This blog is about : Organic Catholicism. . . . . Organic Catholicism is at human scale. It's eminently practical, and simple. . . . . It's back to nature, as in back to our nature. It looks at the world around us according to our nature, which in turn is to look at the world simply . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warning to those who are easily offended, perhaps this blog is not for you
Saving souls by sowing invincible ignorance one student at a time is not only the secret strategy of Catholic colleges in america to make peace with the world while also saving souls.
The things I've been reading and listening to lately brought this post to mind. Was it longer in the past or am I remembering wrongly?
I haven't been able to delve into the issue very deeply, but those other resources put the concept of invincible ignorance into a clearer historical and philosophical context than I've had in the past. Basically, invincible ignorance is what you end up with if you believe, with Aristotelian materialism, that the intellect precedes the will--that is, that some people, because of their upbringing, just can't be convinced of the truth. But before Aristotle was Christianised and made newly popular, Catholic theologians believed that the will precedes the intellect--that anyone with good will can be convinced of the truth. So if someone, having heard all the preaching, arguments and testimonies, still rejects Catholic dogmas, he is willfully rejecting the truth and can't hide behind the accidents of his upbringing and formation.
In short, someone needs to call the Catholic colleges in America and tell them that this strategy of saving souls isn't working. =P
LTG, since you've studied philosophy, what do you think of these two ways of looking at the intellect and the will in the context of someone's response to Catholic teaching?
+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteThe things I've been reading and listening to lately brought this post to mind. Was it longer in the past or am I remembering wrongly?
I haven't been able to delve into the issue very deeply, but those other resources put the concept of invincible ignorance into a clearer historical and philosophical context than I've had in the past. Basically, invincible ignorance is what you end up with if you believe, with Aristotelian materialism, that the intellect precedes the will--that is, that some people, because of their upbringing, just can't be convinced of the truth. But before Aristotle was Christianised and made newly popular, Catholic theologians believed that the will precedes the intellect--that anyone with good will can be convinced of the truth. So if someone, having heard all the preaching, arguments and testimonies, still rejects Catholic dogmas, he is willfully rejecting the truth and can't hide behind the accidents of his upbringing and formation.
In short, someone needs to call the Catholic colleges in America and tell them that this strategy of saving souls isn't working. =P
LTG, since you've studied philosophy, what do you think of these two ways of looking at the intellect and the will in the context of someone's response to Catholic teaching?