is what you're comfortable with, do this, and do it well. You'll learn a ton, and maybe next time, you can incorporate a bit more pre-modern. And pay close attention to show the class goes, especially looking for things you can cut out. You'll find out from your students what they need/want to hear and what you don't need to tell them, no matter how true and important it may be.
3. They're interesting because of what you said in the first paragraph. They're different, and much, much more interesting. Now, this has to be qualified, because I haven't studied postmodern philosophy at all, but Rationalism, Enlightenism, Modernism, etc. is all incredibly boring to me. You have exceptions, but those exceptions are, by and large, attacking the absurdity of modern philosophy's goal. It's just too self-centered, introspective, and thus self-important.
Pre-modern Christian thought, on the other side, is huge. It takes a view of the whole cosmos and doesn't even try to smash it into man's mind. It looks at the world in awe.
Hellenism is somewhere in between. I enjoy it more than modern thought, but its escapism is grating.

These are obviously huge generalizations, and the critic in you can cut them to shreds, I'm sure. But the general idea, that Christian thought, because of humility and self-sacrifice, is so much more interesting, so much bigger, is really what gets me. And at least alluding to that as an alternative to modern thought would be helpful. We're all modern thinkers, influenced heavily by Descartes, Kant, etc. That means we have quite a lot to learn from Augustine and Aquinas.

Oh, and just to make sure, I'm not saying modern philosophy is entirely useless (without it, we wouldn't have Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Neitzsche). It's just boring, arrogant, and naive. It lacks the odd paradox of realistic imagination that Christian thought has. It just can't handle what really makes the world interesting.
I have the suspicious that postmodernism fails in the same way. I have no experience, but I tend to think it'll feel like depressed, failed modern thought, whenever I get around to reading it.

**Jeffrey** · 11-01-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I've been asked to teach a Sunday school class on philosophy. What are everyone's thoughts on this kind of class? What would you want to learn about philosophy? What aspects would be of interest to you, and which philosophers?

This is interesting, because I'm meeting with a pastor on Monday to discuss doing something similar.

The framework I've been working on is rooted in topics as opposed to philosophers. The initial discussion was a class rooted more on the fundamentals of logic and critical thinking. In that sense, there are many individual philosophers who I may quote or reference but not necessarily delve into.

Again, my approach is more topic-based, and I would fit any mention of particular philosophers to those topics. My audience may not be as intellectual as yours (depends on whether I am given the assignment, and then if it's a Sunday morning or weekday evening), but I think it's a bit safer to raise some essential questions that pervade the history of philosophy instead of attempting to find a place to mention all noteworthy philosophers.

One tact, perhaps, would be to address the fundamental assumptions of American society in regards to science, aesthetics, morals, etc. and then trace the development of those ideas. In all loving honesty, don't overestimate your audience. You may be thinking of a course far beyond what is expected of you, and far beyond what your audience can handle.

I noticed your list was essentially an overview of Western philosophy. Intentional? But in any case, I do think Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are lacking from your revised list.

But still, modern philosophy is so exciting (to disagree with Donny). For logic at least, the past 150 years have been dynamite.

**Jeffrey** · 11-01-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Hmm. I'm starting to question the value of using premodern philosophy in the course. Modern philosophy has very obviously created our world and defines our hidden presuppositions. Ancient and Medieval philosophy -- in addition to non-Western philosophy -- was very consciously thrown out by moderns.

Yet Derrida appealed to Plato and Foucault started discussions by examining the ancient and medieval world. Besides, dialetheism and paraconsistent logic are reviving discussion of Aristotle, especially as historians of philosophy are returning to the true Aristotle instead of the picture that the Scholastics painted and finding that Aristotle prefigured many modern topics.

That said, I don't think there's room for Thales or Anaximander save to mention the way that the pre-Socratics seemed to revere the Near East (Thales being most likely Phoenician himself). The pre-Socratics weren't philosophers in the modern sense of the word, really.

That said, leaving out the Stoics is an unpardonable sin! But I'm biased, because talking about the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans allows an easy way to talk about the common points they shared with Daoism and Confucianism. Beyond that, the Stoics and Epicureans made Sartre easier for me to analogically digest.

I just think Kant would box yer ears for leaving the Greeks and Scholastics out. At least read his summary of the history of philosophy to your class.

Chrysostom · 11-01-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

These are obviously huge generalizations, and the critic in you can cut them to shreds, I'm sure. But the general idea, that Christian thought, because of humility and self-sacrifice, is so much more interesting, so much bigger, is really what gets me. And at least alluding to that as an alternative to modern thought would be helpful. We're all modern thinkers, influenced heavily by Descartes, Kant, etc. That means we have quite a lot to learn from Augustine and Aquinas.

I think this is right. But, like you said before, Augustine and Aquinas DON'T try to reduce the world to a simple abstract methodology -- so how do I do them in one class? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

Oh, and just to make sure, I'm not saying modern philosophy is entirely useless (without it, we wouldn't have Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Neitzsche). It's just boring, arrogant, and naive. It lacks the odd paradox of realistic imagination that Christian thought has. It just can't handle what really makes the world interesting.

But I think that's what is so relevant about modern philosophy, because what you're saying is true AND everybody is unknowingly committed to modern philosophy as what is objective, neutral, reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

I have the suspicious that postmodernism fails in the same way. I have no experience, but I tend to think it'll feel like depressed, failed modern thought, whenever I get around to reading it.

Just watch Tarantino and PT Anderson. However you feel about their film is how you will feel about postmodern philosophy.

Chrysostom · 11-01-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote: