Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Post Reply New Topic

[quote="Thelibrarian"
More profoundly: 2) it is impossible to use one philosophical system to expose the flaws of another. Now how can this be? Is not a philosophical proof a philosophical proof? Well, no. Philosophies differ from one another not so much according to their initial axioms, but more fundamentally according to the mode by which axioms are unfolded into conclusions . I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but it's actually very obvious. Aristotle and Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, do not reason in the same way.

Before I proceed, do I understand you correctly if you are telling me that those inside the system cannot make valid criticisms, and those outside the system cannot make valid criticisms? If I understand you, I've got some serious objections to your position. I also object to your statement on the importance of "axioms", or what I would call presumptions.
[/quote]
Those inside system A can validly criticize system A, if they are using system A as their method.
Those inside system A cannot validly criticize system B, if they are using system A as their method.
The key word is "validly."
I generally agree with Aristotle. But I cannot use Aristotle to validly undo Kant. I can certainly try, but a stalemate will result.
But once I know Kant, I can use Kant's own principles to validly point out Kant's errors.
That's something I learned from the metaphysician Joseph Owens (A Thomist who was Etienne Gilson's most brilliant student.)

That was my attempt at a synesthetic joke. Pretty lame huh.

GoonSquad,
Please, stop it. You do not understand Christianity. You are like a blind person expounding on the nonsense of color. The reason why the Christian does good is only because the Holy Spirit Who dwells within the Christian grants order to his conscience, and compels him with the feeling and thought of deepest conviction to do what is right no matter the cost. It is NOT a morality extrinsically imposed. It is intrinsic and comes from the deepest existential center of himself.

Great, glad to hear it. You need to go back and reread some posts... It was actually TheLibrarian who suggested that many Christians are only good due to threat of Hellfire. Smile

Bach, Goon is right on this one; he accurately described my position. I have some substantial disagreements with the above statement.

According to the Fourth Lateran Council, the Holy Ghost proceeds, and it is the Father who generates. Assuming, of course, that you accept Church teaching, it is the Father who creates, or generates morality, not the Holy Ghost. I think the argument that the Holy Ghost provides the good will prerequisite to good actions could easily be defended.

If the Holy Ghost were sufficient in place of an extrinsically imposed morality, including Christianity, then there would be no need for religious instruction, much of which is moral in nature, and the provision of which has been one of the most fundamental tasks of clergy as long as Christianity has been around. I think it is the case that if knowledge of Christian morality were intrinsic, even in the presence of the Holy Ghost, that Christianity would be intuitive. Christianity is not intuitive, and makes no claims to be such; it is revealed.

Finally, I think it is obvious that the Holy Ghost doesn't infuse everybody in the world--or at least many people refuse to accept its presence, even people who regularly attend church. I'm talking about the "lukewarm". Again, while it is hard for we aspies to comprehend fully, most people do that which society celebrates, and shuns that which society condemns. This describes the sum total of their morality. Even if we accept your argument that the good Christian doesn't need an extrinsically imposed moral system, but only the Holy Ghost, I think it is quite clear that many people do need an extrinsic moral system not only to behave, but to know what the right thing is. What the right thing is is hardly innate knowledge.

Bottom line: The according to Christian teaching, the Holy Ghost can only provide the procession, or impetus, to do good things, which is what I characterized as a good will. Again, a good will is a necessary but insufficient property to moral action. Understanding what the right thing is is equally important. And that comes from without.

^^^ This has been posted before, but I don't care...

Even chimps seem to have a basic, innate sense of right and wrong.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk[/youtube]

Just because that sense of right and wrong is innate doesn't mean that you don't have to point to it and draw it out of some people.

Those who are mindful and contemplative, those who lead an examined life, arrive at the truth on their own. Those who are less mindful, more reactive and 'busy', need to be set on the path and shown the way.

Librarian,

I misswrote when I used the word "only" in my above post about morality. I regret my tendency to black-and-white thinking on this matter. I did this because the thrust of my post was to defend, as final cause, the ideal state of the Catholic soul whose conscience has been fully ordered to grace and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Such a soul can take the words of St. Paul to heart: "You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts"(2 Cor 3:3).

But in that passage Paul states that the reception of the Spirit is "the result of our ministry," of an apostolic voice necessary as efficient and formal cause to enlighten the mind: for the human mind is darkened by concupiscence and the effects of actual sin. It requires guidance to receive and then to assent to the objective moral truth. Hence, the teachings of the Church -- whose origin as you rightly state are attributed to God the Father; which have been made manifest by the Person of the Son of God Incarnate; and which are continually vivified and proclaimed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who subsists in the Church in a particular way in her Magisterium -- become an infallible guide to the moral law.

Is the moral law written on the hearts of every human person, no matter their faith? St. Paul states that even the gentiles
"who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law; they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"(Rom 2:14-15). This is a hard passage to interpret. Human nature is, by its nature, ordered toward what is good. However we know from experience that such an ordering resides in the soul only as a potency. Most consciences are governed by consequentialism, proportionalism, and the norms of culture. Thus it is very difficult for a soul, without the aid of revelation, to reason toward what is completely good, with the ultimate goal being the internalization and integration of what has been revealed externally.

Goon,

Yes I believe we can learn much from animals. One of the "books" of revelation (we Catholics actually teach this) is nature herself.

As a HFA, I can honestly attest that my first real friend was my dog Spot. I never played with other children my age. I didn't know how. They made fun of me. I didn't understand their language. I learned from Spot unconditional acceptance (which I did not get from my parents nor from my peers), and I learned from him the meaning of compassion. When I was in my early 20s and I was living at home and my life was going nowhere, it was Spot who could read my emotions, know when I needed affection, know when I needed to go for a walk or play ball. One day he even gave me his chew toys because he could see I was particularly down. I've told this to a few people and they accused me of anthropomorphizing my dog. But my experience tells me otherwise.

I learned to read the expressions on Spot's face before I learned to read human faces. He helped me break out of my shell.

I don't see much difference in what Christians call the Holy Spirit and Buddhists call Buddha Nature.