Some Helpful Philosophy & General Study Tools & Resources…

ToolsAs I’m always on the move, it’s sometimes hard to find time to sit down and read a good book on the history of philosophy or catch up on the current trends in philosophy. Thankfully, there are some very helpful free podcasts. These aren’t Christian resources, I should note, but they  are nevertheless very informative. There are currents of thought that Christians can take note of, track, analyze in light of the Scriptures and, well, tear to shreds ;)

Here are some resources I’ve been using lately. Hope they are helpful to you as well.

History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps — This podcast is slowly working through the history of philosophy in a detailed manner, at times bringing in scholars to interview/dialogue with about old interpretations of a given philosopher and newer interpretations of the same philosopher (e.g. Aristotle as he was interpreted by Medievalists and how he is understood today).

philosophy bites — This podcast deals with more contemporary treatments of the ancient philosophers, as well as with contemporary developments in philosophy. There seems to be a heavy leaning toward empiricism and materialism, but the dialogue/interview form of the podcast invites disagreement with their philosophical pre-commitments.

FB Reader & Ivona Voice (both for Android Devices) — FB Reader is a free e-reader application for Android devices which has a text-to-speech  function that reads aloud epub and .mobi format ebook. This can be a great help to those who can’t afford audiobooks or who don’t have the time to read as much as they would like to (i.e. me).

What can be a problem, however, is the synthetic robot voice that comes installed with your Android device. Thankfully, there is a company that provides beta versions of their rather high quality synthetic voices. The voices are all female for now,  and they are 100% free.

Librivox.org — Librivox.org is a provider of free public domain audiobooks. There are many good readers who contribute there, but there are others which are less than ideal, let’s say. Although it is kind of hit and miss with respect to the voice and style of the reader, it is nevertheless a very good, free resource. Plato’s Republic is excellently read, as is Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols and The Gay Science.

Well, that’s all I got for now. Hope you are benefited by these :)

-h.

Advertisements

What is a “Philosophical” Argument?

Avoiding the Inexorable Consequences of One’s Beliefs

Since the debate a few weeks ago, I’ve been talking to annihilationists about the foundations on which they build their doctrine. The result has not been very fruitful, as there has been much misunderstanding from the annihilationist camp about the various critiques I have been offering. In the course of our interactions, the accusation arose that we (myself and Michael Burgos from grassrootsapologetics.org) were making “philosophical” arguments and not “Biblical” arguments. The statement bugged me because it is, well, worthless in terms of refuting any singular point that one’s opponent raises in a given discussion. What is worse, however, is the fact that the assertion wrongly identifies logic as philosophy, which are two different things.  Logic is the science of necessary inference; philosophy is a branch of study that involves the study of knowledge (i.e. epistemology), the study of first principles (i.e. metaphysics), the study of being/s (i.e. ontology), and the study of ethics. Logic is prerequisite to all cognition. Philosophy is the fruit of such cognition.

So the accusation that a person is making a “philosophical” argument, as opposed to a Biblical one, is a meaningless assertion. What I’ve noticed, however, is that the accusation occurs when prooftexting is not involved in the argument that one is making, but deduction from a given set of premises (whether Biblical or extrabiblical). Yet this still does not give one grounds to identify the argument as a “philosophical” argument. Why then is this meaningless assertion used? Because it is a way to avoid dealing with the inexorable consequences of one’s beliefs. For instance, if a Romanist’s simultaneous belief in the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary leads us to conclude that if Mary was perpetually a virgin, then Joseph was perpetually subject to sexual temptation, Mary was willfully neglecting her duty to be physically intimate with Joseph and, therefore, guilty of sin and could not have been born without the taint and stain of original sin, will he concede the point? Not at all. Rather, the focus will be shifted. The one who draws out the logical consequences of the Romanist’s idolatry will be shunned as rationalistic, or his arguments will be said to be the fruit of philosophical speculation, or something of that sort. “Mary’s perpetual virginity and immaculate conception,” they will retort, “are a mystery that you must accept, even if you think it is irrational.”

Regarding the annihilationists I mentioned above, a similar course of action was taken. Arguments that work deductively, were identified as “philosophical” and not logical. The one making the assertion had the advantage, because he was then in a position to state that he wa arguing biblically and not philosophically. This move can only be made in one of two ways: (1.)abject ignorance of what philosophy, logic, and theology are, or (2.)a good understanding of the differences between philosophy, logic, and theology, and yet the unwillingness of the one who knows these things to follow his beliefs to their inexorable conclusions.

This is not Christian thinking, but cultic reasoning. And as such, it is completely unfit for all who profess the name of Christ.

I have written some more on this, but I will post it over @ Grassroots Apologetics.

Soli.

Deo.

Gloria.

-h.