18. The Christian Synthesis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- The Christian era began with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was not a philosopher, but his followers soon found themselves in a conversation with the philosophical traditions that had come down from Greek thinkers. Plato and Aristotle had left in their wake an unresolved tension between rationalism and empiricism, and in some important respects, the Christian movement offered a synthesis of that tension.
Plato insisted on an eternal and unchanging world of forms, which he believed necessary to make sense out of the world of experience and change. Augustine would eventually locate Plato's world of forms in the mind of God, and he agreed that it was only this great divine reason that made thought and knowledge possible.
Aristotle, on the other hand, emphasized the world of nature, science, observation, believing that Plato's world of forms was too speculative. This empirical emphasis of Aristotle was also satisfied by Christ, who was viewed by Christians as the eternal become temporal and earthly. The apostle wrote, 'That which was from the beginning (eternal, rational) which we have seen (temporal, empirical)...' The gap between Plato and Aristotle was bridged by God becoming man, and western philosophy reflected that synthesis from then on.
You just explained more to me in half an hour about the meaning of christianity than I've learned in a lifetime. Thank you sir. Infinitely grateful.
Great lecture, learned a lot and enjoyed it at the same time. Pleasure to watch. Thanks
Dr. Gore was right to point out that he was not really being fair to Aristotle. Aristotle's view was NOT that truth on moral or aesthetic questions is merely a matter of majority rule. This is more the view of American Pragmatists like John Dewey and Williams James. Aristotle's view was like Plato's: There is more to reality than mere consensus. Where he differed is that he denied Plato's premise that ideals like Justice and Beauty exist in their own realm like Lollypop Land. In Aristotle's view, Justice and Beauty exist in no particular land, but in all lands, indeed the entire world, from which they are inseparable. The problem for Aristotle is how to distinguish such transcendentals from the world when two are inseparable; nonetheless, he maintained that distinction.
Excelent point. Saying that you could arrive to relativism through Aristotle is not saying that Aristotle was a relativist.
@@LeonardoGarcia-qt6lf Yes, well said.
Thank you for the wonderful lecture on the philosophy and History of Christian Thought sir.
Process theology is the reason why the Christian Synthesis exists.
The difference between Plato and Aristotle is methodological. Aristotle essentially stipulates to Plato's ontology, but proposes an inductive epistemological process while Plato subscribes to the same deductive epistemological process as Samuel, that is, an appeal to an oracle to perceive the Forms directly.
This is Kant's complaint about Hume in A Critique of Pure Reason. The issue isn't that a priori data isn't available with pure reason but that a priori synthesis is problematic without the existential anchor of phenominal stability that mitigates, if not avoids, the contingent nature of experiential data as a structure of objective reality. Process theology is is that mitigation: it's Jacob's Ladder in the relationship to Genesis 15:5, Plato's Forms.
Both Plato and Aristotle agree that the chair we are sitting on exists the realm of Appearances and is a mere shadow of the eternal Form for "Chair". Like Captain Ahab, Plato wants to strike through the filigree of Appearances and perceive the eternal Forms, directly, which is why he patronizes the Delphic Oracle. There must be something to this, because King David relies on the Jewish Oracle to access the mind of God, which, of course, is where Plato's Forms exist and the source of Kant's a priori data, in particular, number. From this perception of a general principle, Plato and Decartes proposed to arrive at the specific phenomena
Aristotle was content to consider the Shadow of the eternal Form and to abstract from this specific phenoma a series of more general metaphysical classification leading, ultimately, to the eternal Form. The biological classifications of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom is an example of both Jacob's Ladder in systematic inquiry and a template of process theology.
The issue of process theology isn't that The One is subject to change; it isn't. it's that the relationship between humanity, generally, and the individual consciousness, in particular, is evolving. I mean, that's the essential role of the Holy Spirit, is to guide our personal experience of The One (as described in Revelation 4.2) into a more perfect union. Free Will is a real thing and there is a boundary between the mind of God and the individual mind that acts like a horizon between the individual mind and the mind of God. God can't get into our thoughts but The One can let our unconscious to cross the horizon into the mind of God through the emotions and visions of our dream life.
The Holy Spirit's role is to engage our consciousness through prayer and discernment in the phenominal world. The Holy Spirit doesn't exist in the Platonic ontology in any useful manner. The Holy Spirit is male and comes to each individual as that indivdual is available. The young man in the Tomb in Mark was probably the Holy Spirit Mary Magdalene was prepared to encounter. I've had a working relationship with the Holy Spirit since 1954, but I didn't know it was the Holy Spirit until sometime 2014 and following. I knew I was dealing with something, but I misunderstood it to be The One until 1977, when a vision disabused me of that conceit: you don't want to have a close personal relationship with The One. Awesome is defined by the experience. Then I thought it was Jesus, but it was the Holy Spirit.
And the Holy Spirit facilitates process theology. Or, at least, is a force multiplier for our personal processes. Isaac Newton was nudged into intuiting gravity by the Holy Spirit, but it was preceded by the years of their working relationship developing the calculus that made it possible. I'm not sure Newton had the same awareness of the Holy Spirit that I have, but I also have Newton and Kant as resources and they didn't. Process theology is progressive and the Holy Spirit builds on success pretty much at the same pace as the emergence of a coral reef.
It is a fallacy to believe that Plato and Aristotle didn't share their ontology and that that ontology is somehow an antagonistic agenda to the ontology of Jesus. Socrates represented the leading edge of the evolution of Athens from the aesthetic of the Heroic Age of Homer organizing society and into the ethos of the secular social structures of what Rome becomes by the 1st Century. Israel's society is stuck in the aesthetic of the Law of Moses and Jesus comes along to free humanity from those moral boundaries by overlaying His ethic, by way of Paul, unto the secular rule of law of Rome by way of the Roman legions and the Praetorian Guard, which already embraced an ontology which included Yaweh with Plato and Aristotle's Forms. That's the point of Matthew 8:10.
Let me demonstrate how the post-modern dialectic deconstruction that dominates American education and the public debate and interrupts synthesis, Christian or otherwise.
The sacrifice of Isaac is a study in the nature of Duty in a Duty, Honor, Country kind of way, and if you examine Duty by dialectical methodologies, Epicureanism and Stoicism emerge as aspects of Duty and not as discrete aesthetic constructs, which occurs when you interrupt the process to force a choice between them.
When I was going through the Ranger School, there was a motivational poster hung on a tree along an obstacle courses we suffered through the first couple of weeks with the legend: Instant Obedience and Self Discipline, the salient virtues of the Ranger ethos. Sometimes this is corrupted into “Hey, diddle diddle, straight up the middle” or “Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do or die” but it is finally captured in the motto “Rangers: Lead the Way!”. The context of this is Yaweh, Queen of Battle, as Duty, the Aristotlean Prime Mover. “Instant Obedience” is the eternal Stoic response to Duty as a Platonic Form, such as Abraham demonstrated, and “Self-Discipline” is not just the momentary response to Duty but to the Aristotlean preparation on a “daily bread” basis to be able to respond with efficacy in a military manner. They are complimentary attributes of the dutiful life and represent an aesthetic paradox in service of an ethical singularity.
Dialectic deconstruction devolves the paradox to a dilemma and forces a choice between the horns, in this case, Stocism and Epicureanism, and interrupts the synthesis in the name of resolving contradiction. Marx does this all the way through Capital and, of course, the cultural distortions arising from Supply Side economics and the Pro-Life business model are case studies in the imposition of a Fascist construct on an otherwise healthy society.
Process theology prevents that sort of Fascist devolution and facilitates Christian Synthesis.
No, Eastern Orthodoxy gets you where you want to go without getting into process theology.
Absurd conclusions from interesting reasoning
@@mmccrownus2406
Talk's cheap.
Which conclusion in particular strikes you as "absurd"? '
I'm not sure that your example regarding how moral judgements are made from an Aristotelian view is accurate; Aristotle is pretty explicit about what constitutes virtue in the Ethics, and it's not up to popular vote, as you suggest.
Happiness is the greatest good for Aristotle, and, whether or not we know it at a given time, there are going to be certain paths to attaining happiness which are objectively better than others, namely, virtuous behavior. The majority view may very well be objectively incorrect regarding what would make everyone ultimately happy, and it's the politician's responsibility to assist each individual in being able to reason more correctly to this end.
For Aristotle, it takes training and discipline to be able to make correct judgements on these sorts of things; framing his theory to say that moral truth is determined by a popular vote which includes, as you said, "shallow minded" people is totally unfair.
This is the general problem of democracy: it takes education to choose the right things and to vote for the better candidate. This is why Socrates was skeptical to democracy. Plato advocated for philosopher kings. Aristotle would advocate for better education of those who are entitled to vote, especially critical reasoning
Neologism
I'm finding your lectures very interesting. I'm gaining a perspective of Christianity that I've only recently stumbled upon and this is helping to enhance that background. However, I do feel that the Sadducees and Pharisees were not amused that their temple was destroyed. What would Aristotle say about Christianity today? Smh.
The Sadducees were destroyed by the end of the temple. The school of the Pharisees (Torah centric) survived, and became the dominant force in the form of Judaism that survived the fall of Jerusalem.
Bruce Gore - Yes, I am aware. I was alluding to the fact that the propaganda found in Matthew 27:24-25 released responsibility of the temple's destruction from the Roman authorities and places blame squarely on the Jewish people. This has been a source of anti-Semeticism since the earliest days of the church. Surely, your students are taught the implications of claiming the messiah crucified at this point in history?
I agree the text has unfortunately been used to justify an illegitimate hostility to Jewish people.
Bruce Gore - Are you sure the anti-Semitism is not intentional?Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." This is the words of Jesus? It sounds as if there is intention in this. Could it point to the true author of Matthew's gospel? See also Matthew 8:5-10 (Remember, Israel was not a state at this time, but was divided into four Roman provinces. "Israel" must be referring to a nationality, not a governing state.)
Jesus did not pronounce judgment on the Jewish leaders because they were Jewish, but because they had breached their duties a religious leaders. Jesus was Jewish. All the early leaders of the Christian movement were Jewish. The first missionaries to the world were Jewish. Not sure where anti-semitism could be justified based on the record.
Aristotle wouldn’t appeal to the mob on beauty but “esteemed opinion “
Shouldn't it be called Christian Syncretism?
No
"Ontologicaly Plato is superior" ? The realm of forms is absurd. If you are the representative of "rationalism" and come up with transcendental ideas that are in no way intuitive or verifiable or falsifiable, I wouldn't call it a strong ontology. Maybe i would call it a good flight of IMAGINATION.
"Oh, i don't want to become a relativist, so let me concoct some whacky ideas to enforce my dogma on others, be the judge of beauty and virtue etc. for everyone."
If you can believe a man can rise up from being dead, and 3 can be 1 and one can be 3. You are LITERALLY free to believe in any absurdity. Laws of physics and logic don't bound you , you are free as a bird. LOL
I can see, the indoctrination has to start from pretty age. And it is quite telling.
I spot a couple of fallacious assumptions in this concept. For one thing, the 2% that change their minds may not do so because they are "weak-willed" and easily swayed, but perhaps that they have now learned more facts about a topic than they previously knew. So the 49% that don't change instead choose to remain wilfully ignorant or cling to confirmation bias, rather than be superior in some sense because they refuse to change their views. (By that logic, the 49% on the other side of the equation are also correct because they too don't change their views).
A Christian shouldn't see changing one's mind as being a bad thing, surely, else they would never proselytise? Parable of the Sower and all that.
The second unsupported assumption is that some things *do* have ontological truth or value. Moral considerations, such as the example of abortion that you use, do not *have* to have some absolute truth and *can* be a matter of opinion. This may have cause a disjunctive sensation by removing moral certainty, but absent a human actor and a human observer, acts or events have absolutely no inherent moral dimension; a moral judgement can *only* arise in the human mind, and as such is purely a function of the way that the brain works.
He didn't say persuaded by facts, he said manipulated by propaganda, that can use facts but mostly relies on manipulation (by fear, emotion, basic instincts). So no fallacy there just a bad analysis of the analogy.
Regarding the second point I leave you to it, if there is no God then everything is permissible, and this is exactly how everything is falling apart today, thanks moral relativity 🤦♂️
@@digitalsublime Everything isnt "falling apart" today. It's currently the safest and most stable time to live in human history.
And can you care to explain to me how "everything is permissible" without God (which God?). Because I'm not seeing the logical progression here.
@@simongiles9749 No God, means no moral standard given in the Bible (that God) so if there is not that standard, morality is based on culture and culture is changing in time and location, given that then there is no moral standard but the one of your own making, choosing, predilection, hence everything is permissible even if against the law, you just try to not get caught.
When I said falling apart I meant morally in the sense of corruption and tyranny, the family values, the concept of country and autonomy, government corruption (lack of standard), being ruled by a pragmatic law of the strongest (techno-corporocratic take over). You don't have to agree is an outlook you don't share that's all. But the implications we are all feeling right now globally.
This so called 'Christian synthesis' reminds me of the apocryphal ‘devastating PhD assessment’; “This thesis contains much that is true and much that is new; alas that which is new is not true and that which is true is not new”
I appreciate your gentle critique!
+Bruce Gore
Well, if it’s critique you’re after, perhaps I need to be a little more robust. It is frankly misleading, probably disingenuous and a considerable disservice to students to suggest that there has ever been a synthesis of ontology with empiricism; much less one wrought by early Christians. The most that can be claimed on their behalf is that they attempted, somewhat questionably, to apply both methods. Had there been a genuine synthesis we would not, for example, still observe to this day the separation of deductive Mathematics from inductive Physics. Whilst these logical methods are powerfully complementary they remain, as yet, un-synthesised.
So I think we can safely dispense with that particular Christian conceit, but what about the individual ontological and empirical insights claimed on behalf of the early church fathers? ‘Christ was the empirical manifestation of God’ and ‘human thought and reason originate ontologically in the mind of God’! Well if the former were true I suggest we would have some pretty unimpeachable historical sources for the life of NT Jesus and if the latter were true we would not have to rely on the intuition of one mortal, even if his name was St. Augustine. What we have in both cases are the beliefs of self-selecting individuals masquerading as objective evidence. Quite how this contributes to human knowledge remains unclear.
I'll keep that in mind. Thanks again.
Yes, seriously (of course, this is one lecture in a series with about 30 more coming, in which I have a few things to say in 'defense' of my hypothesis). Thanks again for your kind feedback.
Seriously? If this is your lecture material, I would have thought you would have more to say in its defence.
You're teaching young people that as a matter of fact :-
1. The gap between Plato and Aristotle was bridged
2. by God becoming man,
3. and western philosophy reflected that synthesis from then on.
when in reality 1 and 3 have no justification whatsoever, not even in Christian theology whereas 2. is a specifically modern christian conceit which violates the Nicene creed and as such even exceeds the authority of Christian teaching! Does anybody moderate what is taught in American universities or is it a complete free for all along the lines of "I mislead therefore I am"? Does no one attempt to protect the rights and interests of students?
Use original Greek words to concepts, much better
Filters credibility
Polemic