Tumgik
#Peter Kreeft
dramoor · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
98 notes · View notes
fear-not-beloved · 5 months
Text
The very first step is to try to forget about the self altogether. He [C.S. Lewis] says elsewhere that that's the very definition of humility. Humility does not mean to have a low view of your self. It means to have no view of yourself. Having a low view of yourself is miserable--psychologists know that. And that's also the solution to the problem of introspection. If I ask myself, how am I doing, I come out with one of three answers: well, terribly, or so-so.
If I say I'm doing well, I'm a proud, self-righteous, arrogant, self-satisfied, priggish Pharisee; if I say I'm doing lousy, I'm a miserable worm with a guilt complex and I need some psychiatry; and if i say I'm sort of fair to midland then I'm dull, wishy-washy, Charlie Brown. So what's the solution? Don't look at yourself. Take your temperature when you're sick, otherwise look at other people and God. They're much more interesting. The first step is to try to forget about yourself altogether. Your real self, your new self, will not come as long as you are looking for it. It will come only when you're looking for Him.
Dr. Peter Kreeft
15 notes · View notes
castyourline · 3 months
Text
The highest pleasure always comes in self-forgetfulness. Self always spoils its own pleasure. Pleasure is like light; if you grab at it, you miss it; if you try to bottle it, you get only darkness; if you let it pass, you catch the glory. The self has a built-in, God-imaging design of self-fulfillment by self-forgetfulness, pleasure through unselfishness, ecstacy by ekstatis, "Standing-outside-the-self." This is not the self-conscious self-sacrifice of the do-gooder but the spontaneous unconscious generosity of the lover.
- Peter Kreeft
11 notes · View notes
eternal-echoes · 1 year
Text
“The world was won by Christ not by arguments but by sanctity: ‘What you are speaks so loud, I can hardly hear what you say.’“
- Peter Kreeft
53 notes · View notes
gods-blade · 5 months
Text
Pride is the total "my will be done." Humility is "thy will be done." Humility is focused on God, not self. Humility is not an exaggeratedly low opinion of yourself. Humility is self-forgetfulness. A humble man never tells you how bad he is. He's too busy thinking about you to talk about himself. That's why humility is such a joy and so close to the beatific vision, where we will be so fascinated with God that we forget ourselves completely, like the mystics. Combining these two things—the will's total "not my will but thine be done" and the mind's total self-forgetfulness—we can perhaps begin to understand how the mystics find incomparable joy in becoming nothing. It is the mysterious thrill we feel when we sing to the Holy Spirit, "Blow, blow, blow till I be/ But the breath of the Spirit blowing in me."
Peter Kreeft
1 note · View note
escritosdelcamino · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
En el primer post vimos la “teoría emotiva de los valores” que nos dice, según Peter Kreeft, que la moral son nuestros sentimientos. En ese sentido, la moral no puede ser objetiva sino totalmente subjetiva, en cuanto depende del sentimiento de cada uno. En el libro “relativismo”, Kreeft continúa su explicación y el papel que David Hume juega en esta teoría:
“Libby: ¿Qué filósofo inventó la teoría emotiva de los valores?
Isa: Probablemente David Hume es el filósofo clave en este punto. Es el empirista que analizó los juicios morales como sentimientos subjetivos. “Matar es malo” significa, en el fondo, “a mí me repugna matar”.
Libby: Hume es del siglo XVIII, ¿verdad? ¿Cómo llega esta idea al siglo XX?
Isa: La filosofía más influyente en los países de habla inglesa fue el positivismo lógico y luego la filosofía analítica, su hija, y el héroe de ambas corrientes de pensamiento era Hume.
Libby: ¿Por qué?
Isa: Porque les hizo el favor de deshacerse de Dios. La filosofía analítica era una forma de humeanismo secular”.
Tumblr media
Como vemos, así como Kant cedió la objetividad moral ante Hume, Hume dejó la objetividad moral ante la experiencia de los sentimientos de cada uno. Pero en todo caso, Kreeft reconoce una contradicción:
“Isa: (…) una refutación aún más fácil del empirismo: es contradictorio. Dice que todo nuestro conocimiento se da por la percepción sensorial, pero el empirismo mismo no puede ser conocido por la percepción sensorial”. ¿Caminante, qué piensas de Hume y su relación con la “teoría emotiva de valores”? Comenta, guarda y comparte este post con alguien que aprecies. Te lo agradecemos. ¡Sigamos!
Tumblr media
3 notes · View notes
apesoformythoughts · 2 years
Text
“[Our society’s] most radical philosophical departure from the past is not technology or democracy but the abandonment of this Platonic perspective, often called the idea of a natural moral law, a higher (eternal, unchangeable) law than any man-made (and therefore changeable) laws, in the name of which one can criticize and change man-made laws. (Only a traditionalist can be a principled revolutionary.)”
— Peter Kreeft
12 notes · View notes
vulnerasti-cor-meum · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
reading Kreeft’s summa of the summa since I’d heard about it so much and also am too cowardly to approach aquinas’s summa without any significant handholding but jesus christ the editorializing in this - does he really think modern men don’t believe in objective values. is this the philosopher’s version of “needs to go outside and touch grass”
2 notes · View notes
Video
youtube
How to Combat Hedonism | Dr. Peter Kreeft | #291
Dr. Peter Kreeft and Dr Jordan B Peterson discuss spiritual endeavor, delving deep into where we came from as a religious species, where we are now in the age of technology, and how we combat hedonism with personal sacrifice. 
Dr. Kreeft is a professor in the field of Philosophy, and teaches at Boston College and the King’s College in New York. When Dr. Kreeft was a student, he was asked to examine Catholicism which led to his conversion. He’s written more than eighty books on the subject, such as “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” and “Socrates Meets Jesus.”
1 note · View note
zmkccommonplace · 2 years
Text
We should be sceptical about everything, even scepticism.
Peter Kreeft, Faith & Reason
3 notes · View notes
humorwithatwist · 8 days
Text
The Books Most Responsible
Some time ago, a friend of mine shared a list of her “books most responsible” for who she is and how she thinks, and I found myself wondering which books might appear on my list. I’ve read many books (and have many, many more that I want to read), some of which have undoubtedly shaped me in some meaningful way and then been lost to the porous sands of my mind. But upon reflection, I believe…
View On WordPress
0 notes
dramoor · 1 year
Quote
The opposite of Christianity is not atheism, but idolatry.
Peter Kreeft
32 notes · View notes
cecilia37 · 1 year
Text
youtube
0 notes
castyourline · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
3 notes · View notes
eternal-echoes · 2 years
Link
The Nicene Creed identifies the Church of Christ by four marks: she is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Only one Church fits that description.
The description in the Creed is a description of our true home. It is a lighthouse, a roadmap, a clear marker for searchers and travelers.
One. Is any other church so one that all schisms that occur in that church are clearly schisms between the old and the new, between the Church that comes from Christ and one that comes from man, between the one Church that existed from the beginning and the breakaway group? The Catholic Church is the one church all other churches have to break away from.
...
But even though holiness is not a do-it-yourself thing, even though we need God and grace, why do we need the visible, concrete, historical, sacramental, material Church? Why can’t our relationship with God and our dependence on God be one-on-one and spiritual?
Because Christ is not one-on-one and spiritual. Christ gathered an apostolic college, and founded a visible Church, and gave her His literal body and blood, both on the Cross and in the Eucharist. Catholics paint with His grain, not against it. Catholics just deliver His mail; they don’t correct it.
God makes saints, but He does it through Christ, and Christ does it through His body, which is His Church.
Of course, it’s done by the Holy Spirit, and it’s spiritual. It’s also done by Christ’s incarnate body, and it’s material. Why? Because it’s done in man and for man, and man is not an angel but is always both spiritual and material.
11 notes · View notes
gods-blade · 5 months
Text
Pleasure is like light; if you grab at it, you miss it; if you try to bottle it, you get only darkness; if you let it pass, you catch the glory. The self has a built-in, God-imaging design of self-fulfillment by self-forgetfulness, pleasure through unselfishness, ecstasy by ekstasis, "standing-outside-the-self". This is not the self-conscious self-sacrifice of the do-gooder but the spontaneous, unconscious generosity of the lover. This principle, that the greatest pleasure is self-giving, is graphically illustrated by sexual intercourse and by the very structure of the sexual organs, which must give themselves to each other in order to be fulfilled.
0 notes