For 12/3: Faith & Reason

Our last readings of the semester deal with the often uneasy relationship between faith and reason. Whereas Augustine follows the dictum of "faith seeking understanding," Aquinas more clearly divides the two. Can faith and reason happily coexist with one another? Which should take precedence if they come into conflict? And what do such conflicts suggest about the nature of truth itself? From Galileo to Darwin, these questions have routinely entered the public consciousness during the last few centuries and continue to generate a good deal of debate today. What might we add to this discussion?

From 11/19: Born to be Free

Following our dissussion of evil, we considered how Aquinas's Natural Law can steer us towards the good. Returning to Augustine, we then debated whether human freedom and divine foreknowledge can coexist. Though God knows what lies in our future, Augustine nevertheless feels that this is a future that we freely choose. This raises the further question of whether God should have made us free if He knew that we would sin. Much to think about here - and feel "free" to bring in our feature presentation, The Name of the Rose.

For 11/19: Freedom & Foreknowledge

Knowing that Augustine attributes moral evil to the free choice of the will, it now becomes a question of why God created us with a free will in the first place. Did God drop the ball on this one? Does it even make sense to say that God dropped the ball? If not, why did he make us free if he knew what would result? Speaking of which, if he does know how all things ultimately result, are we really free to begin with? So many questions, so little time!

From 11/12: Reconciling with Evil

Now that we've broached Augustine's understanding of evil as the privation of good, it is worth considering whether or not this definition proves satisfactory. Do all our actions aim at the good? Is evil simply a matter of mistaken priorities and inordinate desires? Does are own free will let God "off the hook" as the ultimate cause of evil and suffering in the universe? Let's hear what you're thinking.

For 11/12: Good & Evil

Belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent Being brings with it a number of problems, one of which is the problem of evil. Given the undeniable occurrence of evil and suffering in the world, how might we reconcile this with a belief in God? While Augustine carefully considers this problem in On Free Choice of the Will, Aquinas uses the Natural Law to lead us out of evil and toward the good. Do their doctrines prove satisfactory or does the problem of evil still give us pause?

From 11/5: The God Debate

Now that the dust has settled from Wednesday night's debate, what else might be said? Can reason alone arrive at the existence of God or is faith required? If reason is enough, do we start with the idea of God itself (like Anselm) or must we start from our experience of the world around us (like Augustine and Aquinas)? Though we've said a good deal already, this a chance to sound off once more.

For 11/5: The Existence & Nature of God

Does God exist? If so, how might we prove it? Though Saints Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas all believe that rational proofs can be given, they each go about the task in rather different ways. Is one approach better than another? Do any of their arguments prove sufficient or is a definitive proof ultimately impossible? Further, even if we can prove God exists, what can we say about His nature? Who is God and how does He differ from ourselves?

From 10/29: The Good Life

So what is the key to happiness? Is Aristotle right to say it is some combination of virtuous activity and philosophical contemplation? Further, do you agree that the best sort of society is made up of the best sort of people who maximally participate in the political process? Or is Plato right to say that the best society would be run by the enlightened few? Argue away!

For 10/29: Aristotle's Ethics & Politics

Whereas the Ethics focuses on the good life for the individual, the Politics focuses on the good life for the community as a whole. As we might expect, however, these two "lives" are importantly related to one another. So, what do you think of Aristotle's prescription for the happy life? Are his critiques of Plato's ideal "Republic" justified? Is it even possible to give an account for the best sort of human life and the best sort of political state? Certainly not easy questions, but important ones to consider nonetheless.

From 10/22: It's all about Soul

For Aristotle, all living things - be they plants, animals, or humans - have a soul, albeit in different forms. Do you think that Aristotle does well in making these distinctions or do you think they leave something to be desired? Certainly, modern biologists still deal with classifications. Might they take issue with some of the lines that Aristotle draws in the proverbial sand, particularly when it comes to defining human beings, or might they more or less agree with Aristotle's analysis?

For 10/22: Aristotle's De Anima

De Anima moves away from the more general considerations of being and becoming that we have been dealing with and focuses on the nature of living beings. How does Aristotle categorize the different types of soul? Is his understanding of the relationship between the body and soul consistent with his metaphysics? Do you, personally, find anything surprising here? Which insights do you take to be the most important and why? Clue us in to what you're thinking.

From 10/15: Thought Thinking Itself

On Wednesday, we considered a wide variety of topics: from the order of nature to the importance of philosophical wonder to the alleged necessity of the unmoved mover. For Aristotle, of course, all of these topics center around the question of Being, the most fundamental of all questions. Since all of us are instilled with a desire to know, let's keep the questioning going.

For 10/15: Aristotle's Metaphysics

Unlike the so-called "special" sciences (such as biology, zoology, or astronomy) which consider a particular domain of beings, Aristotle's Metaphysics explores being as being. By practicing "first philosophy," the metaphysician considers the underlying principles and causes that pervade the coming-to-be and passing-away of all beings, in both an accidental and substantial sense. In particular we find here an in-depth consideration of substance, the relationship between actuality and potentiality, and the special substance which Aristotle calls divine.

From 10/8: Change We Can Believe In

Against the Parmenidean claim that nothing comes to be, Aristotle argues that change is indeed possible on both a substantial and accidental level. He then goes on to detail the four causes that are involved in the coming-to-be process (namely, the material, formal, efficient, and final) before considering whether luck and chance can be considered legitimate causes as well. Now that we've taken our first steps into Aristotle, let us know what you're thinking.

For 10/8: Aristotle's Physics

Though Aristotle takes more of an interest in the natural world than his predecessor, Plato, his relections on nature revolve around the relationship between being and becoming. In the Physics we find Aristotle discoursing on some of his famous doctrines, including the four causes, the relationship between form and matter, and the order apparent within the natural world. So let us begin again, retaining (hopefully) what we have already learned.

From 10/1: For the Love of. . .Rhetoric?!?!

Perhaps you have more to say on the nature of love. Does Plato have it right or does something seem amiss? Or perhaps you'd rather comment on the art of rhetoric and the power of persuasion - certainly an interesting subject during the last few weeks of the presidential campaigns. Let the debates begin!

For 10/1: Plato's Phaedrus

What is love and what role does it play in human experience? Over the course of the Phaedrus, Plato portrays love in a number of (perhaps unexpected) ways. Does he hit the mark here or is there something missing? And what does all of this have to do with the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric? Once again, Plato provides us with much food for thought.

From 9/24: Rehearsing for Death

Though many topics are broached in the Phaedo, the central themes concern the nature of the soul (its relation to the body, whether it survives after death, etc.) and Plato's metaphysical doctrine of the Forms. For Plato, these two themes run together as the soul and Forms share a certain kinship with one another. So let's keep the conversation going as we'll certainly want to talk more about the Forms next week.

For 9/24: Plato's Phaedo

Part of Plato's "middle period," the Phaedo is understood by most commentators to mark the point where Plato begins to assert his own views over - and perhaps against? - his mentor Socrates. Here two important themes are brought to the fore: the (possible) immortality of the soul and the so-called doctrine of the Forms. Metaphysics here we come!

From 9/17: Piety & Virtue & Knowledge, Oh My!

After considering the relationship between morality and religion, we went on to talk about both the nature of virtue and the possibility of human knowledge. Should morality and religion be separated from each other? Is virtue nothing other than a form of knowledge? Does Socrates convince us that knowledge is possible with his theory of recollection? Let us know what you think.

For 9/17: Plato's Meno

Whereas ethics and epistemology are typically treated by philosophers as separate areas of study, leave it to Plato to talk about virtue and knowledge in the same dialogue. What is virtue?Can it be taught or is it in some way innate? Can we ever know anything for certain? How might we know when we know? These and many more questions await our further investigation.

From 9/10: Getting to Know Socrates

Through the Clouds and the Euthyphro, we got a good feel for the person of Socrates -- how he was perceived, how he argued, what he took to be important, and perhaps even why he was put to death. We also talked a bit about piety, a topic which ceratinly deserves some more attention. So let us know what you're thinking after Wednesday night's class.

For 9/10: The Clouds & The Euthyphro

Whereas Aristophanes takes a humorous look at philosophy by lampooning Socrates, Plato evidences the classic Socratic approach to philosophy as he considers the true nature of piety. Does Aristophanes's humor still ring true today? Who is he most poking fun at? On the other hand, why might it be important to consider the nature of piety? Are we, as a culture, as unreflective as Euthyphro in this regard? Tell us what you think.

From 9/3: The Pre-Socratics & The Sophists

In our first meeting, we talked about the different branches of philosophy, Pre-Socratic philosophy, and the sophists who lived and taught during Socrates's time. What do you make of the beginnings of Western Philosophy, its early development, or perhaps its place in society today?