Human language is ordained according to certain rules and principles which “codify” the place of words in a sentence (syntax), the appropriate word usage (semantics), verb tense, and so on. For instance, we acquire, from childhood, the rule that English places the subject at the beginning of a sentence, followed by a verb, and, if necessary, an object. We would not change this order without the meaning becoming confused or completely nonsensical. Thus, we instinctively know that the proper form is “The cat eats the mouse” and not “The cat the mouse eats;” nor would we arrange words in this order: “The mouse eats the cat,” unless we really wanted to state something illogical, because English, unlike Greek, Latin, or German, does not decline nouns, and so requires words to occupy a specific position in a sentence.<\/p>\n
These rules, which we acquire through interaction with the society around us, are collectively known by the name of grammar. Now, grammar is not something devised from nothing for the purpose of creating a new, intellectual science. It performs a function, that of explaining the “codes” of a particular language. But as we have just seen, these codes, which determine the place of words in a sentence, or codify the use of a certain word over another, are inherant to all languages, and they determine our own choice of speech whether we are aware of them or not; they exist before the science of grammar. The role of grammatical science, then, is to make manifest these pre-existing codes, it rationalizes them by defining them. We do not need to learn grammar to learn basic language skills and be properly understood. Yet, once we are aware of the existence of these rules, and understand their particularities, grammar can greatly improve our own speech, and be used to refine it. We can decide for or against the use of a word in a particular sentence structure, etc. It is as if we beheld language from above in order to better grasp it and use it.<\/p>\n
The same is true of philosophy. Philosophy has as its object the true nature of the cosmos and of being. It studies the world in order to better understand it and, thus, uncover its true meaning. As a tool of reflection and search, it analyzes and hypothesizes about the world, the gods, the relationship between man and God, the place of nature in this system, etc. Now, it is clear that philosophy is not the mere delusioned fruit of minds too fertile. Rather, it is a way to apprehend the world as it exists by positing, through observation and logic, certain concepts about the world. As grammar defines and rationalizes the pre-existing codes of language, philosophy rationalizes the world, visible and invisible, to comprehend it and grasp its true nature. This rationalization is one of the great discoveries of the Greek mind, and one that distinguishes Greek thought, and with it the whole Western mind, from others (1).<\/p>\n
Now, as grammar is the rationalization of something that already exists, and that people use unconsciously, philosophy is the rationalization of a certain tacit conception of the world, a conception of which we are often unaware, that is hidden to our minds, but that nonetheless informs our perceptions, behaviors, and, ultimately, culture. This unaware, unconscious background we could call the “pre-philosophical background.”<\/p>\n
To understand what is meant by “pre-philosophical background,” we may introduce an example. In pre-Christian Greece, in fact since before Homer and Hesiod, the gods were thought to enjoy immortality, while men were on the other hand mortals; yet, immortality here means that even the gods were essentially present in the world<\/em>, subjects to its cycles and to fate. The gods, for the archaic Greeks, were of the same nature as human beings, their only distinction being that they did not die. This is manifest in Homer and Hesiod, for example. They could and did intervene in human affairs, and one of the goals of sacrificing and praying was to ask something from them for our own benefit. <\/p>\n This view is a far cry from the conception that the Persians had of their own deities, for example. Herodotus relates that “It is not of their customs to construct statues, temples, and altars; in fact, they count those who do so as fools because (I suppose), they do not anthropomorphize the gods as the Greeks do…They call the whole vault of heaven Zeus <\/em>” (I, 131). Herodotus’ testimony is important here: because the gods are not anthropomorphic beings, do not act among mankind as the Greek gods do, there is no need of altar as in the Graeco-Roman world, sacrifices are given an altogether different meaning and importance and, at last, the political system may even take different forms. It is these conceptions that are present in our thought without being necessarily consciously, or rationally comprehended that constitute the pre-philosophical background (the same hold with words: saying dominus<\/em> is not exactly synonymous with kyrios<\/em>; both words convey a different interpretation and role of the lord, and this implicit, tacit meaning is transfered not only upon our understanding, but also upon our laws ans social organization). <\/p>\n People have shared some such ideas since the very beginning of humankind; although they did not necessarily discourse on these, these concepts were there and informed people’s religion, attitude towards the gods, etc. Philosophy therefore made these concepts manifest. But more than this, it also went on to discover a better reality, a reality which is not so much a fabrication from the philosophers as it is a reality tacitely and unconsciously present: philosophy took on a moral quality. The allegory of the cave testifies to this aspect of the philosopher’s quest to discover the only true reality occluded by the material world. And so, they took a step beyond mere immortality and went on to focus on eternity. Eternity is unchanging, immutable because perfect, unlike immortality, which is still subject to the fluxes and passions of the world. Yet, the main elements of the ancient background picture of the cosmos remained, i.e. it was uncreated, the gods were still present within our world, etc. Whether we take Plato’s demiurge, or Aristotle’s Prime Mover, this supreme Being, this God is not the Creator God, and does not concern himself with humanity. He is also an absolute monad in essence, and cannot be changed. <\/p>\n The Incarnation and Resurrection transformed the perception of this background in fundamental ways. God became man, so that divinity and humanity could now intermingle; also, the world was no longer eternal, nor was it divine–it had a beginning in time; and, perhaps most significantly, the doctrine of grace would reshape man’s relationship with God in entirely new ways. Our entire background picture, how we mentally and unconsciously represent the world, was, if not turned upside down, at least radically transformed (2), and so was our society. For example, all men are now essentially brothers, poverty is elevated as an ideal, charity is materialized by hospitals and the abolition of gladiatorship, and so on. <\/p>\n This is why philosophy could ultimately be integrated into Christian theology: philosophy is a discourse that brings man to the understanding of what exists, as we said earlier. God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is what exists; philosophical discourse, as a tool of reason, can therefore be used to grasp the essential concepts of this truth. This the Greek fathers of the Church understood, and made abundant use of philosophy to comprehend the new condition of existence without altering the essential truths of Revelation<\/em>. Rather, it is the older conceptual terms that were changed or took on new meanings. Hence, the older notion of monad was no longer tenable to describe God; the new notion of Trinity required the introduction of new terms (hypostasis) unknown in this meaning to pre-Christian philosophy. The distinction between essence (ousia) and energy (energeia) also became fundamental to comprehend the new reality. There are two implications to this:<\/p>\n First, Christian revelation did not destroy philosophy as a discipline. Ancient philosophy was not a discipline whose tenets were immutable and unchangeable, since philosophy is not truth, but a questionning to arrive at truth. It is not because the ancient philosophers did not think the world to have a beginning in time, that we should reject Christian revelation as either un-Greek or false. Philosophy is not a dogma; its conclusions and arguments can be changed, re-interpreted, and can even be surpassed. When it encounters the Trinity, philosophy becomes theology; yet, it retains its speculative flavor (What is the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? How is union of man with God achieved? What are the steps to its realization?…). This is why, on the other hand, the only valid ground to theology is an intimate relationship with the Triune God–praying. Only by knowing Who the Trinity is is it possible to theologize and thus philosophize (“If you pray, you are a theologian; if you are a theologian, you pray truly”, said St. Neilos). <\/p>\n The other implication is that when Christian revelation encountered the Graeco-Roman world, especially its educated members, far from being corrupted into something else, it embraced its culture, permeatted it, and, in many ways, renewed it. But never was the Christian message tainted by philosophy, since it is the very nature of philosophy to adapt to its object of study. We may call to mind the Cappadocian Fathers, and especially the two Gregories, or again Maximus the Confessor, who all made abundant use of philosophy to describe the mystery of Christ. When Christianity encountered Greek culture, it was understood by the Greek-speaking people in a Greek way; and since Greek culture had long been the dominant cultural force in the Mediterranean, it was all too normal that it should once again play this role with the new faith. Likewise Christianity would put on Roman clothes among the Romans, Slavic ones among the Slavs, Ethiopian among the Ethiopians, and so on, without the essential truth being corrupted by the encounter itself.<\/p>\n It may seem paradoxical to say that those who would like to see the Greek heritage of Christianity altogether eradicated, and who consider the import of Greek thought into Christianity a corruption, really hold the same opinion as those who only seek to eradicate Christianity as a destroyer of philosophy and classical culture. Yet, both beliefs rest on the same assumption that philosophy and the Gospels are incompatible, somewhat separated by an unbridgeable gulf. In a way, they continue to reflect Tertullian’s words, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” But as we saw, this is a misunderstanding of what philosophy itself is. This is not the view that prevailed in the Greek speaking-world, and even in the early days of Latin Christianity. This is why also Christianity could be absorbed by foreign cultures and be given a local flavor, without fear of endangering its essential message. The most telling and concrete illustration of this is the work of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. It is not surprising that the whole issue revolved around language, since it is language that conveys the innermost meanings of a particular culture, and that is the source of all philosophy. By allowing the Slavs to worship in their own language, the two brothers, who had an intimate understanding of the meaning of culture, implicitly acknowledged the central role played by culture–a role never destroyed, but rather elevated by faith. <\/p>\n —————————————————————— (2) The background picture of the world stemming from the Old and New Testament continues to inform our modes of thought today, even unconsciously. Thus, all modern science seems to assume and take it for granted that the world has a beginning in time (the Big bang theory, the origins of life, etc.). What conclusions would science give us if it simply assumed that all matter was in fact eternal? Far from being objective truth, science also tacitely abides by this world picture.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Human language is ordained according to certain rules and principles which “codify” the place of words in a sentence (syntax), the appropriate word usage (semantics), verb tense, and so on. For instance, we acquire, from childhood, the rule that English places the subject at the beginning of a sentence, followed by a verb, and, if […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[6595,6604,46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-christianity-general","category-culture","category-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n(1) It must be obvious here that the rationalism of the ancients was something quite different from what we understand by this word today. Far from being a scientific rationalism that would make “scientific reason” triumph over “religious superstition,” Greek rational philosophy aimed at removing all that was deemed improper to man’s nature, particularily material things, and thus lead him back to his true nature. It goes without saying that for most philosophers, man’s true nature was realized by a return to his original divine state. Even Epicurus, who asserted that gods had no interest in human affairs if they existed at all, was interested in achieving the unimpassioned life; his philosophy was a solution among others, and should not be considered the triumph of a modern-style reason over superstition.<\/p>\n