I originally wrote:
"Is it elitist to think that wisdom is not susceptible to being marketed to the masses? Or that it is futile for one to pursue wisdom without an authentic moral conversion?"
He responded:
I have no idea how Dr. Morris found this inconsequential blog. Thank you for your response!
Maybe it's not elitist to think that wisdom can't be marketed to the masses, just overly pessimistic. Marketing is an interesting phenomenon. Those who are responsive will take the information the marketing has provided and do something with it. Those who are not will not. What's lost? There are lots of people who want more wisdom in their lives and don't know where to find it, which is why so many sham counterfeit purveyors of wisdom can make so much money with their false and superficially hyperbolic promises. But when the real truth is made available, through "marketing" or whatever means, those who hunger and thirst for the real thing will take action.
I've seen it work for over 20 years.
Tom Morris
Author of If Harry Potter Ran General Electric, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, Philosophy for Dummies, The Art of Achievement, The Stoic Art of Living, True Success, and lots of other stuff.
I suppose one should distinguish between speculative wisdom and moral/practical wisdom--it might be easier to lead someone to the beginnings of speculative wisdom, despite their having a moral state, but if God is a problem for that person, it seems to me that proving God's existence to that person will require more than good reasoning. With respect to practical/wisdom--one can lead them to the beginnings of phronesis/prudence, if they have the beginnings of virtue, in general, and do not have a corrupt character or mind. So, one does what can to bring the truth to others.
Perhaps it is pessimistic; but as a Catholic Christian I wonder if taking a purely "natural" approach [relying on the "natural law" as the primary means of witness] is enough, or if, as some Orthodox seem to suggest, that one should take Christ as the center of everything, and begin with Christ. That is to say, one should not only have a solid spiritual life grounded in Christ, but one should start with Christ, and not with naturally knowable morality.
Which reminds me... Dr. Pakaluk has asked whether Aristotle, when he differentiates between persuasive arguments from a rhetorician and a mathematician's demonstrations, is elitist or egalitarian. Then he discusses Richard Kraut's position on the question.
2 comments:
In saying that you need more than good reasoning to prove the existence of God to someone, do you mean the personal God of Revelation, or God as prime mover?
Of course demonstration in itself will not directly produce the supernatural virtue of Faith; but it can help remove obstacles.
Still, the use of reasoning to prove God's existence may be necessary for someone who has real intellectual obstacles (like certain contemporary scientists, but they may be too attached to their own opinions), but for most people I don't think it will be that necessary--the obstacles are primarily moral in nature. Any sort of intellectual defense they provide is a rationalization they come up afterwards to justify their behavior.
Hence my question about whether taking a sort of "natural" or apologetical approach in evangelization is effective as the primary way of doing things, or if it is better to keep it in a subordinate role, and to focus on witnessing to Christ instead.
Obviously we wouldn't want to treat evangelization like an intellectual debate we have to win. Maybe I am thinking that our witness needs to be more radical--instead of merely living the status quo and pretending that all that is necessary for salvation is to be a "good" American who lives the American way of life, but stays away from breaking the commandments, we should see if we should do something more (and question the American way of life in the process). Perhaps not as radical as the Catholic Worker movement, but who knows, maybe that is necessary.
Post a Comment