>>24847143
So was the Great Schism.
Anyhow, idealism is itself a reaction against the incoherent metaphysics and epistemology of modern philosophy.
4chan Search
2 results for "d7fe288418f82bcd0b689f1d53a56e79"
>>24794312
>>24794319
He's just using Hegel as an example. The focus here is on isolated (and instrumental) Enlightenment reason, and subtly with Humani Generis, the idea of reason as participation in the Divine Logos.
The Nouvelle Théologie of the early 20th century has had one strand that has been very successful in the Church, the Patristic/Eastern focused "recovery" project (de Lubac, etc.). Their outlook on philosophy and "natural reason" versus "grace" is shaped by the idea that "natural versus supernatural" and the idea of natura pura (pure nature) is itself a wholly modern distinction that helped lead towards the crisis of modernity. This seems in line with that general view of reason. Reason and faith (faith as illumination,and so knowledge, not as mere blind assent) are the two wings on which we ascend towards God. Fide et Ratio (but also ratio as intellectus!) and exitus et reditus as a motion of Logos.
What people miss when they talk about "tradcaths" here is that there are actually two types of trads.
The first largely looks back as far as Trent and a bit further. The read Saint Thomas as he was read in the Counter Reformation and during the anti-modern crises. They don't ignore the ancient faith or early Middle Ages, but their main focus is late-Medieval and Reformation, and they tend to take its nature versus grace dichotomy very seriously and also tend to be drawn to the aesthetics of the early-modern church. They want to recover the supernatural lost in modernity, and tend towards fidesm more.
The second group of traditionalists look back more to the Patristics and early Middle Ages, and have their own reading of Saint Thomas (more accurate IMHO) as more of a "Neoplatonist" (and so gravitate to Saint Bonaventure and Saint Maximus). These people are more into dialogue with the Orthodox East and elevating Eastern Catholic positions, and think the whole nature versus grace debate needs to be reformed and that the "supernatural" is a degenerate modern category. They take Heidegger's critique of ontotheology seriously but don't think it applies to much pre-modern Christian thought.
They are different and in conflict, even though they both don't like modernity and dislike nominalism, etc. For the second group, the first are moderns (and even voluntaristic).
The first group is more active in "Tradcath" spaces and tends to be much more into the Latin Mass. The second has been more influential higher up and in academia and philosophy.
When it comes to how "reason" interacts with philosophy, the idea is basically either the dialectic of 1500AD (first group), or, rejecting this as being exactly what led to the Enlightenment sealing off of philosophy, elevating the philosophy of 500AD.
>>24794319
He's just using Hegel as an example. The focus here is on isolated (and instrumental) Enlightenment reason, and subtly with Humani Generis, the idea of reason as participation in the Divine Logos.
The Nouvelle Théologie of the early 20th century has had one strand that has been very successful in the Church, the Patristic/Eastern focused "recovery" project (de Lubac, etc.). Their outlook on philosophy and "natural reason" versus "grace" is shaped by the idea that "natural versus supernatural" and the idea of natura pura (pure nature) is itself a wholly modern distinction that helped lead towards the crisis of modernity. This seems in line with that general view of reason. Reason and faith (faith as illumination,and so knowledge, not as mere blind assent) are the two wings on which we ascend towards God. Fide et Ratio (but also ratio as intellectus!) and exitus et reditus as a motion of Logos.
What people miss when they talk about "tradcaths" here is that there are actually two types of trads.
The first largely looks back as far as Trent and a bit further. The read Saint Thomas as he was read in the Counter Reformation and during the anti-modern crises. They don't ignore the ancient faith or early Middle Ages, but their main focus is late-Medieval and Reformation, and they tend to take its nature versus grace dichotomy very seriously and also tend to be drawn to the aesthetics of the early-modern church. They want to recover the supernatural lost in modernity, and tend towards fidesm more.
The second group of traditionalists look back more to the Patristics and early Middle Ages, and have their own reading of Saint Thomas (more accurate IMHO) as more of a "Neoplatonist" (and so gravitate to Saint Bonaventure and Saint Maximus). These people are more into dialogue with the Orthodox East and elevating Eastern Catholic positions, and think the whole nature versus grace debate needs to be reformed and that the "supernatural" is a degenerate modern category. They take Heidegger's critique of ontotheology seriously but don't think it applies to much pre-modern Christian thought.
They are different and in conflict, even though they both don't like modernity and dislike nominalism, etc. For the second group, the first are moderns (and even voluntaristic).
The first group is more active in "Tradcath" spaces and tends to be much more into the Latin Mass. The second has been more influential higher up and in academia and philosophy.
When it comes to how "reason" interacts with philosophy, the idea is basically either the dialectic of 1500AD (first group), or, rejecting this as being exactly what led to the Enlightenment sealing off of philosophy, elevating the philosophy of 500AD.