How is philosophy after Christ (κατὰ Χριστόν, kata Christon) related to philosophy after some other principle? (See Colossians 2:8.) Say, how does it related to philosophy before Christ?
In Philosophy after Christ[1], I explain that by “after,” I don’t mean “later than” (i.e., chronologically after). I mean “in the manner of,” as an artist might paint “after Picasso.” The preposition “after” translates κατὰ (kata).
Likewise, when Yahweh—whose incarnation Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) is—used the Hebrew equivalent of “before” in expressing the First Commandment, He said that no one who calls Him Lord shall put anything before Him in priority or reverence, thereby risking idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before (עַל, al) me” (Exodus 20:3).
If Christ is before all things (πρὸ πάντων, pro pantōn) (Colossians 1:17)—if His preeminence is unrestricted in scope—then there is no exception for philosophy (Φιλοσοφία, philosophia). Yet we would irresponsibly tamper with established usage were we to withhold the label “philosophers” from those who put their trademark intellectual labor on a pedestal before Him in priority. For at least empirically, they constitute the vast majority of those who engage in it.
Jesus did not, could not, philosophize, that is, “love” or “pursue” wisdom as did Socrates. Neither should Christians. We cannot pursue Wisdom, a divine Person, as Socrates pursued a state of enlightenment or Bertrand Russell conceptual clarity. Christ is Wisdom incarnate the way He is God incarnate. We are to hang on His every word and eat it hungrily.
This approach can be continuous with the way non-believers practice philosophy, but there will be discotinuities. To reconceive philosophy along the suggested lines will provoke opposition; the response thereto can’t avoid polemics.[2]
Conversely, this approach can be discontinuous with how non-Christians (or epistemologically inconsistent Christians), but there will be continuities. And continuities between these disparate approaches justify uniting them under one rubric, but then we must use symbols to distinguish them taxonomically.
We continue to call “philosophy” the analytical practice of certain non-Christian thinkers while recognizing that consumers of every word that comes from the mouth of Wisdom Incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24) are perhaps more authentically philosophers. There’s more to seeking wisdom than clarifying meanings. It may be a necessary condition of that pursuit, but hardly a sufficient one. I therefore propose that we refer to the latter as A-Philosophers; the former, B-Philosophers.
A-Philosophers can and should guiltlessly deploy techniques pioneered and developed, not by prophets like Moses and apostles like Paul, but by B-Philosophers like Frege, Quine, and Carnap, while stressing that conceptual clarity is not an end in itself. If it does not subserve the end of knowing Christ then it does not lead to the attainment of wisdom.
Notes
[1] Anthony Flood, Philosophy after Christ: Thinking God’s Thoughts after Him, self-published, 2022, xi-xii.
[2] Op. cit., xii.
Related posts
-
- Philosophy before Christ: the case of an Athenian fence-sitter, March 1, 2024.
- How I philosophized when I put philosophy before Christ, October 21, 2024
- “I’m doing philosophy; you’re doing apologetics!,” December 25, 2024.