There Are (Probably) No Relations

Skip to: New Posts  Last Post
Posted by John West
9/18/2016 2:11 pm 		#1

In light of recent discussion about God and real relations (here), I thought some of you might be interested in E. J. Lowe's There Are (Probably) No Relations:



In particular, if there are no real relations, God has no real relations to creation either (even on contemporary views of relations). But maybe Lowe's thesis goes too far. Maybe there are still theological reasons to want creatures to be related to God, even if not the other way around.

 
Posted by AKG
9/18/2016 3:31 pm 		#2

Question, I know Lowe was a theist, but was he Christian or non-religious theist?

 
Posted by 884heid
9/18/2016 4:23 pm 		#3

Deleted my previous comment.

How would Christian classical theists account for the reflexive relations between the three persons of the Trinity if there aren't real relations?

 
Posted by John West
9/18/2016 8:07 pm 		#4

AKG:

Not sure. He didn't write much about religion.

(Just to be clear: when I wrote “Lowe's thesis” I didn't mean to imply that Lowe formulated his thesis in reply to the accidental property objection. As far as I know, he never wrote about it one way or the other.)

 
Posted by John West
9/18/2016 8:07 pm 		#5

Heid:

Good point! For what it's worth, Lowe is almost certainly talking about relations in the contemporary sense, not the medieval one.

 
Posted by iwpoe
9/19/2016 3:06 am 		#6

I'm a revelation-free theist. I'm not sure what if any worries I'd have.

Is it necessary that there be a "real relation" between universal and particular for the universal/particular distinction to  make sense?

Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 
Posted by John West
9/19/2016 1:00 pm 		#7

iwpoe wrote:

Is it necessary that there be a "real relation" between universal and particular for the universal/particular distinction to make sense?

Nope.

 
Posted by 884heid
9/19/2016 5:24 pm 		#8

John West wrote:

Maybe there are still theological reasons to want creatures to be related to God, even if not the other way around.

I think that's a valid point because having no real relations whatsoever between God and creatures would hamper the intimacy between Creator and creature in the Catholic sense for example. Though, I am not sure it's much of an issue for an Avicennan Muslim or an adherent of Maimonides.

 


 
Main page
Login
Desktop format