Talk:Christian philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Christian philosophy falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Notes

Moving text relevant to Wikipedia_talk:bans and blocks. Restoring the best version so far.

Request: can someone familiar with this topic (a) expand this article (b) review what is said about the Judeo-Christian tradition in ethics and (c) rip Ethics in the Bible apart, as it is from an utterly POV source.

Someone please add this man to the philosopher list:Francis Schaeffer also see his Wikipedia page

[edit] Do not delete the entire introduction!

This article is designed to be about Christian philosophy, not Christianity in general. Please do not delete the main point of the article. If you have a problem with a particular section, please discuss it here first. Thanks. RK 02:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for the introduction

I beg to differ strenuously with you RK. Someone imposed a whole mass of material that belongs elsewhere in "apologetics" or something else. It was no introduction, but an insertion of someone's sytematic thesis and distanced the true Introduction of the matter which cannot be accurate without proceeding historically, in the nature of the case. Reformatikos 7:16 PM April 14, 2005 (EST)

I don't think that you understand what the word apologetics means. Its technical meaning is nearly the opposite of the way you are using it. RK

The task of the Christian philosophy article is to trace thru the emergence of Christian philosophical contributions and highlight what relation they had to other philosophies in whose environoment they dwelt in different times and ages. -- Reformatikos

Could you rephrase this more precisely? It seems to me that you are not using the word philosophy in its technical sense. You seem to be using it in its informal, colloquial sense. However, this article is about Christian philosophy in the technical sense of the term. Your use is more like colloquial uses of the term. RK

"Philosophical theology" is not philosophy proper; it is theology that borrows heavily from and uses philosophy because its discontent with its own resources. -- Reformatikos

Who uses this term in this way? It sounds to me like you are claiming that "philosophical theology" is apologetics done by Christians who are insecure in their own beliefs, and who believe that Christianity is insufficient, and thus feel the need to go to other ways of thinking to confirm their beliefs. I have not heard others use this phrase in this way before. Are there any philosophers who recognize this terminology? RK 11:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Could you rephrase this more precisely? What does this mean? RK

The previous insertion, which I take to be yours RK and which requires all sorts of apparently unexamined and questionable presuppositions, tried to drive a division between religion and phliosophy as two binomially opposed subjects. -- Reformatikos

You are missing the main point. It is a historical fact that many philosphers believe that philosophy is incompatible with Christianity, or with any revealed religion, such as Judaism or Islam. Similarly, it is a fact that many religious Christians believe that Christianity is incompatible with philosophy. And yet a third group believes that the two are indeed reconcilable. These are critical points. RK

BTW, I take offense at your remarks that pointing this fact out is somehow the fault of me making "apparently unexamined and questionable presuppositions." I didn't make any presuppositions at all. Rather, I merely stated the array of views that different people have on this subject, in accord with NPOV policy. RK 23:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that both many Christians and many philosophers believe that Christianity and philosophy are "two binomially opposed subjects." Therefore it is a requirement of our NPOV policy to point the existence of such well-known and well-represented disputes. RK 22:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some philosophies insist on doing so, even some syntethist Christian philosophieis. But Christian philosophizing need not do so. It can stand on its own and is equipped to review its own historical emergence and doesn't have to argue for the existence of God - why should it even bother to do so, as Christian philosophy which is oriented to understanding the structures of creation and their diachronic development. -- Reformatikos

I can't believe you are making this claim, while editing an article on Christian philosophy. It is a historical fact that many Christian philosophers do discuss proofs for the existence of God! If one is unfamiliar with this, then one is not yet qualified to do deep writing on this issue. Plenty of Christians have a worldview that differs from yours. The variety of Christian viewpoints, both classical and modern, is quite wide. RK

Whereas if ultimate values are the heart of the definition of "religion" then every religion (including atheisms or absolutizing rationalisms) can generate various philosophies from its own inner genius over historical time. I wanted to emphasize Christian philosophizing as an integral and inevitable movement but with diverse results over time. -- Reformatikos

Fine by me. I have no problem with this. I haven't deleted any sections within this article. I totally agree with you that Christianity has generated various philosophies from its own inner genius over historical time. RK

There is no problem of "two fields" for Christian philosophizing. I am not deleting the main point of the article at all, you are inserting extraneous material to make "apologetics" and certain of you personally selected problems in the border discipline of "philosophical theology" the central issue. -- Reformatikos

This so-called "extraneous" material is the main point of the article: Is Christian philosophy even possible? How can we discuss Christian philosophy if the very concept is impossible? Well, although many Christians and many philosophers do hold that it is impossible, some Christians hold otherwise, and attempt to merge the two. Actually, is this latter view not in agreement with your own thesis? RK

But this RK approach makes a static systematics of your own divising the POV-ridden norm for a topic that has to be pursued historically, in order to see how those Christian philosophies for which we have extant documents or references, posed their own problems, figure by figure, over time - either in thetic construction, in posing problems, and in borrowing or refusing solutions along the way.

That is totally incorrect. The introduction does not give my philosophical approach. I do not offer or reccomend any systematic philosophy. (And many varied Christian systematic philosophies do exist, from Thomas Aquinas to Charles Hartshorne.) I never once wrote my point of view in the article, nor here in this Talk page. RK

As for your position that we should pursue this subject historically, through extant documents, seeing how the subject evolves over time, I am in total agreement with you. I haven't made any changes to the article's analysis in this way. RK

This is not the place for you to take over the lead with your own settled systematics - most of which issues are not germane - Christianity doesn't necessarily have to raise the question of whether God exists, except outside it's own phlosophizing and in another discipline called "apologetics." Create your own "Christian apologetics" entry, or "Christian philosophical theology" entry, and then a reference can be made in "Christian phliosophy" for those not really interested in philosophy to divert their attention to "apologetics" and/or "philosophical theology." I find you to be completely inappropriate and out of order in this move of yours. This is no place for your systematics. Yours Reformatikos 7:16 PM April 14, 2005 (EST)

But I did not "take over the lead with my own settled systematics." In fact, I never discussed my own views on this topic at all. I merely offered an introduction which attempts to put the subject in its intellectual context. RK

Secondly, many Christian philosophers do consider these issues germane. Just because you don't care is irrelevant. This article is about the wide range of views of Christian philosopjy, not the narrow set of views that you agree with. RK

Thirdly, as for you suggesting that I write an entry on Christian apologetics, you also should know that we do already have many articles on Christianity and its apologetics. Please re-read our articles on Philosophy and on Apologetics. RK 23:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Example of Christian philosophy

Here is an example of what I mean. Look at Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, by Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Baker Academic, 1987. The authors are both Christians and philosophers. They believe that the two are complimentary, not contradictory. The contents of their book list the subjects they discuss (partially quoted, below), and they are the same subjects that many classical Christian philosophers discuss, namely: RK

Part one: Introduction to Philosophy

1. What Is Philosopy?

2. Disciplines Within hilosophy

3. Methodology in Philosophy

4. The Tools of Philosophy

5. The Challenge of Philosophy

Part two: What Is Knowledge?

6. Can We Know?

7. How Can We Know?

8. Is Certainty Possible?

9. How Do We Perceive the External World?

10. How Are Believes Justified?

Part four: What Is the Ultimate?

17. The Relationship Between Faith and Reason

18. What Is Meant by ``God?

19. Does God Exist?

20. How Can We Talk About God?

21. The Problem of Evil

22. Can We Experience God?

[edit] Sources?

What are the sources for the following assertions?

"As with any fusion of religion and philosophy, the attempt is difficult because classical philosophers start with no preconditions for which conclusions they must reach in their investigation,"(emphasis mine)

"This is known as apologetics and is a common technique found in the writings of many religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but is not generally accepted as true philosophy by philosophers."(emphasis mine)

[edit] Removed stuff stored for possible later use

Removed this apparent bibliographical passage from "Interaction between Christian and non-Christian philosophers" along with a large section of text in a different language; this was out of place where it was, but I'm putting it here rather than throwing it away since others want to make use of it in the article; it does seem relevant at first glance. Gthb 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bibliography of Additional Readings" (1990). In Mortimer J. Adler (Ed.), Great Books of the Western World, 2nd ed., v. 2, pp. 987-988. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Craig Paterson & Matthew S. Pugh (eds.) Analytical Thomism: Traditions in Dialogue. Ashgate, 2006.
• Ferrarin, Alfredo, Hegel and Aristotle, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg, The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy (trans. P. Christopher Smith), Yale University Press, 1986.
• Gerson, Lloyd P., Aristotle and Other Platonists, Cornell University Press, 2005.
• Heidegger, Martin, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research (trans. Richard Rojcewicz), Indiana University Press, 2001.
• Knight, Kelvin, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press, 2007.
• Lobkowicz, Nicholas, Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967.
• Lutz, Christopher Stephen, Tradition in the Ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre: Relativism, Thomism, and Philosophy, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
• McCarthy, George E. (ed.), Marx and Aristotle: Nineteenth-Century German Social Theory and Classical Antiquity, Rowman & Littlefield, 1992.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Marxism and Christianity, Duckworth, 1995 (2nd edn.).
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984 / Duckworth, 1985 (2nd edn.).
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press / Duckworth, 1988.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition, University of Notre Dame Press / Duckworth, 1990.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘The Theses on Feuerbach: A Road Not Taken’, in Kelvin Knight (ed.), The MacIntyre Reader, University of Notre Dame Press / Polity Press, 1998.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Open Court / Duckworth, 1999.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘Natural Law as Subversive: The Case of Aquinas’ and ‘Rival Aristotles: 1. Aristotle Against Some Renaissance Aristotelians; 2. Aristotle Against Some Modern Aristotelians’, in MacIntyre, Ethics and Politics: Selected Essays volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Riedel, Manfred (ed.), Rehabilitierung der praktischen Philosophie, Rombach, volume 1, 1972; volume 2, 1974.
• Ritter, Joachim, Metaphysik und Politik: Studien zu Aristoteles und Hegel, Suhrkamp, 1977.
• Stocks, John Leofric, Aristotelianism, Harrap, 1925.
• Veatch, Henry B., Rational Man: A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics, Indiana University Press, 1962.