Philosophy?

Beware of Philosophy

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians.2:8)

The 20th century Christian needs to take heed to that warning. This very BRIEF study of philosophy in these messages will give most of what you need to know about this subject.

> Philosophy is a compound word from:
> Philo - love/fondness; and
> Sophy - wisdom/sophistication

Philosophy then, is fondness for, or a love of, wisdom. When someone is sophisticated, they're supposed to be real wise. If a man is a philosopher, he's supposed to be a friend of wisdom.

Philosophy falls into roughly four schools of thought. There are some that claim other schools of thought, but upon examination, it can be seen that others are merely subdivisions or combinations of the four primary schools of thought; and this is the stuff that is found in the Harvard five-foot shelf of classics that a college graduate is supposed to know about.

1. REALISM. In realism, you face the thing the way it is, without any illusions about it, and you try to be scientific about it, and you don't have any ideals; no morals: You just supposedly face reality. Aristotle is notable in this school of thought. His ideal way of living was what they call The Golden Mean. Which means don't under-do it, don't over-do it, don't get drunk, just drink a little, don't kill anybody twice, just kill 'em once, don't sleep 12-hours, just sleep 10 and a half.

In plainer words, just take the middle road and as they say, "you'll be allright." Also within this school, you'll find Thomas Aquinas. And Kant, who had what they call the Categorical Imperative. He's not an idealist, but he teaches since everybody has a sense of 'I ought to', or 'I must', that therefore if you're going to face reality you should obey duty, because duty is part of reality. (No morals, no heaven, no hell, no nothing, no new birth, no saviour, just bunk. These are "smart" men trying to figure out enough bunk to alibi their sin with. And after all, that's what philosopy is: philosophy is man's attempts to out-think GOD.

2. IDEALISM. Here's where Plato comes in. An idealist not only faces reality, but also tries to make-up something beyond reality to work toward. Or supposedly recognizes something beyond reality that's worth as much as reality. Descartes is given credit for inventing what is known as the inductive method, which is the standard so-called "scientific" method used by all universities today. Before that the method was called the deductive method.

In a deductive method, you begin with something you know is so, and then you begin to find things in relation to what's so. In the inductive method, you find one little thing out in left field, and then you try to make something else out of it. (It's backwards)

The only danger in the deductive method is that if the thing you begin with is false, then whatever you get from it will also be false. The inductive method is even worse, Because it starts in thin ice and ends up in muddy water.

[R] The inductive method comes from rejecting any general truth, and taking some little bitty isolated truth and judging everything else by that.

Hegel developed what you call a dialectic. In Hegel's dialectic you go forward by eliminating opposites. And Karl Marx is what you call a materialistic dialectic. Hegel says 'you got black, you got white... they have to come together'. When they come together and finish battin' their brains out, you got gray. And then maybe you have something contrary to gray: olive-drab. So when those bang off together, you get a third. They call that synthesis. And they teach that revolution is always a good thing because it eliminates the opposites and makes a new synthesis, and they think that's progress. (And that's Karl Marx and communism in a nut-shell. That system works only as long as they don't revolt against YOU!)

3. PRAGMATISM. This is the philosophy that whatever works is the right thing. And when you encounter these psuedo-intellectuals, they say, 'Well your religion's allright for you and mine's OK for me, to each his own, 'cause we're all working to get to the same place...'

Pragmatic means: It works. Among the pragmatists, you have the Sophist. A Sophist is a fellow that just tricks his way out of thing; no matter where you pin him, he just slips out. Among these are Bacon, and Huxley. And you have John Dewey and Bertrum Russell, (the 2 englishmen that founded the american educational system). They taught behavioristic psychology, which teaches, that when your little boy or girl wants to pull the cat's tail and tip over the ink-well, that you've got to let him do it, or else you'll "inhibit" the poor little darling, and give 'em a complex...

And consequently our high schools are now JUNGLES! And they say, "Well we just accept things now we didn't accept back then... after all, if the kid enjoys getting drunk, let him get drunk, why be mid-victorian about it?"

And then you have Einstein, a German-Jew who taught that parallel lines meet in infinity. (A real nut case!) And he taught that whatever works is it. And Einstein said in his auto-biography, "When I was 18 years old I had the idea of 'hell' blasted out of my mind forever." (But then the word 'hell' occurs 65 times in the autobiography; the old liar. Hey man, if you have it blasted out of your mind, how come you keep saying it? :)

And then you have Adolf, who says Whatever works is right, and 'I got something that works, so I'll work it...' And he killed MILLIONS in five years, working it; and probably had a clear conscience.

3. NATURALISM. In Naturalism, God's in everything and everything's in God. It goes something like this: "You're in me; I'm in the ceiling; the ceiling is in the floor; bugs in the bushes; birds in the bees... (and bats in the belfry! :)

These men are epicurean. Their philosophy is, 'Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you shall die... paradise NOW...'

Voltaire and Rousseau are naturalists and atheists; and that psychopathetic idiot named Sigmund Freud... He was nuts! He used to sit around trying to figure out dreams and said that everything that took place was based on sex. Freud was a sex-obsessional-neurotic. And he taught that your religion is what you make up to explain what you're afraid of.

When you study comparative religion in college, the first thing they teach you is that your religion is a subjective defense mechanism whereby you try to explain what you don't understand. Do you know why Freud put that thing in there? because that was his defense mechanism against the Bible. He thought he was called to preach, but rejected Christ and rejected the Bible and spent his remaining life trying to defend himself against the Bible and his own CONSCIENCE.

A guy said, 'If you don't believe the Bible, why don't you leave it alone?' And the fellow answered, 'Because it won't leave me alone!'

And then you have Charlie Darwin who thought that you came from a monkey, (and maybe HE did.) Darwin taught that things are getting better and better. And these folks say that the modernistic religion is better than the old-time religion, and that these people that believe in the old-religion don't realize that things are gettin' better... If you really want to see Naturalism, just look at Hollywood, they revel in naturalism.

EXISTENTIALISM. This has arisen since about 1918. But actually, this philosophy is just old Stoicism (Zeno). (You'll find that in the book of Acts, chapter 17.)

4. STOICISM. What Stoicism is, is that you can't know anything, all is dark, hope for the best, grin and bear-it, stiff upper lip, square your shoulders, forward into the night... "I mean, come on man, be brave, don't lean on Christ for a crutch, 'get a life', be a man, lean on your own brain." (And all you're doing is believing in yourself... You don't even know where you're going. :)

A former State Department person by the name of Dean Atchison made a typical statement, he said about the negotiations in Turkey and Cyprus: "We've come a long way; we've ironed out many difficulties; we still have a long way to go, we've covered a vast territory; and we are now at the place where we need to know where we're going." (Real Looney-Tunes! :)

ECCLESIASTES. This is The Last word on philosophy. King Solomon had more chances for experiencing life, and trying out things, than any man who ever lived. And his conclusions are absolutely fool-proof. (After all, he had a thousand wives! he must of known something! :)

Ecc.1:2-- "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

This is called in philosophy, metaphysics or cosmology; that is, it's an attempt to analyse the structure of the universe and the nature of things: Ecc.1:13-- "And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith."

Empiricism, learning by experience: Ecc.1:16-- "I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge."

Epistomology: Ecc.2:3-- "I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life."

Hedonism, the teaching of Democritus, ...just have a good time: Ecc.2:10-- "And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour."

Pessimism: Ecc.2:20-- "Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun." (He's down in the dumps. After coming through all that mess he winds up down at the bottom.)

Epicureanism: Ecc.2:24-- "There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God."

Egotism: Ecc.2:25-- "For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?"

Pragmatism: Ecc.2:26-- "For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit."

And on and on goes philosophy. There isn't any philosophy anywhere, past, present, or future, that isn't covered by Solomon's preaching. Here are more Ism's for anyone desiring to "check it out" further:

Agnosticism---Eccl.3:11  |  Theism-------------Eccl.3:14
Naturalism----Eccl.3:18  |  Pantheism----------Eccl.3:20
Nihilism------Eccl.3:20  |  Positivism---------Eccl.3:19
Facism--------Eccl.4:1   |  Paganism-----------Eccl.4:2
Deism---------Eccl.5:2   |  Altruism-----------Eccl.5:11
Capitalism----Eccl.5:13  |  Subjectivism-------Eccl.5:20
Socialism-----Eccl.6:2   |  Rationalism--------Eccl.6:9
Skepticism----Eccl.6:11  |  Stoicism-----------Eccl.7:3
Gnosticism----Eccl.8:17  |  Practical Atheism--Eccl.9:10
Modernism-----Eccl.9:7   |  Existentialism-----Eccl.11:8

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." --Eccl.12:13,14

Education without salvation is damnation! "Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom." (Prove. 18:1)

"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself." (Prove. 18:2) Notice it didn't say discover God, or truth, it said: "discover itself". Philosophers want an alibi to do what they want to do... And that's why the Bible says, There is none that seeketh after God, no, not one!

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy..."

Be not deceived. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all who receive the love the truth in Christ Jesus the Lord. Amen. --Richard

PHILOSOPHY 106

>Curious Questioner> It has occurred to me that perhaps I should offer some credentials for my recent criticism of your recent messages concerning various philosophical facts and "isms."

For some reason your later message arrived BEFORE your ["criticism"] message. Your "credentials" (U.of K.) are noted.

"Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away." (--Elihu, Job 32:21,22)

>CQ> My area of specialization is early modern philosophy: the relationship of science to religion (with an emphasis on the writings of the British Empiricists).

"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion." (--Elihu, Job 32:9,10)

>CQ> Areas of competence include ancient philosophy, philosophy of scientific method, ethics, and logic (sentential and predicate).

"And unto man he[God] said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding." (--Job 28:28)

>CQ> Although I am not a Christian, I object to the implication of your messages that philosophy is (per se) anti-Christianity.

That's your "implication" not mine. No mention of Christianity was made in any of the five messages [combined as the first part of this web page] to which you responded. (And the word "Christianity" is not found anywhere in the Bible. :)

"Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred. How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove?" (--Job, in Job 6:24,25 :)

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe....But we preach Christ crucified....Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1Cor.20,21,23p,24p)

(Please see next message. Thanks. :)

PEANUT PHILOSOPHY

>Curious Questioner> The ignorance of philosophy that you have shown in your recent messages is appalling. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain fully why I make this claim - but, for beginners:

For beginners? The beginning of your message lacks something, oh, I wonder what it could be...? But I suppose I could just ignore your attention-getting-cut-off-the-limb-behind-you opener. [friendly grin]

Don't forget: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

The first basic question of Philosophy, according to philosophy's Clown of Clowns (William James - 1842-1910), was: "What can I know?" Ignorance! Now, you were saying? Get real. In fact, you were shown "The ignorance of philosophy" (as you put it) in those messages! (But, oh oh... do I detect some moaning from the peanut gallery? :)

"A Philosopher is a man who studies more and more about less & less, until he finally knows everything about nothing." (--A Nanny Mouse?)

>CQ> Realism, in medieval philosophy, was the claim that universals in fact exist; in modern philosophy, it is the claim that the external world exists independently of mind.

Is that to say the realists have loosed their minds from reality?
("Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy...")

>CQ> You have misrepresented Aristotle's ethics.

What ethics?

>CQ> Idealism is the view that the primary constituent of the world is mind; in modern philosophy, it is the view that external objects do not exist independently of mind.

Oh goody, the minds loosed by realism can get connected-up with idealistic external objects that do not exist in reality apart from the mind. (But their nose says the funny farm smells wacky! :)

Well, whadda ya think? Are we having fun yet? Shall we continue?
(And the peanut gallery moans, Can't you be a little less brutal? :)

>CQ> Descartes did not invent the inductive method. Aristotle probably did (or at least was the first to use/write about it).

More ignorance? My statement was: "Descartes is given credit for inventing what is known as the inductive method..."

Now, if you really want to give credit where it is due, you might read Genesis chapter 3 where you will find the earliest historical usage of the so-called inductive method by that old serpent in the spirit of philosophy of damnation. (Be not deceived!)

>CQ> Descartes is known for his deductivism. "Cogito ergo sum" is a deductive statement.

Er, uh, I suppose you could induce that deduction in there, but on the other hand it may be that you just think you think and therefore maybe it ain't nothing know-how.
("Gooder English" is meaningful! :)

>CQ> You have misrepresented scientific inductivism insofar as you have said that it is based on "some little bitty isolated truth."

Uh oh! Who's misrepresenting what? Did I say "it is based on..."? But you neatly demonstrated inductivism by taking "some little bitty isolated truth" out of my message and adding some words of your own and tried to put it in my mouth as something I supposedly said.
(Siwwy Wabbit. Don't ya know twicks are 4 kids? Peanuts anyone? :)

Here is what WAS said: "The inductive method comes from rejecting any general truth, and taking some little bitty isolated truth and judging everything else by that."

(And the peanut gallery collapses! :)

The INDUCTIVE method builds a major truth or principle from an isolated observation. The DEDUCTIVE method makes the application of an established rule to a particular instance. (Inductivists begin in the manure pile and work up to the garbage can and after decades of "searching", proudly declare: "All isolated parts are a growing part of that great universal Mind which itself is progressing and evolving toward an unknown destiny which we can, by our vast resources, mould into a harmonious whole for the betterment of...
(...blah, blah, blah." :)

>CQ> Further, you have tied scientific inductivism with morality without explaining how it is that you feel justified...

(Further? Don't you mean backward? You jumped back a paragraph.) Did I ignore volunteerism? (After all, aren't there enough messages written on the philosophy of abortionism without further explaining the ties of sci-fi-inductivism with psuedo-morality?)

>CQ> You list Bacon as a sophist? This is absurd.

Not intentionally listed as one, but rather "among the pragmatists". The "among these" of the 4th statement in that paragraph hearkens back to the 2nd statement, not the 3rd. (Sorry that wasn't clear. :)

>CQ> Einstein taught that parallel lines meet in infinity? Perhaps. In any event, Einstein was most definitely a theist, and refused to accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle on the grounds that "God does not play dice with the universe".

The determining "event" for Einstein was on his death bed when God gave him one last chance, and he refused "to believe in a God who is not a mathematical formula."; and in all probability ended up in the "hell" that he had blasted out of his mind when he was 18 years old.

>CQ> Naturalism is *not* "God's in everything and everything's in God." Whatever naturalism may or may not be, "God's in everything and everything's in God" is pantheism.

Of course. But my statement was: "In Naturalism..." (etc.) and the pantheism illustration was only a part of the statement.

>CQ> You have also confused Naturalism with a (misrepresented) Epicureanism.

Epicureanism is just the defeatism of optimistic naturalism which results in bee-stings when a hand reaches for honey. [Say what? :]

>CQ> Existentialism and stoicism are not (in any obvious way) related.

Existentialism: Ecc.11:7,8--"Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun: But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity."

Stoicism: Ecc.7:3,4--"Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth."

Now do you see how obviously they are related? (In plainer words, "Honey-child, Yor tummy-tum ain't gonna feel no better un-less'n ya swaller dis here bitter pill!" :)

>CQ> Well, enough is enough.

There ya go! Something we agree on! As they say, It's been real. (But wait, <hold the phone,> your message continued... :)

>CQ> But *if* there is a single philosophical point of view that is particularly opposed to religious claims, it is scepticism (which you have not discussed other than to list it in your catalogue of "isms"). And if you talk about scepticism, you also have to talk about fideism <grin>.

Well, <grin>, looks like yer a Faithful-Sceptic to the bitter end. May you soon wake up and smell the roses instead of trying to grasp the Thorny-Stem, and perchance you'll realize that you should:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:8,9) (And ye are complete in him! For Sure! :)

Remember that Jesus is the Lord and receive the love of the truth. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be unto you. Amen. --Richard