Robert Riccaltoun on teaching philosophy simply

[Reformed Covenanter]

There is one thing, I cannot help observing, has contributed very much to discourage ordinary people from this useful study: It is that mysterious air of learning, and profound science, which speculative and scholastic writers scatter over their performances on these subjects, as if they scorned to say the most common and familiar things in a way that any but philosophers should understand. Certain it is, that there is not any one thing in the subject itself, but what falls as directly under the observation of a man of the plainest understanding, as of the profoundest philosopher, abating perhaps some refinements, which no man living can ever comprehend. ...

For more, see Robert Riccaltoun on teaching philosophy simply.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Who would be some who have taught it with that “mysterious air of learning”? And who has taught it more plainly?

 

[jwright82]

Who would be some who have taught it with that “mysterious air of learning”? And who has taught it more plainly?

Not sure. I had never heard of him until this thread. I looked him up and stumbled across a Google book site that had a physical scanned copy of one of his collected works (it looked very old and the old English writing was "fun" to decipher) section on philosophy. So I read about 30 pages to get a "feel" for him. Keep in mind I know next to nothing about him, other than basic stuff.
He seems to have both a negative view of certain philosophies and a working knowledge of the terminology of his day. He obviously was well read in philosophy and theology. Other than being acquainted with the terminology, he also knew something (or it was well known during his time) a lot of contemporary people don't know about ancient Greek philosophy. It was very religious in nature.
Pythagoras, and his followers, believed philosophy and monastic like asceticism could redeem the soul from this mortal shell. Plato and neo-Platonists furthered and refined this. Now he didn't say as much but simply quoting him saying "ancient Greek philosophy was a religion" wouldn't make much sense without the context I believe he's referring to.
I could be completely wrong but thats just my guess. He also, rightly, criticized philosophers for going beyond the limits of reason. He seemed to use very Humean arguments to this endeavor, without naming him (the only philosopher he named was Plato). But he also sounded like Ried in places so who knows.
I apologize I can only give an "impression" of my sense of his relationship to the philosophy of his day. But after 30 pages of old English I started dosing off, hope it helps. He also seems to employ (what may have been common in his day) the Thomistic distinction between faith and reason.

 

[RamistThomist]

Fun fact. This was what stimulated Peter Ramus's teaching methodology: to make the teaching of theology and philosophy simpler.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Not sure. I had never heard of him until this thread. I looked him up and stumbled across a Google book site that had a physical scanned copy of one of his collected works (it looked very old and the old English writing was "fun" to decipher) section on philosophy. So I read about 30 pages to get a "feel" for him. Keep in mind I know next to nothing about him, other than basic stuff.
He seems to have both a negative view of certain philosophies and a working knowledge of the terminology of his day. He obviously was well read in philosophy and theology. Other than being acquainted with the terminology, he also knew something (or it was well known during his time) a lot of contemporary people don't know about ancient Greek philosophy. It was very religious in nature.
Pythagoras, and his followers, believed philosophy and monastic like asceticism could redeem the soul from this mortal shell. Plato and neo-Platonists furthered and refined this. Now he didn't say as much but simply quoting him saying "ancient Greek philosophy was a religion" wouldn't make much sense without the context I believe he's referring to.
I could be completely wrong but thats just my guess. He also, rightly, criticized philosophers for going beyond the limits of reason. He seemed to use very Humean arguments to this endeavor, without naming him (the only philosopher he named was Plato). But he also sounded like Ried in places so who knows.
I apologize I can only give an "impression" of my sense of his relationship to the philosophy of his day. But after 30 pages of old English I started dosing off, hope it helps. He also seems to employ (what may have been common in his day) the Thomistic distinction between faith and reason.

I was mainly asking for a few names of philosophy teachers who put it simply (for people like me). I have Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash, which was helpful when I took a philosophy course a while back. Of course, he's teaching what philosophy is, more so than teaching a particular philosophy. But I don't have time to read philosophy, anyway, so jk.

 

[RamistThomist]

I was mainly asking for a few names of philosophy teachers who put it simply (for people like me). I have Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash, which was helpful when I took a philosophy course a while back. Of course, he's teaching what philosophy is, more so than teaching a particular philosophy. But I don't have time to read philosophy, anyway, so jk.

Nash is probably the best guy on this point. Also, see if you can find his audio lectures. He's such a fun guy to listen to. (Side note: he sounds like a 1930s Chicago mobster)

 

[jwright82]

I was mainly asking for a few names of philosophy teachers who put it simply (for people like me). I have Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash, which was helpful when I took a philosophy course a while back. Of course, he's teaching what philosophy is, more so than teaching a particular philosophy. But I don't have time to read philosophy, anyway, so jk.

At work now. Ill answer it after work. Unless someone else, RamistThomist (not to name names), wants to.

 

[RamistThomist]

Philosophy is thinking clearly. That's all. Of course, there are different schools but that's not important right now. The following texts are helpful with an eye to theology.

101 Key Terms of Philosophy for Theology (Smith et al)

Smith begins his section on aesthetics with a good discussion of Platonism’s rejection of art as a category of knowledge. That’s fine but then he projects that understanding forward to modern day Reformed, and then ties in the Reformed with 8th century iconoclasts. While some Reformed are...

puritanboard.com

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm really drawing a blank on the best texts to introduce philosophy. Nash is probably the best guy, but mainly his audio lectures.

 

[RamistThomist]

Sproul's Consequences of Ideas is pretty good.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I'm really drawing a blank on the best texts to introduce philosophy. Nash is probably the best guy, but mainly his audio lectures.

I found his audio lectures and will try to listen some. I don’t have much time to spare for it, but do think it’s meaningful. I appreciate the thoughts and recommendation. I did really appreciate him when I had my head into it a bit a few years ago.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Sproul's Consequences of Ideas is pretty good.

I forgot about Sproul, I’ll check that out.

 

[RamistThomist]

I forgot about Sproul, I’ll check that out.

And his ligonier tapes are the same content, if you like the audio format better.

 

[VictorBravo]

I thought Gordon Clark's Thales to Dewey was a good intro textbook. Might be hard to find. It is more of a survey than a systematic work.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Julian Marías's History of Philosophy is a good rundown of the most important philosophers and their conceptions of metaphysics. It will give you a better idea of the history of philosophy, and the writer's prose is enjoyable. It is not likely to help you think more clearly.