Introduction
This is the first in a series of reflections on what it means to think faithfully.
The ancient philosophers looked out on the physical world and noted the regularity and orderedness of it and posited that the basic principle of the universe is Logos, or reason. The intellect was that about mankind that made them divine. In the medieval era, the rediscovery of the ancients and this emphasis on reason was renewed in the west and strengthened and formalized through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
But this emphasis on reason and rationality has led to certain crises. On the one hand, Descartes reintroduces and intensifies the problem of mind and body dualism. Then there is the skepticism of Hume in which his fork splits our presumption of the connection of cause and effect. Kant attempts to resolve the Humean dilemma, but to do so must divorce the realm of essential being, something reason cannot know, from the realm of sensible appearances. But Kant's cure is worse than the disease, something Nietzsche exploits. So we have come from reason as the primary ordering of reality to reason as the will to power.
This rather pessimistic account of the primacy of reason in Western thought ought not be construed as totalizing in that pessimism. After all, it seems we cannot escape reason, even to critique it. But certainly in the arenas of science and technology reason has brought historic alleviation of previous human ills, such as the cures for various diseases and the ease and safety of communication and travel.
It seems to me, however, that if a Christian is to think about reason, or for that matter, about anything else, he is obligated to do so from the stance of Christian conviction. That is to say, are Christians to view the prime ordering of reality as reason? Or is there a more fundamental basis for that reality? Is there something more primary than reason? And if so, what does this do to our thinking?
I think the answer to the question of something more fundamental than reason ordering the universe can be answered in the affirmative. And in the attempt to answer that question I want to describe and promote a project for faithful thinking.
Reminds me of Harry Blamires's book, The Christian Mind, How Should a Christian Think. Familiar with it? I read it year's ago and don't remember much about it now. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. God bless.
Posted by: Robert at November 18, 2003 07:46 AMBob:
Yes, and similarly I recall Sire's and Veith's books. But these, it seems to me, articulate faithful thinking primarily from a rational standpoint. I'm intending to get behind that to a more fundamental stance, from which works like Blamires, Sire, Veith (or my own) can then proceed from.
Hope what's coming interests you.
Cliff-
I'd claim that this pursuit falls in the class of 'thinking about thinking'.
In that general spirit, do you think it possible to think without using at least one axiomatic notion?
If axioms are a required part of the thinking process, isn't it most fundamental to identify axioms in play for any given analysis?
Blessings,
Bob(A.)
Posted by: Bob(A.) at January 7, 2004 04:55 AMBob(A):
In terms of thinking, I suppose what you suggest is almost axiomatic!
But I'm speaking about the reality of the situation per se. Trinity precedes all: us, our thinking and our thinking about thinking.
You might say: "But isn't what you're doing is proposing, at least, a single axiom from which to begin thinking?" And I would say, no. Because the Trinity is not something we can come to by thinking about it. The Trinity must be revealed/experienced. Having had the Trinity revealed and experienced Him/Them, yes, I can then utilize the Trinity as the axiomatic point from which to do all thinking. But that's different than the Trinity being merely an axiom from which to begin.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at January 7, 2004 05:10 AMIf your operating notion of experience or reality have underlying axioms, then those could be elucidated to get to a deeper understanding about thinking. If we both agreed to use the axioms, then I would call the position identified as our joint position in 'Metaphilosophy'.
My notion for the term, which isn't in my dictionary, is that metaphilosophy is to philosophy what metaphysics is to physics.
Aristotle wrote 'Metaphysics', but he never got to 'Metaphilosophy', did he?
Posted by: Bob(A.) at January 8, 2004 04:18 AM