tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post2487003978611838262..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Bishop Barron AgainLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-400018106167987262018-05-25T14:56:10.908-04:002018-05-25T14:56:10.908-04:00No, you are not misreading. Aquinas himself thinks...No, you are not misreading. Aquinas himself thinks that univocity of being entails placing God in a genus. Thomists assume that 'univocity' is itself a univocal term, i.e. that Aquinas and Scotus are using the same definition of the term, and so generally assume, without reading Scotus, that Scotus puts God in a genus. Once could speculate with more charity and say that they have read some Scotus, such as Ord. I d. 3, where Scotus advocates univocity, but haven't read Ord. I d. 8 q. 3, where Scotus explains why being isn't a genus and why God isn't in a genus, and thus they assume he never addressed that objection. When it comes to Thomists like the Radical Orthodoxy crowd, well, they haven't read Scotus and don't care, because what they are doing is narrative construction, and facts and details are irrelevant at best, or simply counternarratives for reversal at worst.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-62490855549086369762018-05-21T20:24:00.949-04:002018-05-21T20:24:00.949-04:00I just read Scotus' "Concerning Metaphysi...I just read Scotus' "Concerning Metaphysics" in the Philosophical Writings published by Hackett. Where do Thomists get the idea that Scotus would place God in a genus with other things. In the selection I read this afternoon it seemed that Scotus explicitly said he didn't think that. "Whatever pertains to "being", then, in so far as it remains indifferent to finite and infinte, or as proper to the Infinite Being, does not belong to it as determined to a genus, but prior to any such determination, and therefore as transcendental and outside any genus." Admittedly this is my first foray into Scotus besides reading a few posts on this blog a couple of years ago, so I could be wrong. Am I misreading Scotus?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-30745691238379933442018-01-23T16:16:15.626-05:002018-01-23T16:16:15.626-05:00I would like to hear more about it. When the trans...I would like to hear more about it. When the translation came out I looked up all the mentions of Scotus and Scotism, but they seemed way off from what such people would say/have said. Not a misrepresentation along the Milbank-Pickstock line, but rather a pious or positive interpretation based on a lack of familiarity with Scotist sources.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-65099729151311332062018-01-15T22:28:33.954-05:002018-01-15T22:28:33.954-05:00Lee,
Thanks so much for your kind help here. I am ...<br />Lee,<br />Thanks so much for your kind help here. I am making a case against a distortion of Scholastic truth that is much bigger than the Newly Orthodox; they are but its latest (and perhaps most focused) realization. The text you cite does not deny existence to God, bu rather denies that he is an existing individual. Thus God can be existence itself (courting various forms of pantheism); or God may be the source of all Being, but in Himself (?) neither a Being nor Non-being (thus invoking an Eastern God beyond Being). But I believe Thomas would characterize God as the unique self-subsistent Being. In particular I think Thomas allows that God is an individual. Aquinas uses analogy to constantly say of God that He has an attribute, e.g. being an person, or having an essence, but in a sense quite different; thus analogous; to that of creatures. But the New Orthodoxy seems to mistrust analogy. God they say must not be an existent entity, or he is somehow on a par with created existent entities. So they use analogy to chase away any positive rational affirmations of God without making any constructive use of it. Yes, a lack (or refusal) of imagination indeed-<br /><br />I bought Przywara's Analogia Entis and was struck by the power of his larger vision to incorporate both Thomist and Scotist narratives. I insist he explicitly makes these two complementary aspects of his vision at least in a few paragraphs. I must re-read and copy these out. I do not know of any detailed writing of his on the harmony of Scholastic descriptions. But there are powerful resources here for such synthesis. Not since Sylwanowicz' text on Duns have I been so enthusiastic about a text in this specific manner. But Przywara is deep. Later metaphysicians e.g. Fabro seem to have learned from him, but cannot be trusted to convey what is important in him for a unified vision. Jim Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08794543348356619041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-59852160149425384652018-01-15T10:46:56.592-05:002018-01-15T10:46:56.592-05:00Hi Jim, you may be onto something. I think Marilyn...Hi Jim, you may be onto something. I think Marilyn Adams wrote a piece for an online philosphy of religion journal about how the proof for the existence of God requires univocity. But I"m not sure whether there is much of a distinction between having and being being. Scotus, like every other scholastic subscribes the Augustinian dictum that God is what he has. So we're just back to restatements of Aquinas, such that univocity is incompatible with divine simplicity. And given the modern mysticism you mention, we have abandoned arguments, we simply restate positions.<br /><br />I came across a somewhat amusing passage just today. I was reading Nicholas Bonetus' Metaphysics, and he accused his (unnamed, but clearly Thomist) opponents of a lack of imagination for assuming that we predicate perfection terms as univocal to God and creatures we predicate them in the limited and accidental fashion we find them in the categories.<br /><br />I've been interested in Pryzwara for a while, but no time, alas.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-28250154097309270282018-01-12T23:00:43.537-05:002018-01-12T23:00:43.537-05:00Emphasizing Thomas' Neo-Platonism to the exclu...Emphasizing Thomas' Neo-Platonism to the exclusion of his Aristotelianism is, as I understand matters, what is really at stake here. Te resulting flood of European, especially French mysticism during the twentieth century should be acceptable, both to Barth and to the Ecumenical Catholics. What can we really know, on this account of God by unaided reason? Does God exist? I think for this mentality, the answer must be NO.<br />God is Being, and thus may not possess Being, right? Perhaps by a great leap of faith beyond reason. Can one not bedevil the Newly Orthodox with this question, of how one can possibly comprehend rationally the statement that "God exists? under their favored constraint against any semblance of univocity? I am re-reading Przywara, who provides powerful resources for this debate- Jim Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08794543348356619041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-72299750672942648612018-01-01T20:00:11.142-05:002018-01-01T20:00:11.142-05:00Well whether or not the differences are adopted me...Well whether or not the differences are adopted merely as a result of some political struggle, I don't think there can be any doubt that those struggles definitely helped shape the terms of the debate. This becomes especially obvious with the De auxiliis controversy, which just adds another religious order (Jesuits) to the mix. It's really fascinating, then, to read through the various cursus of the Jesuits (esp. Suárez) as they really capture the dynamics involved in the debates with the "Thomists," the "Scotists," the "Nominalists," etc. It's like witnessing a major battle royal. No wonder poor Descartes just wanted a basic foundation to stand upon!<br /><br />Best,<br />VictorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-16639671939842316022018-01-01T18:02:12.579-05:002018-01-01T18:02:12.579-05:00Victor, thanks for an interesting remark. I recall...Victor, thanks for an interesting remark. I recall your article on Albert on this topic, and since reading it I have often wondered about his views, and how different they are from Scotus'. <br /><br />In my darker moments I wonder if all these philosophical and theological differences aren't really just positions adopted as part of a much broader political struggle, that of Franciscan Order vs. Dominican Order. Both were -- and one still is -- a major powerhouse in the church, both were highly jealous of their privileges and anxious to increase their power. It's true the franciscans tended to be more intellectually diverse, but would someone ever join them but retain a passionate love of thomistic analogy? Or was it rather that people met individuals from the orders, were inspired to join, and then adopted the classic order positions as part of the educational process, and then carried on the war for another generation?Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-89737637429509695032018-01-01T16:44:02.428-05:002018-01-01T16:44:02.428-05:00I never cease to be bewildered by the constant lum...I never cease to be bewildered by the constant lumping of Scotus and Ockham together under the rubric of nominalism, which is identified with unabated evil, and then both Franciscan masters are dismissed with great solemnity! What is more, if univocity is so horrific--the invention of the Antichrist, as Barth might suggest--then why doesn't Albert the Great figure more prominently in their "narratives" of the decline of the West? Albert, after all, speaks of a "univocatio quae est analogiae" as well as divine univocal causality. And in this he is followed by other Dominicans such as Ulrich of Strasbourg. But, unlike Scotus, Albert isn't restricting himself to a purely semantic discourse, making his account even more challenging. Maybe Albert is just too close to Thomas--who took the dictation of the Super Dion. Dear div. Nom., where the terms are raised--for comfort.<br />Best,<br />VictorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com