Does Souls Have Gender?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:07 PM']JeffCR07,

You missed the smilie at the end of my "off the hook" remark? For God's sake, man, relax. Neither of us is important enough to take himself that seriously. 

Now to characterize as Plato bashing and as a denigration of the contribution of Platonic philosophy to the understanding of our faith a simple allusion to the fact that Plato's particular conception of  the soul formed the basis for the modern day understanding of soul-as-person goes a bridge too far in my view. And I'm by no means sure that 1000 years of theologians were all that comfortable with the suitability of Platonism's giving expression either to the biblical notion of "soul" or to much else of Christian belief. The theologians simply used what was then available to them philosophically in the hope both of explaining the faith and of achieving dialogue with the larger intellectual community. Had it been otherwise, given all that time, perhaps their formulations would have been considered definitive, eh? No, my concern here is not as much with Plato as it is with what's been fashioned from him. 

Yours In The Holy Trinity,

John Lowell
[right][snapback]801875[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I apologize for missing the smilie - its been a long couple days and I hope you can forgive my lack of humor

Anyways, by way of response, I think the last sentence of your response is very telling. You are correct to say that many people have used Plato to untrue ends, but when, as Bertrand Russell points out, you are the footnote of all philosophy, I can't imagine that [i]not[/i] being inevitable.

Moreover, much of what is true and good - even the definition of the soul - also was fashioned from Plato. For example, the Neoplatonics saw no disagreement between the Platonic and Aristotelian theories of Forms. For them, the soul [i]was[/i] the form of the body, in a very Aristotelian way, [i]and[/i] the Forms existed in addition as entirely seperate. They simply made a distinction between form-in-matter and form-in-itself (indeed, keeping this in mind might very well [i]help[/i] christian philosophy). In addition, regarding your notion that there were simply no other suitable philosophical systems from which Christian philosophers might draw, I must thoroughly disagree: Platonism was one among a great, great many. If you disagree, I would be more than happy to discuss why.

Regardless, my intent is not to patronize, nor to give a lesson in history of philosophy. Rather, my point is simply that many people give Plato, Platonism, and philosophies which draw heavily on Plato a bad rap. With this in mind, if someone wishes to remark negatively concerning the aforementioned, I would be very interested to discuss what uniquely Platonic notion is found to stand in such opposition to the Catholic Faith.

And again, if I appear too serious, forgive me

Yours in Christ,

Jeff

Edited November 28, 2005 by JeffCR07

[journeyman]

Jeff and John . . . have you thought about a Philosophy 101 thread - Philosophy through the ages for those who have managed to avoid it during their entire lives . . . There are some unspoken assumptions both of you are making, based I suspect on your having studied the subject, that leave the illiterate (me) unable to follow.

Maybe Philosophy for Dummies?

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, well I don't think I've got the time to put forth a systematized account of the history of philosophical thought, but I'd be more than happy to answer any questions (or enter into friendly discussion/dialectic) with anyone who is interested. Feel free to make the thread. :