Philosophical methods and their role in integrating learning and faith - Essay Example

? A study of philosophical methods and how these methods may serve as a means of integrating learning and faith. Philosophy as a concept can be traced through etymology to the root meaning of the Greek words that establish the range and application of the term in thought. As the Online Etymology Dictionary (2011) states, philosophy linguistically dates to “c.1300, from O.Fr. filosofie (12c.), from L. philosophia, from Gk. philosophia ‘love of knowledge, wisdom,’ from philo- ‘loving’ + sophia ‘knowledge, wisdom,’ from sophis ‘wise, learned;’ of unknown origin.” (OED, 2011) An understanding of the definition of philosophy is critical in a discussion of its methodology, for a “love of wisdom” may be experientially different from the systematic application of a series of rules and laws in order or as a technical means to accomplish an end. In Greek semantics, the traditional goal most associated with philosophy as a discipline is not stated directly, which is not to say that truth is absent in the definition of philosophy, but rather that truth is present in the defining aspect of wisdom. Wisdom relates to truth as knowledge relates to understanding, and the dynamics of this relationship is illustrated in the Greek term ‘Sophia’. In defining philosophy as the “love of wisdom,” the nature of wisdom itself must be analyzed through a comparison to other types of knowledge. On a fundamental level, traditional philosophy in both the Eastern and Western traditions is gnostic, for these schools assert that truth can be directly experienced and known by human consciousness and that truth is divinely inspired or created by aspects of a divine being. Yet, philosophers themselves may differ in the degree or the manner in which they accord truth to be divine, sacred, holy, or beautiful. Similarly, an agnostic philosophy may be possible, where followers of the teaching believe that truth itself cannot be known absolutely, constructed accurately, or experienced in a valid form by human consciousness, and that truth is not divinely inspired or created by theistic forces. An agnostic belief system or philosophy would appear to be inherently tragic in believing that truth cannot be definitively known to mind, whereas a gnostic or religious system of philosophy can be expected to be liberating through either immanence or transcendence related to mental apprehension of truth. Therefore, in the gnostic aspects of philosophy, the reconciliation of faith and learning becomes possible, where truth is equated with divinity and wisdom with spirituality in the wider context of life and experience related to the existential aspects of being. In comparison, this possibility of reconciling faith and learning is fundamentally cut-off or eliminated from the philosophy of the agnostic type, as God or divinity is inherently rejected as valid reference. The relationship between philosophy and religion is seen traditionally across all cultures, languages, and schools of thought. In the Christian tradition, Max Dashu (2000) writes, “The syncretism of Judaic, Egyptian, Hellenistic and Persian traditions gave rise to Gnosticism, a name which arose directly from an emphasis on inner knowing.” (Dashu, 2000) In defining philosophy through the gnostic methodology of “inner knowing,” a deeper inquiry into the historical dimensions of ‘Sophia’ or wisdom is also required. Wisdom in the age of the Greeks may have been worshipped with the attributes of the Divine Goddess in indigenous religious traditions, though simultaneously operating as an integral aspect of consciousness. Most schools of philosophy are united by the belief that truth can be apprehended by consciousness, but religious philosophy synchronizes divinity with truth experientially through gnostic realization. Gnosticism as a school of Christianity combining elements of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Buddhism, and Orphism in a syncretic manner is distinct from the ‘direct knowing of truth’ by consciousness as methodology of philosophy, which can be seen in most other religious and philosophical traditions across history. What is important is to understand how the Western concept of Sophia as a free-flowing wisdom can be seen in religious philosophy in other cultures as the Tao, the Holy Spirit, as Shakti, the Divine Goddess, or in primordial nature and energy. In Buddhism, for example, wisdom is deified as Prajna-Paramita, the goddess who is the manifestation of emptiness as experienced in meditation. If the philosopher conceives of wisdom in the manner of the goddesses of these great religious traditions, the awe, wonder, and beauty of truth in all of its majesty and glory is being articulated symbolically, and the relation of the muse is understood more clearly in the Greek tradition as a mediating agent to divine wisdom. However, this model of religious philosophy bears little resemblance to the philosophy of the post-modern schools of thought, to which wisdom as a goddess may be nothing more than the height of illusion and superstition, indistinguishable from a fairy tale. As Douglas Kellner writes in the essay ‘In Search of the Postmodern’ (2011), “postmodern theory provides a critique of representation and the modern belief that theory mirrors reality, taking instead ‘perspectivist’ and ‘relativist’ positions that theories at best provide partial perspectives on their objects, and that all cognitive representations of the world are historically and linguistic­ally mediated. Some postmodern theory accordingly rejects the totalizing macroperspectives on society and history favoured by modern theory in favour of microtheory and micropolitics (Lyotard 1984a). Postmodern theory also rejects modern assumptions of social coherence and notions of causality in favour of multiplicity, plurality, fragmentation, and indeterminacy. In addition, postmodern theory abandons the rational and unified subject postulated by much modern theory in favour of a socially and linguistically decentred and fragmented subject.” (Kellner, 2002) From this is evident that there is a major difference in philosophical methodology between the post-modern schools of today and the traditional religious philosophies of ancient Greece, Eastern religion, and even Enlightenment thought historically in Europe. Within this distinction is also found a radically different approach to defining and verifying truth in the post-modern schools methodologically than the traditional faith-based approaches of philosophy. Philosophy seeks to attain truth through practice of a discipline or regime of inquiry and analysis, and this is defined through the methodology that the various schools have employed historically to seek this understanding. From the initial query of philosophy into ontology, there arises the immediate need for a means of verifying data, ideas, or information as true. Epistemology is therefore a function of ontology in philosophy, and from the need to build a valid system of interpretation there arises also the need for analysis. Verification, validation, interpretation, and analysis can thus be seen as the primary needs of philosophy as it seeks wisdom through the understanding of truth, because truth itself cannot be determined without these aspects. In the Western tradition of philosophy these methodologies all occur through the process of thinking, and language is the primary vehicle through which these methodologies operate. This is seen in Descartes and Heidegger particularly, but can be seen as also a definitive aspect of Western philosophy as a fundamental principle - namely, that truth can be experienced directly and determined by the processes of thought. In Eastern philosophy and particularly Buddhism and Taoism, there is a different methodology where absolute truth is differentiated from conditional or conventional truth. Absolute truth is inexpressible and can only be experienced by the emptiness of mind represented by the absence of language-based thought, or the silencing of the stream of consciousness and internal language that represents ‘thinking’ in the West in order to access a greater awareness in the primordial aspects of mind or pure being. In Buddhist philosophy, all expressions of language whether generated by mental discourse internally, verbal discourse vocally, or through literary expression in print form represent conventional, conditional, or limited truth. Meditation is considered a vehicle of valid knowledge and experience in the ultimate sense because it is beyond the limitations of language. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between meditative approaches to philosophy which seek wisdom in emptiness, or states of consciousness and awareness beyond language and mental discourse based in primordial, natural awareness, and thinking-oriented approaches to philosophy where the mind functions as a computer in calculating truth according to language, programming, and logic. Wisdom is other than language and logic, though it may encompass them or subsume them in philosophy. Western philosophy relies on the methodology of thought as a primary vehicle of knowing, while Eastern philosophy relies on the methodology of meditation for knowing. The use of verification, validation, interpretation, and analysis is found in schools of philosophy across all cultures and religions, but the equation of truth with divinity is found generally only in religious schools of thought. In order to integrate learning and faith through philosophical methodology, there must be an a priori system of thought or language constructs that is referred to by the subjective consciousness. Otherwise, there is no philosophy or belief system to have faith in or lessons to be learned. The dedication to the truth joins the various aspects of faith, learning, and philosophy practically, though what differentiates them is the system of authority which commands the processes of verification, validation, analysis, and interpretation. Religion, science, and philosophy are distinguished primarily through the teachers who are established within the individual schools and traditions as authoritative. Without this acceptance of authority, there would be no recognizable differences in systems of belief, but ultimately the individual is the one who decides personally where to place his or her allegiance through faith subjectively as an epistemological process of self awareness. Philosophical method is based primarily in the process of “inner knowing,” yet this can include both thought-based and meditation related approaches to the verification of truth. Because of the inherent relationship between learning, faith, and authority, some philosophers such as Paul Feyerabend have written about the conduct of philosophy without regard to any established method at all as the most valid means of discovering “new” truth that has been undiscovered before. (Feyerabend, 1970) This leads to a fundamental division between a concept of truth as constructed by mind as art and beauty - relative, conditioned, and individual - or a concept of truth as absolute, divine, pre-existent and universal. The resolution of this issue in human consciousness is the purpose of philosophy, and the various methodologies employed to this end define wisdom through the synthesis or synergy of all experience and knowledge in the mind. In “Discourse on the Method” (1637), Rene Descartes described his approach to the philosophical methodology, when he wrote, “...as a multitude of laws often only hampers justice, so that a state is best governed when, with few laws, these are rigidly administered; in like manner, instead of the great number of precepts of which logic is composed, I believed that the four following would prove perfectly sufficient for me, provided I took the firm and unwavering resolution never in a single instance to fail in observing them. The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgement than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt. The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution. The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence. And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.” (Descartes, 1637, p.16) In this passage, Descartes compares the governance of the State to the governance of the Self, and prescribes a minimal constitution of fundamental tenets that form the basis of his philosophical method, or inquiry into truth. The first aspect of this methodology is skepticism, and “knowing” is presented as the validating principle of epistemology. With this, Descartes includes equanimity of justice or fairness in applying principles of judgment equally. He further associates certainty with truth, by suggesting that where there is the absence of doubt personally, truth is present empirically in consciousness. The second aspect of his methodology involves reductionism and specialization, as he states, a deconstruction of all objects of analysis into parts. While not stated directly, the creation of parts from wholes is an important aspect of building systems of thought or theories that operate on their own internal dynamics. Descartes third aspect of philosophical method is similar to Occam’s Razor in that it is an aesthetic of truth based in minimalism and simplicity, as well as giving primacy to the primal, primordial, or fundamental as in metaphysics and mythology. Descartes fourth principle is totalitarian, his philosophy should be encyclopedic and include all subjects exhaustively in its interpretation. This explanation of philosophical method by Descartes can in turn be criticized by other philosophers in distinguishing their own systems of interpretation and validation of truth from his theory. In this manner, analysis and criticism operate on similar methodological grounds. Nevertheless, Descartes methodology still operates by using human consciousness, language expressed internally through thought and externally through speech and writing. Yet, God is also an important aspect of Descartes philosophy, where he writes, “God has endowed each of us with some light of reason by which to distinguish truth from error.” (Descartes, 1637, p. 23) In equating the fundamental epistemological principle with divinity, Descartes’ philosophy is a perfect example of how faith and reason can be joined in philosophy. Descartes goes on to equate God with being the “perfect idea” and to see the expression of divine truth in Geometry. (Descartes, 1637, p. 29) From the analogy of God’s relation to the universe, Descartes also builds a fundamental duality between body and mind, viewing the two as separate and interdependent. “The truth of this is sufficiently manifest from the single circumstance, that the philosophers of the schools accept as a maxim that there is nothing in the understanding which was not previously in the senses, in which however it is certain that the ideas of God and of the soul have never been... all the things which we clearly and distinctly conceive are true, is certain only because God is or exists and because he is a Perfect Being, and because all that we possess is derived from him: whence it follows that our ideas or notions, which to the extent of their clearness and distinctness are real, and proceed from God, must to that extent be true.” (Descartes, 1637, pp. 30-31) This passage by Descartes raises the important issues of philosophical methodology related to empiricism, materialism, theology, and faith. Descartes philosophy can also be described as gnostic, in the fullest sense, for he believes not only that truth can be known definitively by human consciousness directly, but also that this truth is an aspect or emanation of God, divinely inspired and related to His creation. The break with Christianity evident in so much of later Western philosophy is not present in Descartes, and in this manner the pantheistic view of religion adopted by Descartes may be distinguished from strict Christian theology but not from its metaphysic. Descartes undertakes to actually prove the existence of God and the Soul in his philosophy, operating from principles of logic, language, and human psychology, exemplifying how learning and faith can join in philosophy. “In ‘Identity and Difference’ Heidegger argued that dogmatic theology is inseparable from the whole tradition of Western ontology. As ‘onto-theology’, it represents a mode of thinking which privileges the activity of human subjects in objectifying knowledge and temporal presencing over Heidegger’s alternative categories of being and ecstatic time. According to Heidegger, onto-theology has departed from its existential origins in the New Testament and, since the earliest Fathers, taken its lead from the metaphysical tradition of the Greeks... This analysis leads Heidegger to reject the divinity of the Christian God. The God of the Christian churches, says Heidegger, is nothing more than Leibniz’ prima causa, the first cause which functions, in metaphysics, to ground every other proposition. As such, the Christian God is not a real god. A truly divine god, if he exists, could not be objectified or thematized according to the concerns of the metaphysical tradition. To do so would be to create God in our own image. The real god, says Heidegger, is a god ‘beyond’ the god of the Christians. A god who cannot be thought according to the dominant paradigms of Western thought.”(Deverell, 2001) This passage illustrates how Martin Heidegger’s philosophy operates on similar thematic grounds as Descartes’ directional thought, but approaches God, divinity, and theology through a critical methodology rather than an analytic one. Modern philosophy must accord with the principles of science in a manner that traditional Enlightenment philosophy was forced to approach the themes and faith-driven reasoning of Christian theology. Eastern philosophy is traditionally based in religion, making the fusion of learning and faith an integral part of the methodology. The principle of Sophia or “Wisdom” in early Greek thought and Gnosticism was more akin to what is known as the Goddess in the polytheistic, Eastern and pagan religious traditions. In understanding a tautology or syzygy in the relationship of the Logos or “Reason” with Sophia that is similar to the Yin-Yang duality of Taoism, it is possible to relate the depths of these concepts in another faith-based metaphysic. In Christianity, Sophia operated in a manner similar to the Holy Spirit with Christ as Logos. Jesus is represented by his teachings in the world after his death, his philosophy exists as religion. Yet, both the philosophy of Descartes and Jesus share the same reverence for God, moral righteousness, correct behavior, true understanding of the nature of reality, and the primacy of the Soul. Post-modern philosophy is primarily atheistic, God as first-principle, creator of the universe, and foundation of truth is denied. Marxism, Freudian theory, Nietzsche’s philosophy, and quantum mechanics are all major influences on postmodern philosophy, which relates cultural relativism, moral relativism, and individual subjectivity with these philosophies to form an agnostic philosophy where absolute truth cannot be known definitively and truth has no basis in divinity. This tradition has little in common with the religious philosophies of cross-cultural global history, and instead believes that these are simply superstitions and archaic or outdated beliefs best left behind for human individuals to progress. Therefore, in philosophical systems where the divine origin of truth and the ability of human beings to experience it directly in consciousness through knowing, understanding, wisdom, and being is accepted, the ability to join faith, learning, and reason is possible, as found in both the Eastern and Western gnostic schools of thought. The use of meditation as a method of philosophical inquiry to experience truth and wisdom beyond words and the conventional limitations of thought can be seen as the major distinction between the Eastern and Western schools of philosophy historically. Sources Cited Dashu, Max (1637). Khokhmah and Sophia. Chapter III of ‘Streams of Wisdom’ (Oakland CA: The Suppressed Histories Archives, 2000). Web. Viewed 07/15/2011. Descartes, Rene (1637). Discourse on the Method. Feedbooks, Wikisource, 2011. Web. Viewed 07/15/2011. Deverell, Garry (2001). Martin Heidegger: a theology yet to come. Deverell.net, July 2001. Web. Viewed 07/15/2011. Feyerabend, Paul (1970). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. Kellner, Douglas and Bes, Steven (2002). Chapter 1 - In Search of the Postmodern. Postmodern Theory, UCLA, 2002. Web. Viewed 07/15/2011. OEM (2011). Philosophy. Online Etymology Dictionary, 2011. Web. Viewed 07/15/2011. Read More