I believe the world is an emanation of God and that God grounds our very being and our purpose is to realize our non-dual union with God. I believe God’s mind as well as our minds contains abstract universals but in the physical world universals are particularized in the objects themselves as the natures of the objects. I also believe the purpose of ethics is to support the dignity and flourishing of the human. Which is why I criticize our mechanizing culture. BTW I’m also Catholic. So what am I?
Hey - welcome. I’m Catholic too.
That sounds like creation. And that makes the universe a miracle. Which I believe. Science/philosophy starts after the universe, living within the universe. So to talk about miraculous creation, to me, it seems, is not philosophical or scientific. It may be more important, but it’s not yet philosophy.
This sounds like it could be squeezed into the thoughts of Plato, Aristotle, even Heraclitus (if you pretend Fire is God), or Malebranch or Berkely, or maybe Spinoza or Liebniz, or Hegel. But really it sounds like Plato to me, and neo-platonism (Plotinus).
Now you’ve slipped back into something important again, but again, maybe outside of philosophy. But when you place “purpose” in the ontology, I think of Aristotle.
That sounds like Plato.
Aristotle.
The mechanics are a fun hobby to dissect, but as an end to build a better world (where we flawed, limited, selfish humans think we can come up with all the great ideas to build a “better human world”), it is utter folly and in need of critique.
But in the end, I conclude that there is no single school of thought that does justice to the truth. We are fortunate to live in a time when we can consult all of the thinkers above, as well as Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and others, all as tools in the laboratory of the mind to understand the human condition.
But we are most fortunate when we learn we can skip to the end, and simply look to Christ for the example of where we come from, how to get back there, and what is the truth.
Currently, I believe the person is the greatest subject of inquiry, and it often belittles the sum total of all the atoms and most complex theories about consciousness. It has become of more philosophical importance to me that I accept the necessity of suffering as good, I live in the world as it already is, in order to understand that poverty of spirit is the best I can offer, and by this, find hope.
But in the meantime, as a worthy distraction, philosophy is unavoidable.
Short answer: you might call yourself an Augustinian or a Thomist. But you are you either way.
This is Neoplatonism, one of the roots of Christianity, although this is also known as the perennial philosophy because it shows up in the mystical aspects of religions like Judaism and Islam.
It has some things in common with idealistic monism, but I think it ultimately is saying that the truest nature of reality is beyond human thought.
You are theocentrist.
Sounds like Catholic apophatic mysticism (Neoplatonic influence). What non-intellectual effort do you make to realize this non-dual union?
You appear to be a neoplatonist with heavy medieval scholastic leanings. I’m reading your future, and it involves seminary, and or a church school.
or Vedanta philosophy.