# Help with some One/Many Greek Philosophical Stuff...



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2006)

***NOTE: Please only CVT Pre-Suppositionalists answer this. I'm not interested in critiques of CVT and "Clark is better and CVT is wrong" responses. I'm trying to understand what he's saying. ***

I've been listening to CVT on some old audio lectures and have to admit my ignorance in some philosophical categories. Van Til keeps repeating some ideas so some of the stuff is starting to sink in.

I've gotten this so far:

Rationalism is defective because it cannot consider the "One". The One in Platonic and Aristotalean categories must be known completely or it cannot be comprehended. If it becomes known that it becomes somehow co-substantial with us... I'm having trouble fleshing this out. Contained in this idea is that once you leave the realm of the actual and enter the realm of the One you lose your identity and get swallowed up into Being.

Empericism is defective as it only consider facts and "the many" in a wholly disconnected manner. There is no way to know their inter-connectedness and they can only be known as completely independent.

All is flux or all is one.

I have trouble articulating what I'm hearing and seeing how it applies. I sort of understand how modern science can only deal with data (the many) but never come up with some sort of unifying idea of what it all means. CVT goes on to say that if this empericism ever led one to the knowledge of the One that the knowledge would be swallowed up into pure Being. He states that Roman Catholicism is utterly foolish for trying to be moderate empiricism and moderate rationalism combined but that Greek philosophy could never lead to the truth of Christianity.

1. Please correct my language here and help me understand what CVT is talking about.

2. Please help me understand how this can be used effectively against the average scientist or self-avowed rationalist who, like me, would give you a blank stare when you started talking about the One and the Many. I mean, seriously, it might be right philosophically but how does one use it for your average dude who thinks philosophy is for academics anyway (as I used to think when I was studying engineering).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 15, 2006)

Well, for starters, it is helpful to think about Empiricism. Someone like Clifford would say that it is irrational and unacceptable to believe anything without evidence for such a belief. The biggest immediate question for an Empiricist is, then, what *evidence* led you to hold such a position? 

The "one and the many" stuff has to do with the reality of the metaphysical, as far as I know. Plato, for example, believed that not only are there trees but there is "tree-ness" to which trees belong, as a category. Predication is impossible without these types of categories.

I'm sure Paul can explain it better and further.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, for starters, it is helpful to think about Empiricism. Someone like Clifford would say that it is irrational and unacceptable to believe anything without evidence for such a belief. The biggest immediate question for an Empiricist is, then, what *evidence* led you to hold such a position?


haha that is awesome.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2006)

To quote Chris Farley:

THAT...WAS...*AWESOME!!!!!*


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2006)

Very practical points Paul. As I listened to Van Til yesterday I tried to think of Christ's claim that He was the Son of God. I thought: "Would Christ walk into a room of Greek philosophers of that day and give a metaphysical defense that God could exist, then convince them that the Scriptures had some prophecies that were fulfilled and very likely spoke of the true God, then convinced them that the Scriptures spoke of Him, and that therefore they should listen to Him."

I was struck by the realization that Christ just spoke on His own authority and didn't need "approval" from man's autonomous reason to be authenticated as the Son of God. I really appreciate how Van Til upholds that idea.

I appreciate the approach because it doesn't allow man to be the measure but merely heralds the Gospel and then demonstrates, using their philosophical tools against them, that they are fools for trusting in their vain philosophies. Mankind, however, has written an awful lot and taken human autonomy far afield and it is hard to understand how to formulate the philosophical problems as you have just done.

I guess I was just amazed at how beginning with the mind really does not allow for a coherent universe. There is something still very sinful within me that wants to think that I can come to the knowledge of God on my own steam. Accepting Him without measuring and investigating first, assuming He might not exist, just will not work at all. I used to think it did but I'm now convinced that it cannot. Strange that I believe in God but still have trouble accepting that He is necessary for my belief. Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Pergamum (May 15, 2006)

....drinking bears with your buddies....."????


Wow! This would require an epistemological shift for that to happen!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> ....drinking bears with your buddies....."????
> 
> 
> Wow! This would require an epistemological shift for that to happen!


What Trevor? Paul knows I'm a Marine. We drink bears all the time...lions and tigers too.

Oh my.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> ...



And you write "think" for "thing." :bigsmile:


----------



## caddy (May 16, 2006)

Hey Paul & Rich

Interesting discussion. I appreciate the Philosophy lesson as well.  This is just an observation from this and other threads. Help me to understand your views as they relate to "Partaking". Trust me, I don't want this to come off wrong, and this has probably come up many times before here on the board, but I'm a little confused about the consumption of ETOH as it realtes to "bringing another brother" down. I guess I relate my own rationalizing of alcohol with a steady spiritual decline years ago in my own life, a steady decline from beer to harder stuff, then a decline to this and that as I blurred the line concerning other areas that had nothing to do with ETOH. I can actually count on 3 fingers the # of times I actaully got "Stoned" when I was younger, but it never took more than a couple of beers for me to feel the effects and I often became a little happier and always a little less "inhibited" as I am sure we are all familiar! Again, I understand our freedom in Christ and this is no slight to you guys, but help me understand how you guys do it and don't feel like this beer will lead to two, which will..well you get the point.

That was my story in a nutshell. I just associate that with my steady decline spiritually. Obvioiusly, there are all sorts of arguments against my "Tee-Totalling" which I agreed to when I became a Deacon in the SBC. I know Presbyterians are much different concerning consumption. I'm just looking for clarity on how you guys view this. I love the taste of most any Beer and All Good Wines and even the Good Whiskeys, but alas....I'm not sure I could go there again in good conscious--and I am speaking strickly for myself here.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caddy_
> . . . .
> 
> That was my story in a nutshell. I just associate that with my steady decline spiritually.



At the risk of sidetracking:

Steven, I had a similar experience to Paul's, but I want to add that I think that it is better to say that your spiritual decline in the past led to other sin (excessive drinking), rather than the drinking leading to spiritual decline. If you have the time and energy, I'd recommend John Owen's volume on Indwelling Sin. It is a struggle we all go through. 

And, I agree with Paul, if drinking causes you to stumble, it is honorable and good to abstain. You don't need any other justification for it. 

Vic


----------



## caddy (May 16, 2006)

Thanks Vic...and Paul

Appreciate that...

Did not mean to get the thread sidetracked. Carry on.

Oh...and I'm reading Owen's & Gentry now: _The Mortification of Sin_ & _Before Jerusalem Fell_. Will look into these other titles. Many thanks.





[Edited on 5-17-2006 by caddy]


----------

