Has anyone read pic related?

Damn it I knew I didnt put enough effort

It's kind of funny actually. I was interested in eastern philosophy as a teenager. After leaving highschool, I worked as a firefighter-paramedic for a few years. Saw a lot of terrible shit, in terms of the human condition. But it didn't affect my faith or lack thereof. I was pretty comfy with my life at that point, but not particularly stimulated. Started reading literature and revisited eastern philosophy. Pretty content with this course of life for a couple more years. Then I read Aurelius and realize how much potential I'm wasting. Become conservative. Start visiting pol and lit. Start with the Greeks and read Republic. Realize Western philosophy is fucking based. Go to community college for two years. Work hard. Transfer to UC Berkeley as a philosophy major. Philosophy destroys my atheism. Realize Plato and Aristotle culminate in Christianity. Start studying Catholic philosophy. Sounds real gud. Going to medical school now.

>Would it be true?
If x, would x? You should have framed it like this instead
>If I pretended to believe in ironic god, would it still make me hit myself while asking the obvious?

Aurelius Augustine of Hippo or Marcus Aurelius?

Marcus Aurelius

Why is Veeky Forums so christian?
What if I believe in a creator but don't think any existing religion is correct?

Then you would be naive. Life is perhaps the greatest showcase of the handiwork of such a Creator, poet, songwriter and architect.
You would assume that you would be out of place.

...Holup so you believe, bottom of your heart, that there IS a Creator, that he went and put some pretty little faith in him in you, and then left everyone else to rot?

Comfy story user. God Bless you.

I'm going to become a police officer soon, so I am arming myself philosophically and religiously in order to make sense of what I will see during my working hours.

I believe that if there is a true religion, it would be large and have great exposure for the glory of God.

>le spaghetti monster xDDD
2009 called it wants its memes back

Not at all, how did you pull that out of what I wrote?
Again, I just don't think any existing religion "got it right" in relation to the nature of our creator. They are all too anthropocentric to make sense given the scale of our universe. That said, I don't know either.
I'm not claiming to have any unique insight or faith.

So other large religions such as islam and hinduism are as legitimate as christianity then?

>But no argument
>BTFO'd by a 2009 meme

No. You still have to analyze the merits of the religion. Islam is a clear bastardization of earlier Abrahamic teachings and Hinduism is just silly.

for you

Do you apply that same level of criticism to christianity? Or do you but your blinders up in this case?

I've always been a Catholic because I enjoy a great relationship with my father and try to emulate pretty much all the good things about him in myself. Around 16 started questioning things more, got into philosophy when I was 18, realised that the Catholic faith makes perfect sense and it's either that or sceptical nihilism. 22 now, studying law and reading as much as I can. Aquinas has been by far the most rewarding system builder I'll ever read, looking forward to neothomism. I'm also a Traditional Catholic so I attend the rare Latin masses as much as I can and those are the deepest moment of peace in my soul I ever experienced and it's great.

Of course. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't.

Start from Genesis. Gives you a better scope on the context of his arrival. "God's Son" from a "Virgin Mary" are merely stories that have powerful, game breaking changes to the Abrahamic faith. The Gospels are highly edited entries in the "New Testament". But yeah "The Messiah" offers his escape through him, like a green card to "Heaven"

Not so much how to practice your faith, but it will definitely give you a great historical perspective on the major contours of the faith and why those contours exist. That alone makes it an awesome read and should help you on the journey to the Church.

You're a christian because you grew up in the west, not because you held it to the same scrutiny as islam and made an unbiased decision
If you grew up in the middle east you'd be a muslim, and you'd be calling catholicism a bastardization of abrahamic teachings, because you cling to dogma
You're one of those idiots who believes dumb shit that isn't supported by evidence, sort out your stuff

Stupidest post in the thread thus far, otherwise pretty productive posts, good job Veeky Forums.

Guys how good is Fulton Sheen? He seems to be popular with Americans and Gene Wolfe.

Heyyyy no refutation tho
Do you seriously think people hold the religion they grow up with to the same scrutiny they hold other religions to? Because that's naive as fuck. Children see their parents as the highest intellectual authority, and as they grow up they are too invested in their original understanding to see other ideas in the same light

He's great. His TV segments are really good too. You can find them on youtube.

How do you know all of this about me? And I'm not a Catholic; I'm a Reformed Protestant. Neither of my parent's were Christian. You really shouldn't make assumptions about people like that.

So why are there large numbers of Christians in the Middle-East then?

The guy you are responding to isn't me. I refuted your points.

There would be even more if they weren't harassed and slaughtered like animals.

>Philosophy destroys my atheism

What Philosophical works on atheism did you read?

>Realize Plato and Aristotle culminate in Christianity.

Why not Islam?

>Islam is a clear bastardization of earlier Abrahamic teachings and Hinduism is just silly.

What did your study of Hinduims and Islam entail?

>So why are there large numbers of Christians in the Middle-East then?

Because the middleast has had Christian populations that transferred their religious and cultural beliefs the exact same way as people do anywhere else in the world.

The point there is that when people find religion it overwhelmingly tends to be the one closest to their culture.

>The point there is that when people find religion it overwhelmingly tends to be the one closest to their culture
It's like only autism promotes seclusion and vacuum.

>book that comes supposedly straight from god claims that christians worship mary as part of the trinity
islam is very easy to dismiss

That doesnt answer the question in my post or are you a different user.

nice trips btw

Fibonacci get

If you took a pilgrimage to Rome then I assume you have some interest in the Catholic Church. Have you read any Catholic theology?

Never mind just saw this comment. I'm sure if you're in California and are looking at Catholic philosophy then someone's already recommended Feser to you. I personally also really like Josef Pieper and Etienne Gilson.

Nice to see a fellow Thomist/traditionalist on Veeky Forums. Do you go to FSSP?

We don't have the FSSP here really, unless one of them comes from Austria or Poland. There is interest with at least 2-3 ordinary priests who sometimes celebrate it, but the administration won't let him have it weekly so it's once or twice a month, but I study in another town so it's playing the game of catching it as often as possible.

Hey can I get an answer for

You should check out E. Michael Jones.

There are very few philosophers who write on atheism, but I guess you could put Camus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Russell, Hume, Spinoza in there.

I know about atheist philosophers new and old, my question was which works by them you read during your journey of discovery?

Beyond Good and Evil, Selected Schopenhauer, Selected Hume, Plague, Stranger, Birth of Tragedy and some other stuff, but I never had much of a journey to discovery, I stayed in the faith and my reading of philosophy has been almost entirely chronological, meaning I've read far more from the pre cartesian era. So Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas for my main sources of philosophical inspiration.

You know those are two different people you're replying to? But God's existence is knowable through philosophical proofs. There are plenty, but I'm a big fan of the oft-misunderstood Cosmological Arguments.

Germany? Sounds like the administration is violating "Summorum Pontificum."

>reading of philosophy has been almost entirely chronological,

Which philosophers are you up to now/ which did you stop at?

>So Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas for my main sources of philosophical inspiration.

Have you had any experience with the Islamic Aristotlians?

>You know those are two different people you're replying to?

I did not, and I hate to have to repeat myself but your post doesnt actually answer either of my questions

When it comes to Aristotle and Aquinas would you effectively loose your faith if the actuality/potentiality divide was proven false given the centrality of that to their philosophy?

I wouldn't recommend the WHOLE Bible. Leviticus can be a turn off, lol.

Then you're a deist. I'd recommend Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

No, Croatia.
Plato, Aristote, Cicero, Aurelius, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, More, Descartes, Kant, Schoppy, Newman, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Russell, Copleston, Arendt, MacIntyre, Feser. I'm probably forgetting a few and I've read a lot more of some than of others. I have experience with Islamic aristotelians through Aquinas, MacIntyre and Copleston. Never found anything particularly interesting, but I'll probably get around it. I study law so I sadly don't have time for more than 5-6 books a month and that's usually split because I can't read only hard philosophy.
Probably not because I find platonism just as interesting and it's a category so I don't think you could prove it wrong. It's just a premise.

>have experience with Islamic aristotelians through Aquinas, MacIntyre and Copleston. Never found anything particularly interesting, but I'll probably get around it.

I always figured that the non trinitarian God of Islam would be in greater harmony with Aristotlieanism.

>Probably not because I find platonism just as interesting

Which philosophical arguments are the most important or foundational to your belief in the existence of a God and a Catholic one in particular

>your post doesnt actually answer either of my questions
Do you just want to know what theology I've read? Or what that is specifically on atheism? Because Aquinas hardly ever mentions atheism but his philosophy disproves it pretty handily.

As for the "why not Islam" question, well I would answer that though I believe in God because of reason, and in that I suppose Islam is compatible, but I believe in the Catholic Church because of faith, and faith certainly isn't. Though when I say that I believe through faith I should point out that the fact that the Catholic Church is so in line with reason supports my faith.

How could that even happen? It's hard to respond to a counterfactual when the counterfactual doesn't even seem to be philosophically possible.

Tough country to be religious in.

Well the argument from contingency as the proof of a creator, argument from teleology for the existence of a divine mind, platonic participation in universals.
For Catholicism in particular I don't really have rational proofs, I by faith take it up and after it other things make perfect sense. See it as an axiom, this one isn't necessary, but it, if accepted, gets you to a supremely coherent system which covers all areas of one's both rational and spiritual life as well as making sense of the world around the self.

Yes I have read the holy Bible it was a really good book to read the book is about the ocean and the future holds the key to the smell of the African American people who are they going to be a year ago today I am not sure if I can do it if you change yourself and your family and friends and family and I don't understand how you doing tonight then I have a great day yesterday and I don't understand how much I it when you are a few days ago and it was playfully I don't know y and I have done that before you go to in my life is so much for you and your family are in a bit I don't want to sound like a plan for tomorrow night at the moment and the Fury is a good day at work and and I have done my u have a god and I don't think so TV show and tell me for yourself if it has been a while back

Work specifically on athiesm because it seems like something rather worthwhile to get the full picture in this matter.

How did faith lead you to Catholicism over orthodoxy ?

>how could that ever happen?

If the category was based on a mistaken reification or simply an observation based on a faulty understanding of causation.

i ask as I've come across a few people who base their belief or lack of belief on reason with that reason relying on specific thinkers or phislophical positions yet would continue to believe or not believe regardless of the truthfulness of those positions or thinkers

If he's talking about Aquinas, probably that. Orthodoxy is very poor in philosophy.

>Orthodoxy is very poor in philosophy.

Try not to talk about things you don't know anything about.

Which are the famous great Orthodox philosophers?

I don't know that I've read any books that are entirely about atheism, though I've read responses to particular atheist arguments by people like Feser, Brian Davis, Aquinas, Augustine, etc.

>How did faith lead you to Catholicism over orthodoxy ?

Well, if you accept the premise that faith is a grace bestowed by God then it led me to the Catholic Church rather than anyone else because the Catholic Church is the Church that God founded.

Though it's worth noting that Orthodox Christianity is not entirely separate from the Catholic Church; in fact there are eastern rites that are in communion with Rome.

I just don't see anyway you could get rid of the potency/act distinction without falling into a kind of parmenidean conception of reality as being without change or distinction, which is a snake that eats its own tail for a number of reasons.

Don't you think reading no primary works on atheism could give you a distorted view ?

There certainly are good works by athirst philosophers on the matter - Henry Mackie "s miracle of theism for instance

>orthodoxy
How do you determine who schismed from who or is that a question of faith ?

>Parmenides

Or it could be that change and distinction are categories produced by our mind as it comprehends reality rather than as a reified concept ?

And what is your criteria for "great"?

>Well, if you accept the premise that faith is a grace bestowed by God then it led me to the Catholic Church rather than anyone else because the Catholic Church is the Church that God founded.

In other words you didn't engage with the actual issues at all, but rather uncritically swallowed whatever Catholic apologetics you read.

>Though it's worth noting that Orthodox Christianity is not entirely separate from the Catholic Church; in fact there are eastern rites that are in communion with Rome.

Eastern Rite churches that are in communion with Rome (Uniates) are not part of the Orthodox Church.

What are your criteria for great? I assume from the amount of sudden butthurt later in your comment you should be able to recommend a few. I am at the moment completely unfamiliar with any Orthodox philosopher, unless we streach the term to writers and mystics.

>unless we streach the term to writers and mystics.

In other words you are confining the term to a Western academic paradigm, such that it excludes Eastern philosophers. That's why I asked what your criteria was.

I'm confirming to the division Aquinas made and yes, it excludes figures who are not dealing in the area of inquiry based in human reason.
And are you confirming my statement that orthodoxy has no great philosophers, if we assume the common definition of the word philosopher? Because I'm interested in reading them if they exist. Or will I have to wait until I reach the 10th volume of Copleston?

Here are a few. Feel free to dismiss them. Ancient: Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas; Modern: Sergei Bulgakov, John Zizioulas.

Not an orthodox user but what about seraphim rose

I don't know if I'd call him a great philosopher. His writings are certainly useful, though.

Yes, I've read the Church fathers. They are not specific to the Orthodox, but thanks fot Bulgakov and Zizioulas.

>They are not specific to Orthodox

Gregory Palamas' dispute with Barlaam of Calabria is illustrative of some foundational differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I'd suggest reading the Triads if you haven't already.

>Don't you think reading no primary works on atheism could give you a distorted view ?

The question of God's existence is ultimately dependent on what metaphysics one accepts. If one accepts a Thomistic metaphysics then God's existence is obvious.
I might not have interacted that much with arguments against God's existence but I have interacted quite a bit with the various metaphysical systems that atheists accept and I'm confident that they're wrong.
Frankly I just don't find arguments against God's existence all that interesting because they're inevitably reliant on bad metaphysics.

>How do you determine who schismed from who or is that a question of faith ?

Well I think that there's a historical fact of the matter that one doesn't need faith to see - the Pope has always clearly been the leader of the Church and it was the Orthodox Church that rejected his authority - but faith is sufficient.

>Or it could be that change and distinction are categories produced by our mind as it comprehends reality rather than as a reified concept ?

Well that's more or less what Parmenides argued. But if change and distinction are merely produced by our mind then what is even left to say about reality? Besides, that argument itself is making a distinction about reality, namely about the difference in what is in our mind and what is in the world.

>In other words you didn't engage with the actual issues at all, but rather uncritically swallowed whatever Catholic apologetics you read.

Well I suppose if the Catholic Church is false then you're right, and if it's true then I'm right. However the fact that I accept things on faith does not mean I accepted them without thought. Faith is not the enemy of reason.

>Eastern Rite churches that are in communion with Rome (Uniates) are not part of the Orthodox Church.

I know, my point was that the divide is not that great; there is nothing inherently invalid about the eastern form, it's just a question of recognizing the Pope's authority.

How can you say they rely on bad metaphysics when you haven't actually dealt with Thier works directly ? Would you think it would be wise if me to label Aristotles metaphysics as bad if I never read him?

>pope
Well you might want to mull that out with the other user because that historical fact is not as clear as you say it is when it comes to the pentarcy

>Parmenides
It would mean having a bit of humility about the limit of our knowledge and understanding that just because we can create mental distinctions doesn't give them concrete existence. For instant just because we can conceive of black Based on how we perceive colours does not mean that there must be an ethereal blackness that exists. A map is not the territory it describes

I'm going through the fathers this year, read the first 4 volumes of the local edition. Trying to balance theology, philosophy and random stuff I'll disagree with like pessimism and marxism, meaning a month or so before Justin Martyr whose up next.

What is the best argument for Marxism and what is the best against

What would you say is a good atheist metaphysical system he should read?

That doesn't really address the questions I asked you. For what it is worh
I've already recommend a good starting work for athiesm

Against? It fundamentally reduces man to something he is not. It has a misguided view of history. It has built in anti rational mechanism of the "burgoise" which reduces all opposition to power structures and similar so it does not have to engage the opponent (this was very much a thing in communist countries and is a thing with feminism now where all disagreement is the patriarchy or internalised patriarchy).
For? None. But I like the analysis of power structures a lot.

>How can you say they rely on bad metaphysics when you haven't actually dealt with Thier works directly ?

I said I haven't dealt with works specifically about atheism directly; I've dealt with plenty of works about metaphysics directly.

>would mean having a bit of humility about the limit of our knowledge and understanding that just because we can create mental distinctions doesn't give them concrete existence.

It's one thing to deny that a specific distinction exists because you can make a mental distinction; but what you were talking about is denying that distinctions themselves exist. That's like the difference between denying that a specific person exists and denying that people exist. Specific types of distinctions may not exist but distinction certainly must exist.

I'm not him, I missed your recommendation.

Not to mention it's based on a flawed Hegelian philosophy of constant becoming.

Isn't it less power structures and more about relationships to how things are produced ?

Related to Marx did Hegel get anything right ?

My dealing with Marxism has mostly been through Adorno and early MacIntyre and there it's about power structures manufacturing consent and creating what people will consume to have total control of their lives while having the media to have dogmatic beliefs about weak concepts, such as contemporary human rights and idpol.
as for Hegel, I haven't engaged him so I can't say anything of value on him.

>I know, my point was that the divide is not that great; there is nothing inherently invalid about the eastern form, it's just a question of recognizing the Pope's authority.

I do not mean this in an impolite way, but you do not know what you are talking about. Eastern Orthodox =/= Eastern Rite. Almost all Eastern Orthodox Churches use the Eastern Rite, but that is neither here nor there. The issues between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are more fundamental than which rite is used and whether the Pope has special authority. Orthodox and Catholic understandings of the Trinity, the being of God, how God interacts with the world, what "theology" consists of, all of these are different. If you actually care to know about any of this you should read books written by Orthodox authors, and not rely on Catholic resources alone.

>333
holy trinity confirms

Also here is an article that I would suggest reading. It is a bit polemical in tone, but it should provide a clear illustration of some differences between Catholic and Orthodox spirituality. It is a comparison of Seraphim of Sarov, a Russian Orthodox Saint, with Francis of Assisi.

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

>It's one thing to deny that a specific distinction exists because you can make a mental distinction; but what you were talking about is denying that distinctions themselves exist.

No my point is not that there is no such thing as distinction but that you are engaging in the reification of these divisions. They cease to be merely divisions imposed by our mind to order and our ideas and perceptions and instead become literal ethereal beings, whether they are the forms of Plato or the pure actuality of Aristotle.

You're right in that I exaggerated the similarities a bit, but when you've been faced with the nutty varieties of protestant Christianity your whole life you learn to appreciate the similarities between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Church still has the Eucharist, compare that with Mormons who aren't even monotheists but still call themselves christian.

"A bit polemical in tone"
It's saying that st. Francis is the Antichrist and that the Roman Catholic Church has no real, genuine visions and that it's all auto suggestion because it doesn't follow the Philokalia.
Not sure what the point of the whole article was. It's so malicious in tone and filled with bad faith.

Hmm, I forgot it said some of those things. The main point it's trying to make is that Catholic spirituality is inclined to prelest, or spiritual pride/delusion.