Reviews for Outlines of Psychology: An Elementary Treatise, with Some Practical Applications

The average rating for Outlines of Psychology: An Elementary Treatise, with Some Practical Applications based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-07-14 00:00:00 Robert Price If one is not interested in rational processing of the big questions in life, this book is not for that person. If you are not interested in the historical interplay between philosophy and theology, this book is not for you. If one has little patience for dense writing on highly technical philosophical subjects, that person should stay away from this book. Gilson's primary point could be summarized in this way: 1. It is often uncritically accepted, even assumed, that no philosophical advancements took place between the Greeks (culminating in Plotinus) and modern philosophy (beginning with Descartes). The "middle ages" were, philosophically, just that - a liminal space that is in "neither" one room or the other, and are rather a threshold...nothing more. 2. This assumption is incorrect (according to Gilson). Medieval philosophers (Aquinas, Augustine, Bonaventure, etc.)actually added quite a bit to philosophy. Standing on the shoulders of Plato and Aristotle, they took the systems these masters created, and the questions deriving from those systems, and built a rational extension of systemic answers to those questions. 3. They were able to do this because they drew on "revelation", through their Christian faith, in a way that deepened their understanding both of first principles and their extensions and conclusions. 4. However, not content to remain in a position of simply stating a revelation for acceptance through faith...they chose to use the foundation of Plato and Aristotle to demonstrate the rational value of those truths in understanding basic philosophical issues (nature of being, contingency, causality, finality, ethics, etc.). 5. In this sense, they made a valuable and lasting contribution to philosophy that stands on its own ground philosophically, and does not depend on a faith acceptance of revelation to pass the test of reasonableness. This in spite of the fact that its genesis was, in fact, in revelation. Moreover, much of the philosophy of Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Liebniz, and others would not have even been possible without these contributions of medieval philosophy. _________ That, it seems to me, is Gilson's position. I found it fascinating, and a great refresher on much of the historical development of philosophy and theology. In the end, I also found it flawed. The flaw is basically this: it seems to me to be a very involved, lengthy, technically detailed example of begging the question (petitio principii). In other words, if one does not accept on faith the revealed truths that serve as the foundation for medieval philosophical contributions, then the contributions themselves, built as they are on these revelations and constantly in reference to them, become mere speculation. On the other hand, if one DOES accept the revelations by faith as "true", then the philosophy proceeding from them, as interesting as it might be intellectually and as valuable as it may prove in terms of apologetics, is, in the end, unnecessary, since the worldview of the person is formed by a personal faith commitment, and not by a process of reasoning. Since the dawn of the scientific method and, more importantly for this discussion, the epistemology proceeding from that new era, one simply must be content with questions that are, at this point in our understanding, unanswered. To appeal to a faith position in a way that attempts to demonstrate its necessity as a source for answers to the current gap in our knowledge; this is to demonstrate a form of epistemological impatience which cannot, it seems to me, be supported strictly on the basis of reason. Since it requires faith for its support, then it is a question of personal commitment...nothing more, and nothing less. Would be very interested in any responses or dialogue proceeding from this review of Gilson's work.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-03-26 00:00:00 Arnaud Perucca هذا الكتاب في مكتبي يعد الأعظم بعد هكذا تكلم زرادشت.. ، هذا الخليل أنهيته في شهرين كأطول كتاب جلس في رفقتي.. يتكلم عن الفلسفة المسيحية اذ صح التعبير! لأن الفلسفة اذ اقتحمت المجال الديني تصبح علم لاهوت و لأختلاف المجالات بين الفلسفة و الدين. يتكلم عن أهم المدارس الرائدة و الفلاسفة المسيحيين امثال القديس اغسطين و توما الأكويني و الأسكولائية الجديدة و العقليون الخلص... يتحدث ايضا عن اثر الفلسفة اليونانية لاسيما افلاطون و ارسطو. و اعتقد لولا اليونان ماوجدت الفلسفة المسيحية، لأن الفلاسفة المسيحيين طوروا و اختاروا ما يناسب الدين، فالفلسفة اليونانية القديمة كانت ارض خصبة تطرح جميع العشب وما كان من الفلاسفة المسيحيين سوي الأختيار.. تكلم ايضا عن بعض الأمور الأخري مثل الغائية، الأنثروبولوجيا المسيحية، الأرادة والحرية، العقل و الحب.. ألخ كتاب لا مثيل له في أسلوبه، بسيط في تركيبه، رحلة غير مكلفة إلي العصر الوسيط لا تكلفك الكثير سوي أن تفتح الكتاب و تترك الكاتب يذهب بك إلي زمن سحيق و تقابل توما الأكويني و اغسطين و دانز سكوت و تدخل إليهم و تتعرف علي افكارهم.. بذلك تبقى لى الفلسفة اليونانية و الفلسفة الحديثة ..