So I'm reading a book on the history of Indian philosophy right now and what is striking to me is how much narrower Western philosophy is. The philosophers are the theologians, the physicians, the grammarians, the psychologists, etc. in the Indian tradition in a way they are just not in the Christian west.
My theory is that Christian philosophy was, provide totally, a project that began prior to the incarnation with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the stoics and all the rest. The apostles themselves then took these ways of thinking and used them to articulate to the world the person and work of Christ.
Some early Church Fathers didn't get the memo on that (others thankfully did) and the division between faith and science in the west was unfortunately born.
Unquestionably, the Christians integrated Greek philosophy in a serious way. And yes, I too very much see this as providential! The Christians brought together Jewish theology and also their ideas about human personhood, and fused that with many Greek philosophical ideas, creating an incredible synthesis.
The relationship to science raises a bunch of other questions, because the hostility between faith and science was in a sense mutual, in many times and places, though it would be wrong to suggest that they've ever really been divorced. I suppose in the big picture you could say, science and faith can be reconciled but in certain cases it takes some patient, careful work. This isn't true *just in general*; Christians like the natural world and have in general been all in favor of studying it; but sometimes the findings of science come into tension with long-held religious beliefs and then someone has to do the work of figuring out: What is the faith really committed to? And what have the scientists actually found? And to what extent is this theology or that scientific theory getting over its skis in its philosophical commitments. Etc.
I think that work can be done, and has fruitfully been done in the most important cases. The single most important of course is the theory of evolution and the questions it raises about teleology and materialism, providential purpose and the nature of personhood, and questions in that vein. But often there are people on both sides who don't really want the things reconciled, for philosophical and possibly also political reasons. So they lean into the tensions instead and exaggerate them, and we end up... where we've sometimes ended up.
If you're not makin' sweet love to Sophia, you're not philosophizing.
I seen me a few Hulgas in my time.
Here's a good use for some philosophers I've known...
https://youtu.be/LfduUFF_i1A?si=UXHdKyvNEuE8fwFx
That was very good. Posted it in the Saturday Wrap-Up.
So I'm reading a book on the history of Indian philosophy right now and what is striking to me is how much narrower Western philosophy is. The philosophers are the theologians, the physicians, the grammarians, the psychologists, etc. in the Indian tradition in a way they are just not in the Christian west.
My theory is that Christian philosophy was, provide totally, a project that began prior to the incarnation with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the stoics and all the rest. The apostles themselves then took these ways of thinking and used them to articulate to the world the person and work of Christ.
Some early Church Fathers didn't get the memo on that (others thankfully did) and the division between faith and science in the west was unfortunately born.
What do you think?
Provide totally should read providentially 🤪
Unquestionably, the Christians integrated Greek philosophy in a serious way. And yes, I too very much see this as providential! The Christians brought together Jewish theology and also their ideas about human personhood, and fused that with many Greek philosophical ideas, creating an incredible synthesis.
The relationship to science raises a bunch of other questions, because the hostility between faith and science was in a sense mutual, in many times and places, though it would be wrong to suggest that they've ever really been divorced. I suppose in the big picture you could say, science and faith can be reconciled but in certain cases it takes some patient, careful work. This isn't true *just in general*; Christians like the natural world and have in general been all in favor of studying it; but sometimes the findings of science come into tension with long-held religious beliefs and then someone has to do the work of figuring out: What is the faith really committed to? And what have the scientists actually found? And to what extent is this theology or that scientific theory getting over its skis in its philosophical commitments. Etc.
I think that work can be done, and has fruitfully been done in the most important cases. The single most important of course is the theory of evolution and the questions it raises about teleology and materialism, providential purpose and the nature of personhood, and questions in that vein. But often there are people on both sides who don't really want the things reconciled, for philosophical and possibly also political reasons. So they lean into the tensions instead and exaggerate them, and we end up... where we've sometimes ended up.