# Is Kantian Transcendental Idealism compatible with the scriptures?



## Thomas_Goodwin (Apr 26, 2022)

I hope you are well brothers and sisters. I was going through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, not to gain any some sort of insight, and I was wondering what the general consensus of Kant is (only his epistemology). I have found some things I think were pretty bad, and some ideas of his I didn't discern a straight away with against the views of the scriptures.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

I was having similar questions lately . I was reading Sowell’s work on Marxism. He talks of the philosophy of materialism being foundational to Marx/Engels and Marxism and sort of compared it with idealism. That made me think whether those are (broadly speaking of course) the only two alternatives.

Also in Sproul’s book _The Consequence of ideas, _he talks of how Plato was an idealist of sorts. But he appends that with how he was a realist in the sense that he believed that ideas are not mere mental constructs or names (as *Kantian* idealists would propose I guess?) but real entities.

Are there only two options available? Is everyone some kind of materialist or idealists, falling somewhere in between?I’m sure we can’t track all the way with idealists but do we all hold to a form of idealism backed by Realism?

Hope I’m not stirring the pot. Looking to learn.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2022)

Not really compatible. We have good evidence that a) the external world exists and b) not all of reality is reducible to it. People in the Kantian tradition (including his critic Hegel) weren't using Idea/Ideal in the way that Plato and Augustine did. Ideal for the Kantians meant it wasn't available to sense perception. Kant didn't mean that everything was ideal. Something that is ideal or transcendental means it is that by which we know other objects.

Plato meant by ideal (or better, form) the realm of the Forms. Think about the realm where right triangles exist.

When Sowell contrasted Idealism with Marxism he meant something like this. For Hegel, Geist precedes matter. Essence precedes existence. Marx said existence is first, and essence, if it exists at all, comes next.

To make matters even more confusing, when you see the Christian tradition use the term "transcendental," they mean something other than what Kant meant. A transcendental is a way to speak about being without that term being included in meaning (good, true, one).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Not really compatible. We have good evidence that a) the external world exists and b) not all of reality is reducible to it. People in the Kantian tradition (including his critic Hegel) weren't using Idea/Ideal in the way that Plato and Augustine did. Ideal for the Kantians meant it wasn't available to sense perception. Kant didn't mean that everything was ideal. Something that is ideal or transcendental means it is that by which we know other objects.
> 
> Plato meant by ideal (or better, form) the realm of the Forms. Think about the realm where right triangles exist.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. Clear up _a lot. _So when people say Plato was an idealist, they mean something else other than Kantian idealism? If so who are the non-Kantian idealists? If not, what was Plato?

What are we? 

Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Plato meant by ideal (or better, form) the realm of the Forms. Think about the realm where right triangles exist.





RamistThomist said:


> Ideal for the Kantians meant it wasn't available to sense perception. Kant didn't mean that everything was ideal. Something that is ideal or transcendental means it is that by which we know other objects.


Could you expand on these. We can’t perceive a realm where right triangles exist? How would Kant and Plato answer it differently?

What would be an example by a Kantian idealist of saying so and so is transcendental and thereby by this we know other objects? Is there where the accusation of Kantian is thrown at presups? Through the Scripture we know the transcendent God and thereby know other things? Or am I confusing the way transcendental is used in Kantian tradition to the way the word is _properly used _in the Christian tradition?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Could you expand on these. We can’t perceive a realm where right triangles exist? How would Kant and Plato answer it differently?
> 
> What would be an example of saying so and so is transcendental and thereby by this we know other objects? Is there where the accusation of Kantian is thrown at presups? Through the Scripture we know the transcendent God and thereby know other things? Or am I confusing the way transcendental is used in Kantian tradition to the way the word is _properly used _in the Christian tradition?


 You've only seen instances of a right triangle. You haven't seen the form of pure triangleness. That's, of course, if you follow Plato's line. Plato said our world is the shadowy copy of the true world of the eternal forms.

Kant wasn't interested in that. Take the concept of space or time. Have you ever seen or touched "space" or "time"? No. Yet, without space or time you really can't make sense of much of reality. That's what Kant was getting at.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Thanks for that. Clear up _a lot. _So when people say Plato was an idealist, they mean something else other than Kantian idealism? If so who are the non-Kantian idealists? If not, what was Plato?
> 
> What are we?
> 
> Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality?



That's correct. Here are some non-Kantian idealists:

1. Hegel.
2. The whole British idealist school: FH Bradley, B. Bousanquett, McTaggart.

Sir Roger Scruton's _A Short History of Modern Philosophy _is very good on this point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

What you say of:


Tychicus said:


> Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality?





RamistThomist said:


> That's correct.


And do you mean to also say we (Christians) are non-Kantian idealists?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> What you say of:
> 
> 
> And do you mean to also say we (Christians) are non-Kantian idealists?



I maintain that a good Christian mindset will be non-Kantian, but I don't presume on the religious state. And the converse certainly isn't true: non-Kantians aren't necessarily Christians.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2022)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> I hope you are well brothers and sisters. I was going through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, not to gain any some sort of insight, and I was wondering what the general consensus of Kant is (only his epistemology). I have found some things I think were pretty bad, and some ideas of his I didn't discern a straight away with against the views of the scriptures.


Although I do agree with my brother Jacob I do feel some added comments is necessary. I do believe I saw no one refer Kant's ideals as categories of the mind, if I'm wrong please correct me, which of course function in a similar way to ideals but are not the same. An innate filter through which we categorize reality is not the same thing as "ideals" we recollect from somewhere and "know" reality. Mysticism is not not the same thing as transcendental idealism. 
Now as far as being materialist or idealist, I've learned to be skeptical of "some" either or distinctions like this. My personal opinion is being a materialist/idealist or Hegel/Marx betrays the fact they're both the same, but different. They have to assume both to appear to be cogent. Marx had to talk about "Ideal" situations for his theory to work and Hegel had to "somehow" ground his theories in concrete reality to be applicable to everyday life, the parable of the master and slave. The only difference is what's primary, soul or matter.
Now how should we Christians take this? Should we pick one fruit out of the garden of common grace and make that "the only fruit available"? 
No, we have the whole garden and it's the Lord's garden, we may pick and choose what works for his desired ends.
The Bible doesn't give exact instructions on how to do many things but broad principles to work from in wisdom. So no we are not Empricists, Rationalists, Irrationalists, or Idealists. We are Christians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I do believe I saw no one refer Kant's ideals as categories of the mind, if I'm wrong please correct me, which of course function in a similar way to ideals but are not the same.



Yes. I implied that but I didn't make it clear.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Also are idealism and materialism the only two answers to the question of ultimate reality


 Or rather are they two ends of a spectrum?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> My personal opinion is being a materialist/idealist or Hegel/Marx betrays the fact they're both the same, but different. They have to assume both to appear to be cogent. Marx had to talk about "Ideal" situations for his theory to work and Hegel had to "somehow" ground his theories in concrete reality to be applicable to everyday life, the parable of the master and slave. The only difference is what's primary, soul or matter.


This confused me. Not your post but how differently idealism can be used:
1) to talk of what’s primary- in that case Marx was no idealist. In this sense idealism and materialism are used as antonyms.

Or
2) in opposition to realism; in which sense Marx was as idealist as they come.

And realism likewise could mean two different things:
1) in opposition to nominalism
2)in opposition to idealism(in the second sense)

Am I right in summarising this as such? Is this distinction valid?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 26, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I do believe I saw no one refer Kant's ideals as categories of the mind, if I'm wrong please correct me, which of course function in a similar way to ideals but are not the same.


So in Kant, they don’t exist but are _just_ categories of the mind? Whereas in Plato ideals exist in an eternal realm?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes. I implied that but I didn't make it clear.


Fair enough. I assumed as much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> So in Kant, they don’t exist but are _just_ categories of the mind? Whereas in Plato ideals exist in an eternal realm?


Yes. But thats the rub, do they exist or are they just categories in the mind? Is space real? Is there really 3 feet of space between two tables or not? I would say these categories are what we use, BTW wherever they came from, are useful to making sense out of reality.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> This confused me. Not your post but how differently idealism can be used:
> 1) to talk of what’s primary- in that case Marx was no idealist. In this sense idealism and materialism are used as antonyms.
> 
> Or
> ...


No not exactly. Marx was a student of Hegel and so saw the world in not only dialectical terms, but problems working themselves out, in concrete reality (history), but to some ideal goal. Hegel saw it all as "God" working" himself in history for whatever end. Both had "idealistic" and "materialistic" tendencies in their thought. 
Both had the same goal and similar methods but different ends,, does that make sense (i don't want to be confusing)?


----------



## Schoolman (Apr 26, 2022)

Neither idealism nor materialism represent all reality.

Idealism is the monistic fallacy.
Materialism is the monistic fallacy.

Separately, they make the dualist fallacy.

The truth is the impossible fact that the ideal resides in the material as a unified, unseparate self, the miracle of life and intimation of the Divine.

Christians are neither materialists nor idealists. Instead we acknowledge truth that when God blew into the Adam’s brow life’s wind, he became a living self.


----------



## Schoolman (Apr 27, 2022)

Here is something fun I wrote a few weeks ago fitting this new thread.

*Marxist Eschatology*
_The final stage of antitheist history._

Definitions–

Monism is the view that there is but one basic substance of reality.
Dualism is the view that there are two basic and separate factors of existence.
Idealism is the monism that consciousness is the one substance of reality, and all perceptions, including those of matter, physical things, or “body,” are illusions.
Materialism is the monism that matter is the one substance of reality, and all appearances or resemblances, including those of consciousness, ideals, or “spirit,” are due to material causes.
A phenomenon is the appearance of a real object.
A metaphor is a resemblance to a real object.
Marxist presuppositions–

Materialism → consciousness is but a phenomenon of matter.
Materialism is the one, true religion.
Dualism → the materialist people is distinct from an idealist people.
Messianism → in the final stage of history, people inherit their reward.
The messianic age, the final stage of history, is coming to pass.
ACTION: DUALIST DIALECTIC
(Marxist “dispensationalism”)

Axiom: Historical dualism is the view that there are two factors of history.
Presupposition: In this case, those two factors are the materialist people and an idealist people.

Thesis: The materialist people, the first factor, inherit the earth.
Antithesis: The idealist people, the second factor, inherit the earth.
Synthesis: The materialist people inherit the material world, whereas an idealist people inherit an ideal world.

Conclusion–

Dual messianism: In the final stage of history, the materialist people are coming to rule the material world and an idealist people will be out.

REACTION: MONISTIC DIALECTIC
(Marxist “preterism”)

Axiom: Historical monism is the view that there is but one causal factor of history.
Presupposition: In this case, that causal factor is the attainment of the final reward, inheriting the earth.

Thesis: At the final stage of history, the material people inherit the material world.
Antithesis: At the final stage of history, an idealist people inherit metaphors of a spiritual world.
Synthesis: The materialist people are inheriting the material world, whereas an idealist people are inheriting metaphors.

Conclusion–

Dual messianism: In the final stage of history, the materialist people possess the material world and an idealist people are out.

Synopsis–

Each polar, dialectical construct presupposes the monistic fallacy.
The materialist people inherit the earth at the final stage of history.
An idealist people lose everything at the final stage of history.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 27, 2022)

I was going to silently pass over this discussion, but providentially, I arrived just today at Polanus's full discussion of Platonic ideas, so I might as well add my two cents. First, some doctrine of divine ideas is inherent in reformed theology, because reformed theology teaches that God created all things according to his purpose. So there you have something outside creation, God's purpose, and deriving from it, created things. Jacob mentioned earlier that ideas are things that exist, but not materially, such as right angles, and there is an active debate, which Polanus references, about whether this or the doctrine I mentioned of ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God was Plato's true conception of ideas. Polanus states that Plato's conception was the latter, the Christian conception of ideas, and apparently a few church fathers argued similarly, with Justin Martyr being a dissenting voice.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 27, 2022)

Schoolman said:


> Here is something fun I wrote a few weeks ago fitting this new thread.
> 
> *Marxist Eschatology*
> _The final stage of antitheist history._
> ...


Nice synopsis. I think my particular point was that, and your synopsis was very informative BTW, (I love the Vossian eschatology in your argument), materialists and idealists both betray themselves by holding to an ideal worked out in a concrete reality. The rational/irrational dialectic of van til seems to apply.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 27, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> I was going to silently pass over this discussion, but providentially, I arrived just today at Polanus's full discussion of Platonic ideas, so I might as well add my two cents. First, some doctrine of divine ideas is inherent in reformed theology, because reformed theology teaches that God created all things according to his purpose. So there you have something outside creation, God's purpose, and deriving from it, created things. Jacob mentioned earlier that ideas are things that exist, but not materially, such as right angles, and there is an active debate, which Polanus references, about whether this or the doctrine I mentioned of ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God was Plato's true conception of ideas. Polanus states that Plato's conception was the latter, the Christian conception of ideas, and apparently a few church fathers argued similarly, with Justin Martyr being a dissenting voice.


There's quite a bit about this that I don't know for sure. So I don't think it meant the same thing as Jscob.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 27, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> No not exactly. Marx was a student of Hegel and so saw the world in not only dialectical terms, but problems working themselves out, in concrete reality (history), but to some ideal goal. Hegel saw it all as "God" working" himself in history for whatever end. Both had "idealistic" and "materialistic" tendencies in their thought.
> Both had the same goal and similar methods but different ends,, does that make sense (i don't want to be confusing)?


To be honest, I'm quite confused _with the terms being used_. But it is not because of what you said, which I think I understand. This isn't necessarily related to this thread here. But here goes.

In this article, Dr. Jordan Cooper contrasts realism and _nominalism. _They are opposites. He defines them both and I understand. https://credomag.com/article/what-exactly-is-protestant-scholasticism-and-why-does-it-matter/

In this transcript, Dr. Scruton contrasts realism with _idealism. _They are opposites. I understand this as well. http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/roger-scruton-alternatives-to-idealism/

*Q: Now realism is not being used to mean the same thing in these two instances, is it? *

And then in Sowell's work on Marxism, he contrasts materialism and idealism. He distinguishes idealism and materialism in the popular sense and the philosophical sense. He defines _philosophical _materialism and _philosophical _idealism. The philosophical idealist is one whos holds that "our pereptions and ideas are the ultimate reality that we can know, and the material world is only an inference from these perceptions." "Idealism in the philosophical sense is essentially idea-ism, a belief in the primacy of ideas. The varieties of philosophical idealism range from Platonic "forms" which provide the patterns that material objects only imperfectly copy, to John Stuart Mill's theory that history is only an outward expression of the general progression of the human mind."

*Q: Idealism is not being used by Sowell in the same way Scruton is addressing it in the above transcript, is it?*

And so my post, post #13, was not seeking to object to any assertion you made, but I was rather seeking clarity on the way these terms are used often differently. This was my understanding on reading Sowell. So my query was whether I was right in making those distinctions. 

Since you explained Sowell's work above, @RamistThomist thoughts? have I read him right?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 27, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> I was going to silently pass over this discussion, but providentially, I arrived just today at Polanus's full discussion of Platonic ideas, so I might as well add my two cents. First, some doctrine of divine ideas is inherent in reformed theology, because reformed theology teaches that God created all things according to his purpose. So there you have something outside creation, God's purpose, and deriving from it, created things. Jacob mentioned earlier that ideas are things that exist, but not materially, such as right angles, and there is an active debate, which Polanus references, about whether this or the doctrine I mentioned of ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God was Plato's true conception of ideas. Polanus states that Plato's conception was the latter, the Christian conception of ideas, and apparently a few church fathers argued similarly, with Justin Martyr being a dissenting voice.


This is very interesting. So according to Polanus, "God's purpose" is the eternal realm, and this material world is a shadowy copy of God's purpose?

I kind of lost you at "ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God ". What do you mean by this?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 27, 2022)

Schoolman said:


> Definitions–
> 
> Monism is the view that there is but one basic substance of reality.
> Dualism is the view that there are two basic and separate factors of existence.
> ...


Helpful. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 27, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> This is very interesting. So according to Polanus, "God's purpose" is the eternal realm, and this material world is a shadowy copy of God's purpose?


There is not an "eternal realm" distinct from the mind of God. God alone is eternal, and in his mind he had a plan and purpose for all the he would create and work in creation, which we can call his "ideas". But according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, the mind of God and ideas of God are not really distinct in essence from God himself. We may make a rational distinction between them, but they are not actually different in essence.


Tychicus said:


> I kind of lost you at "ideas being archetypes of creation in the mind of God ". What do you mean by this?


An archetype is the form (type) after which something else is formed, like the model painted by a painter. Before God ever made a tree, he had an idea of what a tree should be, an archetype of a tree, in his mind, and his created tree perfectly reflects this archetype, because God is a creator of perfect skill.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 27, 2022)

Realist? Idealist? How about just being a Christian?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Realist? Idealist? How about just being a Christian?



However we answer that question shapes what we believe about God. Realism is the usual fallback Christian view. It makes the most sense of God's attributes and ideas in His mind. Idealism is dangerous (if not just wrong). Jonathan Edwards was an idealist of sorts and it played havoc upon many doctrines he held.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 27, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> To be honest, I'm quite confused _with the terms being used_. But it is not because of what you said, which I think I understand. This isn't necessarily related to this thread here. But here goes.
> 
> In this article, Dr. Jordan Cooper contrasts realism and _nominalism. _They are opposites. He defines them both and I understand. https://credomag.com/article/what-exactly-is-protestant-scholasticism-and-why-does-it-matter/
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if I was confusing. What I meant was Marxists and idealists have in common is that they both start with ideas and then move in different directions. Their metaphysics are opposite but since they have the same starting problem they have the same logical problems.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 27, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I'm sorry if I was confusing. What I meant was Marxists and idealists have in common is that they both start with ideas and then move in different directions. Their metaphysics are opposite but since they have the same starting problem they have the same logical problems.


Not at all brother. It wasn’t because of your posts. You’re have been very clear. Hope you understood the question I had?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> However we answer that question shapes what we believe about God. Realism is the usual fallback Christian view. It makes the most sense of God's attributes and ideas in His mind. Idealism is dangerous (if not just wrong). Jonathan Edwards was an idealist of sorts and it played havoc upon many doctrines he held.



Our approach to the world should not be through schools of thought invented by men. Different philosophical systems may contain a degree of truth and insight which can be helpful in articulating human experience. However, once we adopt a specific system and use that as our guide then we are restricting ourselves to an extra-biblical (and taken as a whole usually anti-biblical) worldview. The early church theologians adopted concepts and phrases from the heathen philosophers because they were useful, but they adapted them to the Scriptural revelation.

What should shape our belief about God is Scripture. What should shape our understanding of the world is Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> What should shape our belief about God is Scripture. What should shape our understanding of the world is Scripture.



No one disputes that. Does Scripture say that universals exist in the mind of God?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 29, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> No one disputes that. Does Scripture say that universals exist in the mind of God?



Why, then, do we have a thread titled "Is Kantian transcendental idealism compatible with the scriptures?". Who cares? Was Kant a Christian? Did he exhibit fruit of the new birth? If not why should we invest ourselves in whether his thought and writings are compatible with Scripture? What does Kant offer the Christian which cannot be found in Scripture or the writings of godly expositors of Scripture? We are living in the ruins of a civilisation torn down by the rejection of God and the embrace of man-centred philosophy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why, then, do we have a thread titled "Is Kantian transcendental idealism compatible with the scriptures?".



Not my title. And as I've suggested, no, I don't think Kantian idealism is compatible with the Scriptures.



alexandermsmith said:


> Who cares?



Everyone who has commented on this thread. For starters, J. Gresham Machen cared enough to convinced himself that Kant was wrong before he sought ordination.


alexandermsmith said:


> Was Kant a Christian?



Probably not.


alexandermsmith said:


> If not why should we invest ourselves in whether his thought and writings are compatible with Scripture?



He is the dominant figure of the modern age and if he is wrong, and he is, we should refute him.


alexandermsmith said:


> What does Kant offer the Christian which cannot be found in Scripture or the writings of godly expositors of Scripture?



With the exception of James, I don't think anyone has argued that.


alexandermsmith said:


> We are living in the ruins of a civilisation torn down by the rejection of God and the embrace of man-centred philosophy.


Okay

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 29, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Not my title. And as I've suggested, no, I don't think Kantian idealism is compatible with the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know you think you're being very cleaver with the manner in which you're responding but if Christians today were more concerned with digging deeper into the Word and reading the writings of the old godly divines then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. If you go looking for wisdom and intellectual fulfilment in the world you risk shipwreck upon the rocks. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Cor. 3:19.


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Apr 29, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I know you think you're being very cleaver with the manner in which you're responding but if Christians today were more concerned with digging deeper into the Word and reading the writings of the old godly divines then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. If you go looking for wisdom and intellectual fulfilment in the world you risk shipwreck upon the rocks. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Cor. 3:19.


I am only reading Kant, as I specified, for entertainment. We shouldn't engage in quarrelsome or sharp rhetoric brother, I understand the concerns you have!


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I know you think you're being very cleaver with the manner in which you're responding but if Christians today were more concerned with digging deeper into the Word and reading the writings of the old godly divines then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. If you go looking for wisdom and intellectual fulfilment in the world you risk shipwreck upon the rocks. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Cor. 3:19.



I don't think you are actually reading what I am saying. I think Kant is bad. I have offered pointers for those who are interested on how to refute him. I'm not sure what you think I am saying.

No doubt I could do more bible reading, but that does not address the issues raised. The Nicene Fathers had to wrestle with extra-biblical (i.e., philosophical) terms like motion, person, and nature. The Westminster divines used Aristotelian causality in chapter 5 of the Confession. No one escapes philosophy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Schoolman (Apr 30, 2022)

Kant may have been bad. Nevertheless, and unlike Marx, he has much to teach us. And he even taught in a place informed by Reformed theology (before the heathen Soviets destroyed everything). Much of what he said is instructive and even exciting! But then there is the futility of human thought and the old story that my grandfather repeated to me about secular philosophy, of a man looking for a black hat in a room with no light…


----------



## Schoolman (Apr 30, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> No one disputes that. Does Scripture say that universals exist in the mind of God?


Yes, of course.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 30, 2022)

As someone not naturally inclined toward philosophy, I found this quote from G.K. Chesterton helpful:

"Men have always one of two things: either a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and often discredited philosophy…Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out."

The ways in which people read and interpret the Bible (as well as the world around us) are always going to be influenced by philosophical trends. Some of these may be helpful; others less than helpful. However, to willfully oppose the idea that it might be helpful for at least some Christians to think about philosophical questions in favor of "just the Bible" is a bit naive.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 30, 2022)

I do believe there is a potential pitfall with taking too high or respectful view of very confusing philosophical and intellectualized concepts.

I believe we can legitimize certain thought and/or perception that would otherwise be swiftly discarded by the Christian. How much do I really want to know about Kant before I reject him. Am I too lazy or stupid to want to challenge his thought or do I merely see the futility in the amount of time required to wrap my head around where he’s coming from.

I appreciate those that are willing to do that as long as an elitist niche is not being carved including a separation between the well schooled Christian that may identify with the secular intellectual elite more than their less learned brethren. Where does our passion lie at the end of the day? 

God-diminishing philosophers are worthy of our concern and critique, not our admiration for being such great thinkers. Augustine is ultimately a great thinker because he brings it all back to God and keeps only the skeptics faithful thought that is consistent with their status as image bearers but is ultimately stunted and woefully incomplete.

A shout out to @RamistThomist who I perceive to be thoughtful, intelligent and well learned, and most of all very charitable and patient in discussions - always coming from a place of faithfulness in my estimation. I believe men like him have very good motives. That has been my experience. I don’t always understand where he’s coming from but this is a place where many very learned men and women gather and share their thoughts.

I don’t know how much philosophy one has to learn in seminary but it appears par for the course. I’ve always appreciated Dr. Phillip Cary who is Christian who teaches philosophy and writes on theology (while recognizing he is not Reformed). I also appreciate my own Pastor who is also no slouch in these areas.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Apr 30, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> "Men have always one of two things: either a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and often discredited philosophy…Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out."


In other words, there is no neutrality, and there is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 1, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> However we answer that question shapes what we believe about God. Realism is the usual fallback Christian view. It makes the most sense of God's attributes and ideas in His mind. Idealism is dangerous (if not just wrong).
> 
> 
> Jonathan Edwards was an idealist of sorts and it played havoc upon many doctrines he held.


@RamistThomist , If you wouldn’t mind, could you expand on that last sentence regarding Edwards? Or provide a commentary link?


What’s an example of a theologian exercising the ideal or the spiritual in his interpretation of experience ? Thanks!



For my own benefit I’m quoting the following definitions:

“realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them.”

“idealism, in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience.”


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> @RamistThomist , If you wouldn’t mind, could you expand on that last sentence regarding Edwards? Or provide a commentary link?



Read Edwards' treatises on Being and Mind. He comes very close to saying that the world only exists in the mind of God. It's not clear how the created order fits in with that. Then there is his discussion in _On Original Sin _where he seems to say that the world ceases to exist and is re-created every instant.


Jonathan Edwards (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)










Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin


This isn’t really an exegetical defense of Original Sin as it is an extended book review on Dr Taylor’s works. There is some exegesis, and Edwards does make a few good comments on concreated holin…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com






A.Joseph said:


> “idealism, in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience.”



That's not really what idealism means in philosophy. At its most basic level, idealism says you never know the world as it is, as given. You only know it as an object of your mind's reflection. Think of a "wall" between the object and your mind. That's why a few centuries later Kantians and idealists were subjectivists.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2022)

Regarding the danger of Kant: unless you already want to be convinced of German idealism (and who would want to?), I doubt there is much danger. Kant wasn't a great communicator and the ideas that he actually managed to communicate are contrary to common sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (May 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> In other words, there is no neutrality, and there is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy.


Fallacy: false dilemma 
There's a reason the formal study of philosophy generally includes a course in logic.


----------



## Taylor (May 1, 2022)

jwithnell said:


> Fallacy: false dilemma
> There's a reason the formal study of philosophy generally includes a course in logic.


Well, I _was_ joking. At the same time, there really is no neutrality—one is either for Christ, or against him (Matt. 12:30), and this has to do with the mind as much as the heart (2 Cor. 10:5). There is no false dilemma there. It’s a real and harrowing predicament of our own making. But that’s another thread, I suppose.

BTW, I teach both philosophy and logic.


----------



## py3ak (May 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> In other words, there is no neutrality, and there is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy.


That's true, but it's not what the quote says. Theonomous/autonomous and examined/unconsidered are both dichotomies, but they aren't the same dichotomy.


----------



## jwithnell (May 2, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Well, I _was_ joking. At the same time, there really is no neutrality—one is either for Christ, or against him (Matt. 12:30), and this has to do with the mind as much as the heart (2 Cor. 10:5). There is no false dilemma there. It’s a real and harrowing predicament of our own making. But that’s another thread, I suppose.
> 
> BTW, I teach both philosophy and logic.


We used to have a cool white flag emoji I'd be waving at this point.


----------



## Taylor (May 2, 2022)

py3ak said:


> That's true, but it's not what the quote says. Theonomous/autonomous and examined/unconsidered are both dichotomies, but they aren't the same dichotomy.





jwithnell said:


> We used to have a cool white flag emoji I'd be waving at this point.


Y’all, I was hoping the emojis I used in my initial post would indicate I was joking. Apparently they did not.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 2, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Y’all, I was hoping the emojis I used in my initial post would indicate I was joking. Apparently they did not.


I knew you were joking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (May 2, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I knew you were joking.


Don’t you tell me a fib.


----------



## alexandermsmith (May 3, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I don't think you are actually reading what I am saying. I think Kant is bad. I have offered pointers for those who are interested on how to refute him. I'm not sure what you think I am saying.
> 
> No doubt I could do more bible reading, but that does not address the issues raised. The Nicene Fathers had to wrestle with extra-biblical (i.e., philosophical) terms like motion, person, and nature. The Westminster divines used Aristotelian causality in chapter 5 of the Confession. No one escapes philosophy.



Sounds like we're on the same page

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2022)

I did some reviews and critiques of Kant.








Kant: Critique of Pure Reason


I thought I had a review of this book, but evidently not. I read it in 2014, I think. Kant is neither fun nor easy to read, but he can be read if one takes notes. And he should be read by lay philo…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Metaphysic of Morals (Kant)


Kant, Immanuel. General Principle of the Metaphysics of Morals, The Great Books Series (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1952). Kant is the perfect embodiment of modern liberalism. Imagine…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Kant’s Ethics


Below are Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason. Metaphysics of Morals: Kant, Immanuel. General Principle of the Metaphysics of Morals, The Great Bo…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com





It's interesting because in his ethics Kant cheats.


----------



## jwright82 (May 3, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why, then, do we have a thread titled "Is Kantian transcendental idealism compatible with the scriptures?". Who cares? Was Kant a Christian? Did he exhibit fruit of the new birth? If not why should we invest ourselves in whether his thought and writings are compatible with Scripture? What does Kant offer the Christian which cannot be found in Scripture or the writings of godly expositors of Scripture? We are living in the ruins of a civilisation torn down by the rejection of God and the embrace of man-centred philosophy.


Are we limited to scripture or "godly expositors", if they are, for knowledge? Man centered philosophy is the only philosophy possible, being a reflection on things and people etc (by men and women). Obviously you're speaking in hyperbole but perhaps you could narrow down you're concern here to show just what your problem is. Is Dooyweerd acceptable? 
Also common grace comes to mind, along with natural law (which we reflect on in our history). Civilization still stands, last time I checked we still have murder on the books. 
He said (Kant) I believe he was a Christian if he "exhibited fruit of the new birth" I don't know (he lived 200 hundred years ago). If its man centered philosophy you're concerned with than we agree but the above comments ought to at least vindicate some philosophy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 3, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Not my title. And as I've suggested, no, I don't think Kantian idealism is compatible with the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm joking for one. But I don't even like Kant he owes me owes me money from an illegal poker game last week. He was like "transcendental this and transcendental that", I said there's nothing transcendental about cash in hand. He still didn't pay.
But seriously I've never defended him (to my knowledge).


----------

