An interesting narrative I heard recently was that “some time around the fifteenth century, philosophy shifted from studying the True, the Good, and the Beautiful to justifying the skeptic.”
I find this idea interesting because there’s a couple of clues that lead to insights that are helpful to understand. For starters, the phrasing “philosophy shifted” implies that the teleology of philosophy is dynamic. To make this sentiment easier to understand, it can be said that philosophy started to play a different game. The shift in the aim of philosophy marked different rules and boundary conditions.
Because philosophy is a fallible field, that means the shift in focus can be for the worse — and I am of the impression that it was. This, in tandem with the fact that philosophy can shift games, means that you have the power to both disagree with the game being played and also advocate for a different game.
This offers some room to enfranchise us. I feel quite at liberty to say that I disagree with the current game of justifying the skeptic. I think this aim of philosophy cultivates a certain attitude of continued skepticism and need for constant intellectual revolution. I don’t see it as being constructive. I think this has been borne out in the modern philosophical tradition. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the conclusions drawn, it is inarguable that the very heritage of the Christian West has been undermined; Nation has been deconstructed; Identity has been re-identified; Language has been retooled; and God has been deprioritized. This is precisely because we have felt the need to justify the skeptic; the monster is never satisfied.
And so, the question remains, “is this good?” I think not; destructivity is not the way to go, at least not for a Christian. A destructive mindset is just that: destructive. It doesn’t build nor does it provide. A destructive mindset also seems to beget a strange habitude in people: paralysis. People become paralyzed in the world because they become so deeply obsessed with holding the correct views that they constantly subject themselves to unending scrutiny. Everything is in a constant state of revision, instead of accepting certain grounding facts and a story from which to build. This causes skepticism.
It’s not that we are forced or necessitated to sit and justify ourselves to the skeptic. We don’t have to be determined to be destructive as well. These are choices, no matter how automatic they may seem. When questioned by a skeptic, not justifying yourself is just as logically possible a choice as justifying yourself to them is; and the same can be said of how much liberty you are at. But, one choice is going to be more productive than the other. This is precisely why your scope and aim of philosophy matters so much: you are just as free to choose paralysis and destruction as you are power and enacting creativity. And you are inevitably forced to choose a scope and aim, either by force — in the domain of being prompted for reason — or by taking the time to decide which is best.
It’s true that everyone is at freedom to question anything. Usually this is embodied by skeptical people never finding a satisfactory answer in their study of religious people. I think we can flip this script, and in a constructive way. We are at liberty to question the underlying spirit that is always questioning and never building. Is that spirit one that provides for a good life? Does the acquisition of it help anyone achieve the things they want to achieve? Do I want to be in that state? Your answer to this is not nothing; it is what you are going to live with until you either change your answer or die.
My point with this is not to say that we should be judging people. I am saying that I think it’s fair to discern what is being said. St. Maximus says that wisdom’s beauty is knowledge put into practice — if a philosophy is being embodied, and the fruit is not sweet, why listen to it?
And to address another objection that may be brought up, even the saying, “the fruit is not good,” is interacting with a benchmark, and this benchmark is objective. I don’t believe this way of thinking I am offering falls into subjectivism; in fact, it’s been born from careful consideration of what is objective, and then taking the step to do my best to live that to the best of my ability: Orthodox Christianity.
Because of my Orthodoxy, I know what state I want to be in: the bliss of the Holy Spirit. And I know where to find that: His Church. I know the role models to look to: the Saints; and I know what I want to be: a Saint. If I am set on what I want and know where to find it, with the knowledge that these desires are both aligning with the objective benchmark of Good and our natural desire to be aligned with Him in likeness, what’s the point of justifying myself to someone objecting? And moreover, why would I tell them my belief unprompted, instead of showing it to them by lived experience?
I am of the opinion that I am not here to logically justify myself to anyone at all turns. That’s different from saying that I cannot back up our claims with good reason and evidence. I am ready, in fact, to defend my Orthodox Christian views. It’s just that I am so confident in the Church He has given us that I feel comfortable enough to live it. So my approach is different: an offering of how to live a good life, crafting in the Good. And I am interested in hearing suggestions of how to do that.
I think this is what our view of philosophy should be. The time spent justifying could be spent in prayer. Or reading Holy Scripture. Or feeding the poor. So why not readjust our understanding of philosophy to assist us in using our time productively? The name of the game should be figuring out how we can use our faculties to embody Good — Christ — in the world.
This approach is holistic in scope; it’s not about the mere affirmation of certain logical propositions — those are undoubtedly important — but also the understanding that beliefs are constantly embodied. Inaction is embodied as much as action is. The reality is that for each day you wake up, you are thrust into the arena of action by force; you are forced into embodying something, so have it not be nothing.
I am making the case for the old game. I am exhorting my fellow Christians to drop the need to justify ourselves to anyone demanding a justification. That doesn’t mean cut yourself off from any new suggestion. It does mean discern where the source of critique is coming from. We should be studying the True, the Good, and the Beautiful — and His name is Christ. We should be so rampant about our faith in Him that we are made peaceful and loving. Our study finds its end in embodiment.
Leave a Reply