CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY

Philokalia is the opposite of scholasticism lol.

The problem is that they contain a lot of really dumb arguments.

Then the Apostolic school of theology is the opposite of scholasticism.

Lewis is problematic to a huge degree for most Christian intellectuals. Just go with Chesterton, but for high-level arguments, go with Pascal.

The only way someone could readily dismiss Pascal is if they didn't understand what it is he was talking about. He gets a lot of love from professional philosophers to this day.

The main reasons people on this board don't like him is fedora-tipping and misplaced intellectual superiority.

Lewis was not a philosopher and never claimed to be. He was an English professor. He wrote books to help the common man understand their own faith that were also accessible to people in his own circle.

The Great Divorce might be the most underrated of his novels and is perhaps the greatest interpretation of hell (from a theological standpoint, obviously just straight up it is Inferno) in literature.

I agree that his arguments aren't as in depth or as well articulated philosophically as Chesterton, who by the way is one of the main influences in Lewis' conversion to the faith. I don't think he has a place in serious christian philosophy or theology, but could any of you point me a "dumb argument" or anything that would discredit him as a popularizer of christianity? I also loved the great divorce and I think it has more theological weight than his non-fiction, but that doesn't mean his non-fiction is wrong.

Man, I'm just tired of people propping his ass up. I've got a protestant cousin who hates Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas, and Pascal, but LOVES Lewis. He is about to graduate from a seminary too. He's actually going to be fucking teaching people about Christianity. THAT GUY.

Lewis may have converted some Christians, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that his non-fiction hasn't damaged the Christian intellectual tradition.

Wouldn't you say it's more you're cousin and people like him who Lewis' work in a different context who are damaging the Christian intellectual tradition?

I just don't see any criticisms of his work for what it is and for what it should be taken as.

is me

I know plenty of protestants who do the same thing.

aquinas' summa theologica was written for budding theology students. sure, you could read all of it and pat yourself on the back. what's probably more likely to happen is: read secondary literature and the preliminaries (e.g. who he means when he says The Philosopher, The Commentator, etc.) before delving into it. I personally would attack the main points before moving into what interests me personally. reading a 1000 plus page tome for the sake of reading a 1000 plus page tome is a quick way to become frustrated with something you probably haven't totally convinced yourself is worth any of your time.

my candid advice is to peruse wikipedia and check out his main arguments, maybe see how he structures his arguments. some compare the summa to a baroque cathedral; i agree.

>uses wikipedia as a philosophical source

nigga!

That's what the Orthodox Church has been saying for the last 900 years.

is copleston the GOAT for history of philosophy?

Yes, there is no better alternative

Yes but the Orthodox church is full of shit. They can take their totality not neoplatonism somewhere else.

>Pensées
>reading the explicitly condemned work of a condemned heretic
Good look with that Jansenism my man.

A bit unrelated, but Calvin's Institutes are definitely worth a read, if only because of their precision and impact on history

It really is just some misplaced elitism. He is great entry level theology because anyone can read him and understand it.

It's also often wrong.
There's great theology everyone can read and is correct, I just don't count Lewis as one such.

Do you have an example of something he got wrong?

His whole madman or truth, atheism as too simple are pretty bad arguments.
It's been a while tho, I find him to be pretty banal in retrospect.

what are some good catholic apologetics to read

I find apologetics sorta redundant on a personal level. I never understood why we should be on the defensive when there is such a wealth of Catholic philosophy which offers a lot of different approaches, from Augustine, Aquinas, de Maistre, Anscombe, Bonaventure and dozens of others.

What's preliminary reading before Fear and Loathing? Going to read Kierkegaard after I finish the bible

i just wanna make the foolish attempt to convert edgy atheists by answering their garbage questions

I think the phrase from the bible appropriate for this instance is throwing pearls before pigs.
In my experience if they are cultured enough to let you speak just going from the general Thomist position will totally btfo them and they'll just be silent and concede or they are too retarded to follow a simple argument with a massive amount of non sequiturs.
This works for other Catholics also.

What does Hunter S. Thompson have to do with this lad?

You don't understand why somebody would want to defend their faith?

They, in their contemporary form, from what I know, simply don't cut it. They are not systematic enough in my opinion to provide a solid enough defense since foundations of systems are usually not employed or explained well enough.
With apologetics works one my have a few neat answers, but the larger body will remain a mystery to both one defending and one attacking.

You, have no idea, what the, fuck, you're talking about.

This is probably what you want.

Might as well get into dc comics. More convincing characters and powers.

Quality argument, right there. Thanks for sharing.
I bet it argues for the cosmological argument.

That wasn't intended to be an argument. That was me mocking you for abusing the fuck out of the comma and not knowing what apologetics is.

>neoplatonism
Isn't that polytheistic?

How can you consider a closed ideological system to be philosophy? The only thing it could do is examine itself.

I think the Lunatic, liar or lord argument was well put, especially by Chesterton who said it in a bit of a different way. William Lane Craig offers a rebuttle to this by proposing a fourth L, the legend. This supposes that the quotes attributed to Jesus aren't true. This brings on another argument about the validity of scripture. Is this where you find a problem with the argument?

didn't read all the words above, just gonna share my plan:

>follow Veeky Forums's philosophy project 1.2
>stop when you reach medieval philosophy, which is basically aquinas and augustine

at this point, instead of just jumping straight into them, read the 'theology' part of pic related, they will give a good base, will introduce to you apologetics, theology and shit, so you are prepared when you reach the big bosses and can get the moust out of them.

only difference is that, regardless of your opinion, dear retard, christianity is the base of the society you live in

forgot to post link to the philosophy project 1.2

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

As for his arguments about atheism, he takes the atheist view to be without transcendant objectivity which logically leads to a sort a radical skepticism, which I think he argues rather simply but accurately to be wrong. There might be atheists who hold a different position that doesn't lead to this but most dont.

i will never kiss a girl this pretty REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE fuck i just want to consume her existence shes so perfect

indeed she is.

I never save pics of chicks here on Veeky Forums, but this one...

do catholics have their own set of judicial laws like muslims do?

You mean like Sharia? No. The only laws they have regard the church and worship. With everything they else defer to the countries laws unless it violates the moral law.

It's not. It used to be, but speak with your fellow Christians, you will see that they are more often than not poised by anti Christian ideologies and various heresies.
Universalism and utilitarianism are extremely common and dozens of different views, just as subversive, are the norm.
No.
It's not put well because the same argument can be applied to Socrates, and we don't believe he's a divine messenger sent to guide the ignorant masses to the Nous, now don't we?
While I agree, the way he put it was as an assertion without evidence ignoring the then very different intellectual climate amongst the atheists.
Yes and no. The laws of the Church may as well be the pinnacle of legislative, but they are not binding like Sharia, it's not a secular law. It's concerned with the religious questions, it has little interest in civic, criminal, financial and other branches of law.

>>reading the explicitly condemned work of a condemned heretic

Those are the most fun to read though, lad.

>can be applied to Socrates
I have to say I hadn't heard about Socrates' claims. What is the Nous?

>ignoring the intellectual climate
Yes he does. In his book he is conversating with the average man, about his average thoughts and doubts. He doesn't fully explain anything really, as far I as can remember. He's painting with broad strokes, and only addresses what he thinks is appropriate for the average christian or atheist.

>what is canon law

It's church regulation. You can see what it's about here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Not even close to Sharia. GTFO Mehmet.

>not even close to sharia

you're right, canon law is codified in far greater detail than sharia is

I like him but then I followed along about 10 years ago when there was another "his theology is actually really nuanced and complicated" stuff turning up again. That happens every so often.

Canon law is the law of the Church. It deals with guidelines and internal affairs and regulations of the Catholic church. Sharia law is the Islamic idea of how government should work, and it applies to everyone. They are very different.

Meant for

what do i read to btfo occultists

>Leave all protestants concepts
Why would you do that, Kierkegaard alone is amazing.

He's pretty terrible unless you plan to reduce faith to absolute, pure fideism, which is an anathema for a Catholic and a Thomist.
And this is a thread about Thomism.

Yes I guess you could argue that. To be fair the name of the thread is Christian philosophy, not Thomism.

how do i become an analytical thomist

Read analytical Thomists. Feser, Anscombe, Geach, Oderberg.
Of course, only after you have control over basic thomism.b

CS Lewis is fantastic. Almost everything he has ever written is gold

I shake my head when I see even these vaunted theologians (Feser &c.), not to mention anons, happily reading away at Protestants and atheists and every work of the sæculum, not understanding that reading any work on the I.L.P. or otherwise prohibited by Church law (which prohibits, among other things, 'obscene' and 'irreligious' works, good look figuring out what those actually mean) is still deemed a mortal sin.

>Lewis
Let's be kind and say that he had bad luck with his publishers. His "God in the pillory" isn't about putting God in the pillory, but more like

1) We humans has put God in the pillory
2) We must have faith in Him

ILP has been abolished. It's no longer binding.

bump

I bumped your mother last night

I would add Sickness unto Death to "Spiritually"