tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post6618940146877285350..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: God and the Divine EssenceLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-55777675972923384862012-02-20T19:45:36.591-05:002012-02-20T19:45:36.591-05:00In fairness, the authors are probably captive to a...In fairness, the authors are probably captive to a widespread contemporary theory of essences: according to this theory, the essence of an object is the set (or conjunction, or some such) of all properties that object necessarily possesses. So the authors employ a silly theory, to be sure, but one understandable in the light of current metaphysics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-84299368657909454882012-02-18T22:08:40.445-05:002012-02-18T22:08:40.445-05:00I can't help but think that this is just anoth...I can't help but think that this is just another example of modern philosophy being plagued with a limited and dictatorial imagination that acts as the apparent arbiter between what is sensible and what isn't. <br /><br />Philosophers of this mindset must be picturing some item called "God" with a bunch of tags (qualities) attached to it. Some say things like 'wise' or 'powerful.' One of these tags happens to read 'essence,' and, voila, "God cannot inhere in Himself," etc. <br /><br />Am I wrong for also seeing this as sophomoric question begging as well? Even if, for arguments sake, the scholastics conceived of essences in such a manner, is not whether, in the particular case of God, his essence and existence are identical precisely what is at stake? In other words, to wave such a claim away by saying that this is usually not the case is not much of a rebuttal since no one happens to think otherwise.<br /><br />If they do not think that Anselm is merely special pleading, they do not demonstrate that they are familiar at all with why he would argue for the identity of God's essence and existence in the first place.E.R. Bournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847266600675489605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-8041365669762970742012-02-18T20:23:53.619-05:002012-02-18T20:23:53.619-05:00I could not agree more. It is this kind of thing t...I could not agree more. It is this kind of thing that makes me despair of ever making any progress with Analytic types.<br /><br />And it seems to me that this kind of reasoning is precisely what makes Thomist theories of analogy so attractive, and simultaneously, makes univocity seem like such a boogeyman (even if it isn't). It seems initially more effective to counter this by saying there is an important kind of equivocation obtaining between "substance" as applied to God and as applied to creatures; and the same goes for "quality." And if you miss that, you aren't talking about God anymore; at most you're perpetuating nothing more than a theistic sounding atheist discourse. That seems to be the perpetual temptation of Analytic Philo of Religion.<br /><br />Pax Christi,X-Cathedrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375891103469974428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-73555273520353987732012-02-18T20:17:06.191-05:002012-02-18T20:17:06.191-05:00the essence of something is a quality of it? i don...the essence of something is a quality of it? i don't think so. <br />is not 'substance' just the way a given essence exists extra-mentally?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-44245337590566277352012-02-18T20:16:01.636-05:002012-02-18T20:16:01.636-05:00We cannot rationally conceive of divine essence, b...We cannot rationally conceive of divine essence, but we can have conscious awareness of being in it.<br /><br /> E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. In my free ebook on comparative mysticism, I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine <b>E</b>ssence (Love, Grace, Spirit), <b>m</b>atter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and <b>c</b>onsciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. <i>This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.</i><br /><br />(quoted from "the greatest achievement in life," my free ebook on comparative mysticism)Ron Krumposhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371279514024960026noreply@blogger.com