Benefits of studying philosophy

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Toasty

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have heard that one of the benefits of studying philosophy is that it will help to improve one's reasoning skills. Can other fields of study help one to improve their reasoning skills just as well as philosophy?

Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?
 
Toasty said:
I have heard that one of the benefits of studying philosophy is that it will help to improve one's reasoning skills. Can other fields of study help one to improve their reasoning skills just as well as philosophy?

Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?
Click to expand...

Logic is usually seen as a sub-discipline of philosophy. Studying mathematics would help, though the leading mathematicians of the 20th century were also philosophers (Whitehead, Russell). I suppose studying economics would help one's reasoning, but economics has traditionally been called moral philosophy.

It also depends what kind of philosophy. Platonic dialogues help, as would some of Aristotle.
 
There is a thread which might be helpful: Relationship between philosophy and theology.

Philosophy is normally man trying to figure out himself and the universe from his perspective. Consider the story of Paul visiting Athens in Acts 17. The Greeks in that city gave themselves to nothing but philosophies and the study of new ideas. What did their best get them? Paul said, let me tell you about the God you do not know, the "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;" (Acts 17:24,25)

I have heard men who develop their doctrine from the study of the Bible, theology and apologetics interact with men who develop their "Christian" doctrine from the rules of philosophy. The former describe men made in the image of God, and the latter describe a god made in the image of man.
 
"Theology is the Queen of the Sciences and Philosophy is her handmaid." ~Scholastic Proverb
 
If you want to understand Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Aquinas, anything related to Prolegomena in theology (Bavinck, volume 1) you need to be fairly well acquainted with basic philosophy.
 
Toasty said:
Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?
Click to expand...

The modern preoccupation with "method" means that the study of any discipline, including theology, will be full of philosophical speculation. Knowing the basic issues and schools of thought enables one to discern philosophical trends and have a sense of where they will lead.
 
If you want to "sharpen" your thinking without getting into vain areas in philosophy, here's what worked for me (and these are in no particular order).

1. Pick up a copy of Plato's dialogues. They are actually quite fun. There are always hidden assumptions and Plato teaches you how to spot them (while having a few himself).
2. Get JP Moreland's Love your God with all your Mind. He has a logic course within the book.
3. The standard text on Logic is Copi & Cohen. Don't buy the $175 edition. Earlier editions can be found for a handful of pennies.
4. Analytic philosophy is probably more helpful than continental stuff. Though there are dangers in both.
5. Acquaint yourself with the classics of philosophy. I already mentioned Plato. Find works like the Pocket Aristotle, Also Descartes' Meditions.
6. Zoom in on problems in philosophy (like Universals).
 
Developing reasoning skills can start with understanding language, definitions, grammar, context, logic. If this sounds overly simplistic, I would ask this question. How can any of us understand or reason without the basic tools of language?

The Westminster Confession of Faith said:
CHAPTER I. Of the Holy Scripture.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded [offered for consideration] and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold [many in number], but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Click to expand...
So the Westminster Confession of Faith says it is possible through ordinary means that the average man (the unlearned man) can understand what the Bible says about salvation. But be aware that knowing and understanding what God has said in the Bible about what is necessary for salvation is a completely different thing from the heart accepting and believing what God has said about salvation.

In his "Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans", Martin Luther wrote,

Martin Luther said:
To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter [of Paul to the Romans] and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.
Click to expand...

L. W. Grensted in his book A Short History of the Doctrine of Atonement tells that in the writings of the early Christian church, the words of the Bible such as sacrifice, propitiation, and redemption were understood and needed no explanation. This is quite different from modern times.

L. W. Grensted said:
During the first two centuries after Christ little or no attempt was made to advance beyond or to interpret the statements of the New Testament. It was not in theory but in life that the Living Fact approved itself to men, and so it is natural that the earliest days of the Church should be marked by emphasis upon the Atonement as a fact. Of theory there is none. The subject is treated in the main devotionally, and the language of the New Testament is used freely and without comment. Such terms as "sacrifice," "propitiation," "redemption," recur again and again, but no conscious effort is ever made to work out what is implied in them. They were felt to suffice as they stood to express the Christian experience of the Cross. The age of doubts and questionings had not yet begun.
Click to expand...

Here are excerpts from an article entitle "A Word Of Warning" written by Arthur W. Pink in his monthly publication called Studies In The Scriptures, August 1934.

Arthur W. Pink said:
"Take heed what you hear." Mark 4:24

The word hear obviously includes what is read, for that which is written or printed is addressed to the ears of our intellect. Few people today realize the urgent need for 'taking heed' unto what they read. Just as the natural food which is eaten either helps or hinders the body; so the mental food we receive either benefits or injures the mind, and that, in turn, affects the heart. Now just as it is harmful to listen to the rubbish and poison which is being served from the great majority of present-day pulpits, so it is exceedingly injurious to the soul to read most of what is now being published. Take heed what you hear--and read!

"Those who are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh" (Romans 8:5), and are charmed with oratorical eloquence, catchy sayings, witty allusions, and jocular displays. On just such husks do the religious swine feed; but the penitent prodigal can find no nutriment therein!

Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless--no matter what prominent or popular name is attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which profits not.

Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed! Take heed what you hear--and read!
Click to expand...
There is no substitute for spending time in God's Word. All other writing must be judged against God's Word.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Toasty said:
I have heard that one of the benefits of studying philosophy is that it will help to improve one's reasoning skills. Can other fields of study help one to improve their reasoning skills just as well as philosophy?

Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?
Click to expand...

Logic is usually seen as a sub-discipline of philosophy. Studying mathematics would help, though the leading mathematicians of the 20th century were also philosophers (Whitehead, Russell). I suppose studying economics would help one's reasoning, but economics has traditionally been called moral philosophy.

It also depends what kind of philosophy. Platonic dialogues help, as would some of Aristotle.
Click to expand...

You are right about math. Solving math problems requires one to think logically.
 
I second the "Spending time in God's Word." You don't want to fall for an elaborate philosophical system in place of the truth. Philosophy can ensnare people anywhere from Rome to atheism (Thomism to Marxism).
 
KeithW said:
Developing reasoning skills can start with understanding language, definitions, grammar, context, logic. If this sounds overly simplistic, I would ask this question. How can any of us understand or reason without the basic tools of language?

The Westminster Confession of Faith said:
CHAPTER I. Of the Holy Scripture.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded [offered for consideration] and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold [many in number], but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Click to expand...
So the Westminster Confession of Faith says it is possible through ordinary means that the average man (the unlearned man) can understand what the Bible says about salvation. But be aware that knowing and understanding what God has said in the Bible about what is necessary for salvation is a completely different thing from the heart accepting and believing what God has said about salvation.

In his "Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans", Martin Luther wrote,

Martin Luther said:
To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter [of Paul to the Romans] and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.
Click to expand...

L. W. Grensted in his book A Short History of the Doctrine of Atonement tells that in the writings of the early Christian church, the words of the Bible such as sacrifice, propitiation, and redemption were understood and needed no explanation. This is quite different from modern times.

L. W. Grensted said:
During the first two centuries after Christ little or no attempt was made to advance beyond or to interpret the statements of the New Testament. It was not in theory but in life that the Living Fact approved itself to men, and so it is natural that the earliest days of the Church should be marked by emphasis upon the Atonement as a fact. Of theory there is none. The subject is treated in the main devotionally, and the language of the New Testament is used freely and without comment. Such terms as "sacrifice," "propitiation," "redemption," recur again and again, but no conscious effort is ever made to work out what is implied in them. They were felt to suffice as they stood to express the Christian experience of the Cross. The age of doubts and questionings had not yet begun.
Click to expand...

Here are excerpts from an article entitle "A Word Of Warning" written by Arthur W. Pink in his monthly publication called Studies In The Scriptures, August 1934.

Arthur W. Pink said:
"Take heed what you hear." Mark 4:24

The word hear obviously includes what is read, for that which is written or printed is addressed to the ears of our intellect. Few people today realize the urgent need for 'taking heed' unto what they read. Just as the natural food which is eaten either helps or hinders the body; so the mental food we receive either benefits or injures the mind, and that, in turn, affects the heart. Now just as it is harmful to listen to the rubbish and poison which is being served from the great majority of present-day pulpits, so it is exceedingly injurious to the soul to read most of what is now being published. Take heed what you hear--and read!

"Those who are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh" (Romans 8:5), and are charmed with oratorical eloquence, catchy sayings, witty allusions, and jocular displays. On just such husks do the religious swine feed; but the penitent prodigal can find no nutriment therein!

Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless--no matter what prominent or popular name is attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which profits not.

Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed! Take heed what you hear--and read!
Click to expand...
There is no substitute for spending time in God's Word. All other writing must be judged against God's Word.
Click to expand...

I agree. Knowing God's Word can help you to discern between truth and error.
 
ReformedReidian said:
If you want to "sharpen" your thinking without getting into vain areas in philosophy, here's what worked for me (and these are in no particular order).

1. Pick up a copy of Plato's dialogues. They are actually quite fun. There are always hidden assumptions and Plato teaches you how to spot them (while having a few himself).
2. Get JP Moreland's Love your God with all your Mind. He has a logic course within the book.
3. The standard text on Logic is Copi & Cohen. Don't buy the $175 edition. Earlier editions can be found for a handful of pennies.
4. Analytic philosophy is probably more helpful than continental stuff. Though there are dangers in both.
5. Acquaint yourself with the classics of philosophy. I already mentioned Plato. Find works like the Pocket Aristotle, Also Descartes' Meditions.
6. Zoom in on problems in philosophy (like Universals).
Click to expand...

The books by Moreland and Copi & Cohen look good.
 
Sarfati wrote, if we marry theology to today's science ,we will well be widowed tomorrow!
That could also be used for philosophy. Whilst I would not denigrate minds that can investigate
philosophically, I think that too much dalliance in that realm can injure ones religous life.
Warfield comments, 'Theology is stamped in each age with the traits of the philosophy ruling at
the time'. Theology and philosophy can so easily begin a war. As long as we know and are confident
in bible truth, this is the sword to wield.
Our own Phillip Henry stated,'The true learning of a gospel minister consists, not in being able
to talk Latin fluently, and to dispute in philosophy, but in being able to speak a word in season
to weary souls. He that knows how to do that well, is a learned minister'.
 
People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.
 
ReformedReidian said:
People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.
Click to expand...

Can you offer any suggestions for an introductory volume that might be beneficial for someone not well versed in the basic concepts, and the specialized vocabulary ?
 
JimmyH said:
ReformedReidian said:
People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.
Click to expand...

Can you offer any suggestions for an introductory volume that might be beneficial for someone not well versed in the basic concepts, and the specialized vocabulary ?
Click to expand...

Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginner's Guide to Life's Big Questions: Garrett J. DeWeese, J. P. Moreland: 9780830827664: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Terms-Philoso...=1432767552&sr=8-6&keywords=kelly+james+clark
And the aforementioned work by Moreland.
 
JimmyH said:
ReformedReidian said:
People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.
Click to expand...

Can you offer any suggestions for an introductory volume that might be beneficial for someone not well versed in the basic concepts, and the specialized vocabulary ?
Click to expand...


http://www.amazon.com/The-Love-Wisdom-Introduction-Philosophy/dp/0805447709
 
For a basic introduction from a reformed perspective I recommend Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash.
 
MW said:
For a basic introduction from a reformed perspective I recommend Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash.
Click to expand...

I second that, and if you have access to Itunes, I recommend all the courses by Nash. He was a wonderful teacher.
 
ReformedReidian said:
If you want to understand Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Aquinas, anything related to Prolegomena in theology (Bavinck, volume 1) you need to be fairly well acquainted with basic philosophy.
Click to expand...

Augustine was influenced by Platonism and Aquinas was influenced by Aristole's philosophy. Knowing about Plato and Aristotle would help one to understand Augustine and Aquinas.
 
Toasty said:
ReformedReidian said:
If you want to understand Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Aquinas, anything related to Prolegomena in theology (Bavinck, volume 1) you need to be fairly well acquainted with basic philosophy.
Click to expand...

Augustine was influenced by Platonism and Aquinas was influenced by Aristole's philosophy. Knowing about Plato and Aristotle would help one to understand Augustine and Aquinas.
Click to expand...

And the Reformed scholastics used Aristotelian terminology.
 
I thought someone would mention Vern Poythress's work on Logic. The book is available for free as a .pdf

If there is any qualm with Poythress' works, please point me to it. I hope it is fine to share his work here on PB. I know many have issues with Frame, with whom Poythress shares a blog.
 
Kaj said:
I thought someone would mention Vern Poythress's work on Logic. The book is available for free as a .pdf

If there is any qualm with Poythress' works, please point me to it. I hope it is fine to share his work here on PB. I know many have issues with Frame, with whom Poythress shares a blog.
Click to expand...

This is a great book. Thanks for the link.
 
Another line of approach:

Get Analytic Theology by Crisp and Rea. The contributors do a fine job of showing how philosophy can help. It also raises issues that aren't easily dismissed. Highly recommended (and it isn't that difficult to read).

The next is to invest in some works by Alvin Plantinga. Not so much for his conclusions (though I think he is more or less correct) but because he shows you how to work through some tough issues. I would start with God and Other Minds or God, Freedom, and Evil, and Kelly James Clark's Return to Reason.

Finally, and be afraid, for this is hard, is to get Moreland and Craig's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. It took me ten years to comprehend it, but it has one of the best chapters on logic from a Christian perspective ever penned.
 
I just found out that the University of New Orleans has several philosophy courses on iTunes such as philosophy of mind, ethics, philosophy of natural science, philosophy of religion, logic, and so on.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Another line of approach:

Get Analytic Theology by Crisp and Rea. The contributors do a fine job of showing how philosophy can help. It also raises issues that aren't easily dismissed. Highly recommended (and it isn't that difficult to read).

The next is to invest in some works by Alvin Plantinga. Not so much for his conclusions (though I think he is more or less correct) but because he shows you how to work through some tough issues. I would start with God and Other Minds or God, Freedom, and Evil, and Kelly James Clark's Return to Reason.

Finally, and be afraid, for this is hard, is to get Moreland and Craig's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. It took me ten years to comprehend it, but it has one of the best chapters on logic from a Christian perspective ever penned.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestions. Moreland and Craig's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview cover a wide range of topics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Interest in studying philosophy
Replies
8
Views
3K
VictorBravo
VictorBravo
C
  • Locked
Philosophy of Time
Replies
9
Views
3K
Claudiu
C
steven-nemes
  • Locked
Philosophy of Language
Replies
11
Views
3K
CatechumenPatrick
CatechumenPatrick
C
  • Locked
Philosophy of Mind
Replies
9
Views
3K
Don
D
C
  • Locked
Origin of philosophy
Replies
3
Views
2K
VictorBravo
VictorBravo
Back
Top