tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post6200796449861899213..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Reply to the Maverick PhilosopherLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-32717820206079316512010-02-05T23:20:32.207-05:002010-02-05T23:20:32.207-05:00Michael, that's okay. Thanks anyway.Michael, that's okay. Thanks anyway.Paul Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09178984741678168432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-34186756552025289222010-02-05T16:48:03.858-05:002010-02-05T16:48:03.858-05:00Paul, I'm afraid I can't give you much of ...Paul, I'm afraid I can't give you much of an answer. Not being a theologian, I haven't made much of an effort to survey the field of contemporary trinitarian theology. I'm familiar to a certain extent with the twentieth-century neo-scholastic manuals, but these are more like the medievals than like whatever contemporary theologians are doing today. My acquaintance with medieval trinitarianism comes almost completely from reading the primary sources, so while there are probably good comparative surveys out there, I can't point you to them. Sorry this is so unhelpful.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-31287929418130121502010-02-05T16:40:54.519-05:002010-02-05T16:40:54.519-05:00Michael, where would you suggest a person start if...Michael, where would you suggest a person start if they wanted a book or article that distinguished the medieval vs. the contemporary ways of addressing the Trinity?Paul Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09178984741678168432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-4479390253252606742010-01-28T18:44:50.027-05:002010-01-28T18:44:50.027-05:00BenYachov,
I too have enjoyed his blog for years,...BenYachov,<br /><br />I too have enjoyed his blog for years, despite not agreeing with everything whatsoever. <br /><br />Anyway I'm about to respond to him again.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-37738251363065880652010-01-28T18:37:04.539-05:002010-01-28T18:37:04.539-05:00>I noticed that yesterday someone else make a c...>I noticed that yesterday someone else make a comment to the effect that he needed to make an attempt to understand the doctrine as it is actually understood by its adherents, not as he thinks it should be understood. This comment was deleted by this morning. <br /><br />I reply: That was me. Wow, who knew this guy was so thin skinned? For the record what little of his blog I've read I've enjoyed. I loved his logical take down of some of the pretentious claptrap peddled these days by so called new atheists.<br /><br />I'm surprised by his behavior. But I forgive him.BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)http://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-69340395125971713912010-01-28T15:51:53.703-05:002010-01-28T15:51:53.703-05:00I did admit to observing Maverick getting very per...I did admit to observing Maverick getting very personal (and, indeed, even needlessly offensive to the point of insult) in his remarkably rude responses to you; which is all the more reason I found your attempts at maintaining an irenic tone in spite of all his hostility to you all the more commendable.<br /><br />It's just I would hate to see what could ultimately become a great discussion prematurely terminated simply because one interlocutor happens to behave so unreasonably intolerant of the other's opinion.<br /><br />You may want to try (and, admittedly, this may challenge your charity especially in light of the prevailing circumstances) to provide him with more elaborate explanation specifically from his point of reference since it would appear as if he is looking from an entirely different (and even modern) perspective as opposed to the traditional one.<br /><br />It is a symptom frequently exhibited in the Modern mindset.<br /><br />Ironically, I find myself also suspectible to same given that I am a product of the age.<br /><br />Good luck!onus probandinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-48827343580094999262010-01-28T14:52:18.107-05:002010-01-28T14:52:18.107-05:00Faber,
I never claimed to be a medievalist! That...Faber,<br /> <br />I never claimed to be a medievalist! That was his label. However if I keep on my present course I probably run the risk of being denied the title of medievalist by real medievalists like yourself and denied that of philosopher by philosophers like Dr Vallicella.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-22171356477910482392010-01-28T14:50:41.552-05:002010-01-28T14:50:41.552-05:00Is there any chance that the two of you could some...<i>Is there any chance that the two of you could somehow reconcile your apparent differences such that the both of you may continue a discussion[?]</i><br /><br />onus,<br /><br />that's not really up to me. I was very willing to continue a discussion, but he made it clear that he didn't think it would be worthwhile. He didn't explain why, and so I can only speculate - did he get personally offended at my tone, or my claim that he misunderstood or misrepresented some key terms? Does he just think I am idiot and not worth his time? Is he unwilling to make the attempt to formulate his own points within the traditional terminology, or to see what extent his formulation of the issue is consistent with the traditional claims? Was he annoyed at my scholastic citations? I just don't know.<br /><br />What really irked me was when he said to Lukas Novak, <i>Unlike Sullivan, you have addressed the problem of the logical coherence of the Trinity doctrine,</i> when I was making the very same points that Novak was making, among others. This in particular makes me think that he got irritated at the beginning of my post and didn't read any further, not carefully, anyway.<br /><br />I noticed that yesterday someone else make a comment to the effect that he needed to make an attempt to understand the doctrine as it is actually understood by its adherents, not as he thinks it should be understood. This comment was deleted by this morning. It's an important point, though. In his later comments in the same thread he refers again to the Cartwright lecture he had linked to in an earlier post; he seems to use Cartwright's formulation of the "problem" as his default way to approach the subject.<br /><br />But Cartwright has serious problems in presenting the doctrine as understood in Latin theology, just as Dr Vallicella apparently does. In that lecture, for instance, he writes: <i>The heretical conclusion [tritheism] follows, by the general principle that if every A is a B then there cannot be fewer B's than A's. This principle, I claim, is evident to the natural light of reason. Thus, if every cat is an animal, there cannot be fewer animals than cats; if every senator from Massachusetts is a Democrat, there cannot be fewer Democrats than senators from Massachusetts. Just so, if every Divine Person is a God, there cannot be fewer Gods than Divine Persons.</i><br /><br />Cartwright's main interlocutor for understanding the doctrine is the Wittgensteinian Catholic philosopher Peter Geach - not a theologian, and not working within traditional categories and terminology. I.e., not presenting or explaining the doctrine as actually understood by the Church. All too common, of course, for Catholic thinkers today. But it should be obvious to anyone who knows better that the above excerpt shows a radical lack of understanding the way Latin theology understands the relation of the Persons to the Divine Nature. And when at the end Cartwright states, <i>We have come no farther than the Cappadocian Fathers. Either we divide the substance, or we confound the Persons</i>, all this tells me is that he isn't familiar with any orthodox attempt to grapple with Trinitarian doctrine in between the Cappadocians and the Wittgensteinians. No wonder he's confused.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-30588862359317273622010-01-28T14:48:59.326-05:002010-01-28T14:48:59.326-05:00Dude, you couldn't read a ms. to save your lif...Dude, you couldn't read a ms. to save your life. you're not a medievalist, I'm a medievalist! I'm afraid you may be a philosopher.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-35994291275268327532010-01-28T14:21:44.110-05:002010-01-28T14:21:44.110-05:00What I appreciated most about your subsequent comm...What I appreciated most about your subsequent comments at his site were your efforts at trying to maintain an irenic tone.<br /><br />The Maverick Philosopher is one that I myself periodically frequent. I still remember the days when polite debate was a distinguishing feature of his site, especially in the days of a certain "Crimson" whose combined eloquence and thought-provoking engagement concerning many of the topics then proved a great experience for me personally.<br /><br />I suspect that perhaps his intolerance of your comments the day before was more the product of a bad day perhaps than the very merits of your case.<br /><br />Is there any chance that the two of you could somehow reconcile your apparent differences such that the both of you may continue a discussion on what seems to me a great subject that warrants continued exploration -- especially in light of both parties' theological differences?onus probandinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-90487309479065966632010-01-28T10:34:52.136-05:002010-01-28T10:34:52.136-05:00I was too, Anthony.I was too, Anthony.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-17553402159687223862010-01-27T22:16:35.133-05:002010-01-27T22:16:35.133-05:00Of course if you treat God as a Really Special bei...Of <i>course</i> if you treat God as a Really Special being among other beings and keep hammering away at the problem like that it will come out looking like mush. But if you faithfully apply the (Western medieval) doctrine of divine simplicity to the problem it sure looks consistent to me. I was disappointed by Dr. Vallicella's dismissive response.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14138565078105758659noreply@blogger.com