Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Practical Philosophy » Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book » 12/27/2017 2:47 am

@ Johannes

Yes, I suppose the terms you suggest are clearer. Were we engaged in a discussion with an EO, I would probably put it similarly. I think I stand vindicated, however, in my assessment that presuming common understanding of holiness and grace with seigneur wouldn't be reasonable.

As to invincible ignorance, yes, it is also my belief (that I hold as a Catholic) that it is possible in principle for a bona fide non-Catholic to receive sanctifying grace/be in the state of grace. In fact, I tried to prevent misunderstandings by repeated qualifications (such as "can be recognised as" instead of "can be thought to be"), but thank you for providing the occasion to clear possible ambiguities.
 

Practical Philosophy » Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book » 12/26/2017 6:30 am

seigneur wrote:

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

@seigneur

For now I am willing to tolerate your neglect of what is, for all you seem to know, a scriptural binding prescription.

Binding prescription for whom?.

For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, the ones for whom communism, pacifism are also prescribed, not forgetting, of course, the duty to fulfil commands (and, indeed, in excess of what is asked) irrespective of the commander's title to their satisfaction, obtained by parity of reasoning. And for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian, something I think is the case.

I might as well have written "for the same audience that the NT is addressed to", given that we're talking about dominical ethics. You just need to tell me your view on that. Mine is quite common: the NT addresses everybody.

seigneur wrote:

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

I can for the sake of argument grant you the first bit. What allows you to convert this description into a binding norm?

Binding norm for whom?

For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, and for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian.

seigneur wrote:

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

The NT, considered as a historical source, does not treat this as normative, at least not too clearly, nor do the Fathers conscripted by Hart and Feser.

Normative for whom?

For "proper" Christians of your fancy, presumably including yourself, and for everybody, if everybody has a duty to become Christian.

seigneur wrote:

Don't you see that you are neglecting something crucial here? You are speaking in half-sentences.

No, I don't see this, nor do I speak in half-sentences (they make sense to me as complete sentences). It's odd that your apparent preternatural perspicacity failed you here. I suppose my soul is somewhat excessively darkened to be easily read, but surely not so eclipsed by sin and ignorance as to hinder the exerci

Practical Philosophy » Is human life intrinsically valuable? » 12/26/2017 4:22 am

I think it pays to consider the context here. If it is ethical, as it seems to be, I think it's fairly obvious that human life is "valuable" for human action. After all, every pursuit presupposes some 'life", in a way, all we seek are further determinations of "life". If it isn't worth having and intrinsically so, how can anything at all be worth the human pursuit, intrinsically or extrinsically?

 

Practical Philosophy » Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book » 12/25/2017 7:47 am

@seigneur

For now I am willing to tolerate your neglect of what is, for all you seem to know, a scriptural binding prescription.
I'd like to simply point out something that to any member of a historically traditional ecclesial body should appear to be a fallacy of the accident. You write that Early Christianity was a persecuted underground movement that eschewed politics. You seem to think that these properties are essential to "proper" Christianity.
I can for the sake of argument grant you the first bit. What allows you to convert this description into a binding norm? The NT, considered as a historical source, does not treat this as normative, at least not too clearly, nor do the Fathers conscripted by Hart and Feser. So how precisely do you obtain this conversion, and hence at least some of the criteria you think are useful in assessing Christianness?

One other thing: I think that the state, on the hypothetical "pure nature" divine economy, would also be the highest legal authority in matters concerning the exercise of the virtue of religion (and here most cultures in the world seem to agree). Would you deny even the -negative- prescription addressed to the prince by Christianity? Or do you think the state must also establish natural religion?

Also, I have to repeat (or rather make explicit) my question: do you think that all people have a duty to profess Christianity (qua the true religion)? If not, why, given that it's true? And if it isn't true, why on Earth would anyone care what some false doctrine prescribes?

If you answer positively to the first above-mentioned query, I suppose this is where the Manichaeism comes in: if there's a true religion that is binding for all humans as such, but at the same time this true religion should not inform the life of the commonwealth, why should there be any public sphere at all?

This is where the conflict is: under natural law, the common good of civil society is a great concern, so grave in fact,

Theoretical Philosophy » Aquinas' First way versus the evolution of a star » 12/25/2017 7:19 am

Also, I do not think that there's any need on the part of the Thomist to think that the 'movement' has to be "at the physical level", where this means the set of realities treated in (modern) physics. After all, natural motions are caused ultimately by the form, the latter being a "metaphysical" part.

Theoretical Philosophy » Aquinas' First way versus the evolution of a star » 12/25/2017 5:23 am

The basic reply to this, I think, is that stars are not relevant examples, as they are, like planets, mere accidental unities. They are hence more analogous to, say, human societies, which do have tendencies and regularities and are hence identifiable for the purposes of certain queries, but are not substances.

Choosing a different analogy, Fr. William A. Wallace writes in his The Modeling of Nature:

"The unity of a star would seem to be analogous to the unity of the earth: largely a mass of different substances held together by natural forces of one type or the other. And if the evolutionary model of stellar development is correct, a star can have a history even though it has not a single nature like an oak or a chipmunk (p 69)".

I realize this wouldn't be too useful to someone critical of the general A-T approach to the subject, but this does seem to address the immediate worry.

Practical Philosophy » What is the Nation? » 12/13/2017 4:05 pm

I confess that in terms of ideals I veer in the Virgilian direction presented here (limiting religious localism to accidental differences, of course):

https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/empire-iii-gustavo-dudamel-at-the-spanish-riding-school-or-virgil-and-the-horses/

Practical Philosophy » What is the Nation? » 12/13/2017 3:24 pm

@ Etzelnik

I recognise that you can with good reason say that the identification of this critical point is not easily done speculatively, but I'm nonetheless urged to at least try to inquire further by what seems to me to be a grave problem.

Choosing natural law premises as the point of departure, I can see how the common good demands setting up some rational way of guarding and fostering it (that is, the state). I can see how individuals are ordered to it, and also why this agent bears the sword, having the power to enforce peace even through lethal force, as the whole is greater than its parts (not to the point of sheer consequentialism, of course).

What I cannot establish is a similar moral ordering to the nation: at what point does commonality in cultural particulars acquire a title that outweighs civic piety? Why can't an appropriate cultural autonomy be negotiated within the existing civil order? Why can't proportional mutual assimilation be mandated in such circumstances? After all, one can claim such an independence for even smaller commonality units, all the way down to tribalism, and until we identify some measure I don't think one can call (proclaimed) nations a natural unit: nationalisms are prima facie historically fairly contingent, and the historical association of them with irrationalities of all sorts leaves me somewhat sceptical.


I can intuitively see the necessity you speak of when considering independence from an another nation state, or in the case of a largely defensive nationalism of a sort (such as, arguably, Polish nationalism or Zionism): for the dominant nation qua nation is not, on my view of a morally licit nation, entitled to demand conformity to it without a clear reference to the common good and a proportional readiness to accommodate autonomy (one way of mutual assimilation, I suppose).

But nation states are a fairly recent development, nor do states require a national culture (narrowly understood) to subsist: consider the case

Theoretical Philosophy » Anthony Kenny, PSR, and why there is something rather than nothing » 12/02/2017 2:24 pm

I really don't see how "there is nothing" is incoherent. Maybe I'm too influenced by Scholastic manuals, where you can see the PNC formulated as "being is not non-being" or "being is not nothing". 

Perhaps the problem is with "there", rather than "is?" People sometimes forget to let go of this metaphorical "certain something", -where- things are. If you have it in the background (and we shouldn't), I can see how that might seem incoherent.

Practical Philosophy » Hart's review of Feser's death penalty book » 12/01/2017 1:34 pm

Why? Have you provided a scriptural argument for that the church is anything else?
_ _ _ 
Per the terms of my invocation I notify you that you're to withdraw this statement due to its lack of scriptural justification. 
If you don't understand the reason for this, here's a hint: if you believe that a descriptive statement in Acts 4:32-35 -prescribes- Communism, surely, a fortiori, you should take grammatical imperatives to signify a duty of yours (per your strange religion). And that means that you are to give me what I want. And I explicitly told you what I ask of you. And given that there's nothing in Scripture that allows you to forgo this (as you seem to believe that a Christian is not allowed anything not mentioned in the Gospel), you are in no position to demand anything of Gentiles such as Jeremy Taylor or me. This is clearly natural law thinking emanating from your wordly self. You need to overcome it. After all, "it's not a matter of if it's practical or feasible or easy to do it."

I will probably respond to this in more detail later, when I have time. But I'd better see the arguments I requested the next time I check this thread.
_ _ _ 
So you are a universalist? This would relieve me from obligation to engage with pretty much anything you say...
_ _ _
Precisely what gave you that idea? How does recalling man's duty to profess the true religion and to live in accordance with it amount to universalism? 

I have to confess that I find it very hard to resist the conclusion that you have no idea what you're talking about.
_ _ _ 

Doesn't Scripture also say that Caesar and God are distinct? Let's suppose Caesar may profess Christianity, but can the Pope assume authority to depose Caesar
_ _ _
Yes, they are distinct. Caesar is a man, and as such subject to God. His authority is given Him by God so that a certain service be rendered to Him. 
The pope did not 'assume' anything: as Catholics the emperor, the princes of the Empire and all other subjects were

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum