The “supernatural,” as that term is traditionally used in theology, is that which is beyond the power of the natural order to produce on its own. Hence it can be produced only by what has causal power superior to that of anything in the natural order, namely the divine cause of the natural order. Insofar as the natural order depends on this supernatural cause, the supernatural is metaphysically prior to the natural. However, the natural is epistemologically prior to the supernatural, insofar as we cannot form a conception of the supernatural except by contrast with the natural, and cannot know whether there is such a thing as the supernatural unless we can reason to its existence from the existence of the natural order. A proper understanding of the supernatural thus presupposes a proper understanding of the natural order and of the causal relation between that order and its cause. This chapter offers an account of these matters and of their implications for theological issues concerning causal arguments for God’s existence, divine conservation and concurrence, miracles, nature and grace, faith and reason, and the notion of a theological mystery (viz. what is beyond the power of the intellect to discover on its own).
Each of the editors contributes an article to the volume. The other contributors are John Marenbon, David Oderberg, Stephen Boulter, Timothy O’Connor, Janice Chik, Daniel De Haan, Antonio Ramos-Diaz, Christopher Hauser, Travis Dumsday, Ross Inman, Anne Peterson, Alexander Pruss, Simon Kopf, and Anna Marmodoro. The essays cover a wide variety of topics, including quantum mechanics, evolution, the hierarchy of being, free will, non-human animals, logic and mathematics, life after death, angels, hylomorphism, and much else. More information is available at Cambridge University's Faculty of Divinity website, and at the Routledge website, where you’ll see that a couple of the chapters are available via Open Access, and that the volume is available in an affordable eBook edition.
Sounds like a much needed, thought provoking book. It'll be interesting comparing what Ed has to say with what David Bentley Hart's going to say in You Are Gods: On Nature and Supernature.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand Philosopher Leonard Peikoff says the following about the supernatural
ReplyDelete"What is meant by 'the supernatural'? Supposedly, a realm that transcends nature. What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called 'nature' when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So 'nature' really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What, then, is 'super-nature'? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence—a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities—a something which contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short, a contradiction of every metaphysical essential." (Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture Series Part 2).
Ok folks. Have at it. Where is Peikoff wrong? (PS I'm not an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy but have been influenced by the more Aristotelian elements of it.)
The main difference between Randians and Thomists is that Randian metaphysics necessarily denies the real distinction between essence and existence. Thus, the idea of a "being beyond being" (as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite described God) or "subsistent existence itself" (as St. Thomas would've described God) is incoherent to them. But to a Thomist, God's essence is His existence, unlike everything else. The reason He is beyond nature is precisely because He is utterly unlike any created thing. He exists in an absolute and underived way while everything else exists in a limited and participatory way.
DeleteThere's also a problem with Peikoff's definition of nature from an Aristotelian standpoint: namely, that he doesn't reference the fact that a nature is the intrinsic principle of stability or change within a substance. His definition ("nature is existence-the sum of that which is") would collapse the distinction between the natural and the artificial.
He denies the distinction between act and potency.
DeleteHe's wrong here: "Nature is existence—the sum of that which is." By defining nature in this way, incorrectly, he ensures that the supernatural is defined ab initio as non-existent, effectively begging the question. "Nature" may be more reasonably considered, as he goes on to do, as the sum of interacting entities governed by physical laws. But, again, his first explicit definition is only equivalent to the implicit second one if he assumes materialism as a premise. Thus, his argument reduces to naked assertion.
DeleteHis definition of "nature" as "all that exists" is question begging. Whether something exists beyond nature is precisely what is at issue. So obviously if you start from that tendentious definition of "nature" you can't help but reach his tendentious conclusion.
DeleteWhat is nature? “The sum of that which is”? That’s a pretty stupid definition to START with if your conclusion is going to be that therefore nothing can be supernatural. I’m not familiar with this work you’re quoting but I’d need more context. Possibly this “super nature” is not similar enough to the lay understanding of supernatural to constitute a refutation. So either it is circular reasoning or equivocating. Nature is the sum of material objects which undergo motion and change. To be supernatural is to be immaterial. Hence why we’d consider spirits, angels, and God to be supernatural.
DeleteMister Geocon, Thank you. I want to respond to all of your (and others') points. But first I want to clarify in my mind what you mean by "His defintion...would collapse the distinction between the natural and the artificial."
DeleteKarl Heintz, Fr. M. Kirby,Unknown, Journey 516. Thank you for your very helpful comments. The issue seems to hinge on our definitions. A definition identifies the essential characteristic of a concept. What in your eyes is the proper (and succinct) definition of the concepts "nature" and "supernatural"?
DeleteHi JM. I'm "Unknown" from above. Peikoff's definition of "nature" makes his argument circular. It really is a rather dumb argument. I mean, it's true, but so is the argument "nothing exists outside screwdrivers, defined as everything that exists" and "nothing exists outside of Gremlins, defined as everything that exists" and "nothing exists outside my Aunt Griselda, defined as everything that exists." In the end, however you define "nature" if it isn't defined against something else that could conceivably exist, even if it doesn't actually exist, you don't really have an argument.
DeleteAristotle defines the physical as that which undergoes change (which in Greek just is the origin word for “physics”). This would imply it pertains to material objects as they contain potency in their matter for change. The supernatural may be taken to mean anything beyond the realm of material objects and would include angels and immortal souls, or, strictly speaking, could apply to God alone as He alone is devoid of all potency. Angels and souls have potency through their essence which is not Being Itself.
Deletejmchugh,
DeleteI wrote earlier that:
There's also a problem with Peikoff's definition of nature from an Aristotelian standpoint: namely, that he doesn't reference the fact that a nature is the intrinsic principle of stability or change within a substance. His definition ("nature is existence-the sum of that which is") would collapse the distinction between the natural and the artificial.
Now, in Aristotelian philosophy of nature, there is a distinction between nature and art. Nature has its principle of stability and change intrinsically while art has that principle extrinsically. An example Edward Feser used to give back in the day is the example of the vines and the hammock. The vines themselves are natural because what causes them to grow and wrap around trees is intrinsic to what they are. The hammock you make the vines from, by contrast, is art because it takes some human agent to impose the form of a hammock onto the vines. This distinction is important to understanding preternatural and supernatural activity; both of these cause something that doesn't flow from the intrinsic principles of the thing being acted upon. A useful analogy would be to say that art is to humans what preternatural activity is to angels and supernatural activity is to God. Of course, when we get to God's level, it's a bit complicated since God is the first cause of not merely supernatural activities but also natural, voluntary, and preternatural activities.
However, when the Randian defines nature as being subject to physical laws, he's essentially absorbing human artifacts into nature. Thus, he's conflating nature and art (in the Aristotelian sense of those terms). This naturally leads to widespread confusion.
"What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. [...] What, then, is 'super-nature'? [...] It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence—a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities—a something which contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short, a contradiction of every metaphysical essential"
DeleteThis gets rid of the supernatural by definition. It's another reason why I dumped Randian philosophy as selfish sophistry many years ago.
Tom Cohoe
"What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. [...] What, then, is 'super-nature'? [...] It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence—a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities—a something which contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short, a contradiction of every metaphysical essential"
DeleteThis just defines every real entity as natural. It's just not interesting. So God, if God exists, would also be natural.
But then we can also come up with other definitions to make different categories for different things. Everything is natural, but God is "mystic" and people are not, etc.
Except if the person is trying to get rid of God, angels, etc. by definition - in which case it's just begging the question, so it's rubbish.
I can see why folks see Peikoff's definition as circular. Defining "natural" as "existing" seems to be a fallacy.
DeleteJourney516-It sounds like your definition of natural is identical to your definition of physical. Therefore what is changeable (able to go from potential to actual) is the natural. The unchangeable is the supernatural. However, when it comes to angels I do see a potential for change, thus the existence of fallen angels.
Thank you to others for comments and clarifications. Would love to hear people's explicit definitions of "natural" and "supernatural."
I wanted to chime in that the definition taken on its own is nonsense and would allow for every supernatural, mysterious, or legendary beings conceivable, while merely pushing them into the realm of "natural". But Unknown already did that, so I have nothing to add there.
DeleteI would define supernatural as that which exists a se, by the necessity of its own nature, instead of derivatively. Rob Koons and Alex Pruss defined supernatural as "unbounded and wholly infinite in intrinsic measures", meaning a being that hasn't any arbitrary limits on its capabilities and thus provide an explanation for every limit or determined conceptual content (like with abstract objects)
Very interesting. I'm glad to see Dr. Feser branching out into the relationship between the supernatural and the natural. Would the preternatural be a type of supernatural power or is it a category unto its own, of course with a supernatural cause, like everything ultimately? Looks like a very interesting book for those stradling the natural and supernatural.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, preternatural = demons and angels while supernatural = God.
DeletePreternatural is the state of man before the Fall.
DeletePreternatual is the action which goes beyond the structure of the nature of the material universe. The fruit of the action of an angelical or demoniacal nature is said to be preternatural. The word comes from "praeter naturam", beyond nature. Supernatural is the action which goes beyond any created nature.
DeleteIt doesn't seem to me that the preternatural part of man's nature from the Fall came from angels. It seems more likely that it was a part of the supernatural powers given by God to pre-fall humans. Thanks for the latin roots. I would conjecture that preternatural powers were an angel like power not dependent on man's five senses for knowledge that was lost in the Fall.
DeleteYay! Thanks, Ed!
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way have you ever thought of teaching an online course on A-T? Unfortunately, we don't have people like you, David Oderberg, Stephen Boulter, Fred Freddoso, Gyula Klima here in Brazil (I can only think of one guy specifically, to be honest). So my - I guess not just mine but our - hungry for this doctrine is hardly satisfied. This content is indeed very hard to find and do not receive the deserved attention :(
And I must say thank you for always bringing quality content via your blog! That's a priceless attitude - and I must say a life-saving one (since it helped me a lot and it must help a lot of people too)!
May God bless you and your family!
(And thank you for the free-access content advice!)
Hi Tadeo! From what I know, some of Ed's books have been translated into Brazilian Portuguese, e.g., A última superstição: Uma refutação do neoateísmo.
DeleteHope this helps in the meantime! (I too look forward to an audio-visual course from Ed... Much needed indeed in our time.)
@anon
Delete"(I too look forward to an audio-visual course from Ed... Much needed indeed in our time.)"
Sure thing, mate! I really hope someday we could have something like that too! I would kill for it lol! But jokes aside, I really would study it and focus into it like I would never do for anything else!
Oh, and about the book, I found the Portuguese translation imprecise - with all due respect to the translators. The problem is when people are translating something like that from Portuguese, they suffer from what I call Giovanni Reale syndrome (they somehow overemphasize some points and make them soo difficult for the reader to understand and a simple argument becomes somehow full of technical jargon that the original language becomes truly the only viable option to know what was really meant by the author).
But one huge problem in the translation is the fact that it misses the point from what Ed was saying in the original and in some sense says something very different from what Ed was really saying and does not have the touch, let's say, the emphasis that Ed's got (especially if you read the passages talking about act and potency and the Unmoved Mover - and I must affirm that the difference is not a linguistic but a substantial one because if you know Brazilian Portuguese and you read it in English you can clearly see the nuances of what was really meant and how it was written by Ed to meant in an exactly precise sense and how the translation misses it). If I can sum up somehow the translation seems to not get into the A-T's mind at all but to simply conversing a general vision into it without going that deeply into it - and by that reason miss a lot of it - for not having such a deep link, a deep experience into how the A-T really thinks metaphysics, epistemology and etc. The translation simply shows that it doesn't have a familiarity or experience with A-T at all!
And I want to thank you for the kind reply! Thank you soo much for mentioning the translations - it is unusual to see people caring that much about others in this way and I really appreciate it! Never cease to be that wonderful person!
Dominus tecum, amicus!
@Tadeo
DeleteMan, that is sad. Dr. Feser style is awesome and these subjects need to be explained pretty well to be understood by the modern mind. It is good that the interest is growung here, though.
Poor Professor, you writes so well that we failed to translate the awesomeness!
@Talmid
DeleteI totally agree. Ed has a true gift not just to understand but to teach such things. One thing that I realized by myself (so it's my own opinion) about Aristotelian metaphysics is the fact that people who better understand it are the only ones that can teach it in a simple way (e.g Ed, Mortimer, and Father Brent) because it is not hard to GET what Aristotle really meant, what is REALLY hard is to put it in a simple way (if I can somehow make a parallel I would say too that just the same way that it is not hard at all to see that GOD REALLY IS and that Natural Law exists but what is really hard is to untangle the sophistries that the moderns put onto it.)
And about his work, I am totally in debt with this man because his work just changed my life - I was in a Jacques Maritain almost demise situation style but I don't want to talk about it - but when I accidentally found his work via his blog it really showed that there is a rational way out of the fate that a coherent naturalism could put you in. And that's why I was convinced because I could see the strength of the arguments.
I would love to someday thank this man personally. And I swear to God if someday and somehow he would ask me to translate it I would do it for free! Not just because I feel in debt with him, and not because I personally think Aristotelianism (and by that of course I mean the great Tomaso de Aquinatis too but I'm referring to 'the big tent' in general) is the only effective - or better call it sane - vaccine against today's crap - to not say worse. But because they affirm something soo plausible and soo true that anyone can grasp it but in fact can't even see anything but a fog because of the ideas that dominate modernity nowadays. AND the same way it changed my life, it CAN change a lot of people's lives that just need that spark, just the knowledge that something like that really exists - and by that I mean a reliable and foot-grounded metaphysics! So that's why we need to do an effort to spread it in an intelligent and simple way! That's why I'm on to it!
E que Deus te abençoe muito, meu querido irmão!
(P.S I just want to make an unnecessary caveat about some authors in specific. I found Oderberg and Klima really hard to read at some - if not most - points. But by no way do I mean at all that he doesn't know about Aristotelian meta - he just writes more technically. If I can say so the guy is simply brilliant and unmatched in smartness. And I am tempted to put Gilson, Garrigou-Lagrange, and Clark on the 'talk simple' examples but that may be seen to be controversial).
And I just want to add some corrections to my former comment. I was sleepy and it was three in the morning so sorry if I may sound odd and illiterate at some points. Since I construct the text in a detailed fashion and by parts I forgot to change some things while constructing it.
DeleteI would add scare quotes in the 'coherent naturalism' part because a ''coherent'' naturalism, taken to the last consequences will make you deny necessarily things like intentionality and the like just like the bizarre Paul Churchland - and what name for an atheist guy. So, if people are not the Discovery Channel atheist type they will end up like a Churchland or a Rosemberg type necessarily.
About Aristotle and the big tent, I refer in the third paragraph I really meant that despite the fact that his teachings - his principles - are extremely obvious and true, people nowadays can't even see that because nowadays were stuck in a cosmovision of the world that totally blinds us from even imagining that there is such a thing. We are stuck in a computationalist view about the world and a mechanistic one - or you can even say a 'black mirror' kind of thing if you like.
And about the authors, I was thinking solely about Oderberg in specific and then I remembered Gyula Klima. So that's why it has a 'he' and not a 'they' when referring to the knowledge of Aristotelian Metaphysics. I simply forgot to change that part. My bad.
And @Talmid, I do recommend you to listen to this incredible lecture by Father Brent (https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/principles-of-nature-fr-james-brent-op). You can find the text he refers to here (https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/Aquinas-principlesofnature-klima.htm). It was translated by Gyula Klima by the way :D
@Talmid
Delete"One thing that I realized by myself (so it's my own opinion) about Aristotelian metaphysics is the fact that people who better understand it are the only ones that can teach it in a simple way"
Exactly! Aristotelian philosophy is the closer one can get to what the average men on the street thinks while actually being right. Dr. Feser itself already noticed before how common-sense is close to Aristotle views, can't remember the post. Chesterton did say something similar about Aquinas.
And it is true that the solution to the modern man is go back to the classics, anything else is a mistake. It is cool that you founded a new outlook on life by reading good philosophy, people like Dr. Feser also did change how i see life and the nan itself became a theist thanks to philosophy. Look to the means that Our God can use to bring us to Him!
Thanks for the material, e que Nosso Bom Deus lhe abençoe e lhe guarde!
This is good. Just got the digital edition and finished the prolog. First time using Vitalsource Bookshelf. It has an amazingly good screen reader. Really liking it so far.
ReplyDeleteHow did you get the digital version?
DeleteHey Palladino,
DeleteThis worked for me -
1-Go here:
https://www.routledge.com/Neo-Aristotelian-Metaphysics-and-the-Theology-of-Nature/Simpson-Koons-Orr/p/book/9780367637149
The listing for 1st Edition
Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature appears.
2-Under the Format dropdown list, click on Hardback, and you will see an option for VitalSource eBook.
I see the following here in Canada - pricing and options may be different for you based on your location though.
Purchase eBook - $39.16
6 Month Rental - $24.48
12 Month Rental - $29.37
There is a link to Amazon Kindle, but it just goes back to the Amazon hardcover page. I don't think it is available via Amazon Kindle yet.
3-Click Add to Cart. (I chose the Purchase Option).
4-Click View Cart.
5-Click Checkout.
You can purchase the book as Guest or create a Routeledge account.
6-Go through the payment steps. I believe you will need to give an email address at least. You will get a confirmation email with details for how to download the VitalSource App along with a code for the book.
Looks like the VitalSource Bookshelf app is available on IOS, Android, Kindle Fire (I actually don't know what that is or how it is different from the Kindle app that I usually use on my Android phone), PC, or Chromebook.
I choose to install the Android Bookshelf app. I also had to create a VitalSource account for the next steps, but not sure when I had to do that.
6-Open the app and sign into your VitalSource account.
7-Click on the Navigation menu (three horizontal lines icon at the top).
8-Click Redeem Code.
9-Enter the code you got in the Email.
The book should appear in your inbox. You can click on it and start reading.
Thank you so much!
DeleteI would love to read this book. Unfortunately it’s just too pricey for me!
ReplyDeleteOne of the contributors, Prof. James Koons, wrote an intro to metaphysics book that is very readable and informative.
Delete@Jason see if your local library can borrow a copy for you via Interlibrary Loan.
Deletehttps://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Fundamentals-Philosophy-Robert-Koons/dp/1405195738
DeleteOf course the history of true religion is the history of men God spoke to directly, through revelation, and not by analogy and inference or deduction, which is what is discussed here - and very necessary it is too.
ReplyDeleteIs it? Solely? I think not.
DeleteSt Paul teaches in his Letter to the Romans that some of God's self-disclosure is not "directly" (as in special revelation) but implicitly through the general revelation of conscience and Nature's order, which would then point to God via rational inference. And even when it comes to special revelation, which explicit prophetic message from God ever entirely excluded analogical language? Pretty much none of them, I would say.
I realise you were trying, rightly, to prioritise the absolute necessity for us as fallen humans of special revelation and supernatural grace, as well as the insufficiency of general revelation. But I think the way you put it was still too unqualified.
Thanks for your comment Fr. Kirby. I didn't mean to say there was no knowledge of God by inference from the natural order. But the history of our religion from Adam onward, is the history of revelation which, properly speaking - there is no revelation which is not special - is not that knowledge gained by inference. The fact that much of the faith can be proved by reason alone wouldn't alter this.
DeleteAs st. Thomas said, it's possible to know certain things about God by the use of reason alone, but few manage it.
Philosophy is not religion. One can speak of natural theology - as a kind of hypothesis - but not any natural religion, for which revelation might be a kind of "improvement". We can't find any societies anywhere in history that conducted a cult towards God based on philosophy.
"...insofar as we cannot form a conception of the supernatural except by contrast with the natural, and cannot know whether there is such a thing as the supernatural unless we can reason to its existence from the existence of the natural order. A proper understanding of the supernatural thus presupposes a proper understanding of the natural order and of the causal relation between that order and its cause."
ReplyDelete- Dr. Feser
“The mystery of the incarnation of the Lord is the key to all the arcane symbolism and typology in the Scriptures, and in addition gives us knowledge of created things, both visible and intelligible. He who apprehends the mystery of the cross and the burial apprehends the inward essences [i.e. principles or logoi] of created things, while he who is initiated into the inexpressible power of the resurrection apprehends the purpose for which God first established everything.”
— St. Maximus the Confessor, First Century on Theology: 66, The Philokalia: the Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodemus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, Vol. 2, trans. GEH Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, p. 127
I parallel these two statements because they reveal a difference in epistemology and ordo theologiae between East and West.
Epistemologically, if all knowledge is conditioned and directed by the state of one’s faculty of knowledge – which for the Orthodox is the nous (mind), or spiritual sense of the soul responsible for both natural and noetic understanding – then a corrupted faculty will not provide correct understanding of the supernatural. St. Isaac the Syrian likens knowledge to a slip that is spliced onto the tree of one’s nous. If the tree is sick, then the slip is not healthy and cannot produce good fruit. Thus, even that which is objectively true in and of itself will not be properly appropriated and realized in the human being if his nous is darkened by sin and the passions.
For St. Isaac, purification of the heart and nous occur by abstaining from sin, performance of the Holy Commandments (knowledge of the evangelical virtues by doing them), the ascetical life (prayer, fasting, vigil), and those sacred acts of worship and communion that unite us to God through experience. It is only then that the nous is purified and illumined by the Holy Spirit. Christ tells us in Matthew’s Gospel that the pure in heart will see God. For St. Isaac this vision of God is the spiritual perception of the purified and reintegrated nous which achieves direct union with God’s energies, bringing understanding of divine and heavenly realities. This noetic illumination, while not being identical to the knowledge it brings, is the truest and most proper way of approaching God in our understanding. From a different vantage, true knowledge of God is hypostatic because it involves union with the God-man Christ, who in his divine Person is Truth itself.
I would argue that this conception is the proper context for what St. Maximus is saying above. One “apprehends the inward [principles] of created things” by being initiated into the resurrection. Initiation implies a transformation of the person independent of natural knowledge or logical demonstration. Thus, the proper order of theologizing begins with revelation and our initiation into it. For St. Maximus it is the activity and operations of the Trinity, and more specifically the incarnate Logos, that is the proper lens to understanding the world; such an “apprehension of the mystery of the cross” depends on the epistemic requirement of the healing of the human person in heart, soul and mind.
This is why such a separation between super-nature and nature is problematic; it assumes that the supernatural can only be understood within the natural; I think it’s rather the opposite. That the experience of the supernatural is the epistemic ground for understanding the created world (not just a metaphysical or ontological one in the order of causation).
Gregory
Thus, the proper order of theologizing begins with revelation and our initiation into it.
DeleteGregory, in what way does Maximus (and the others) posit that a person can FIRST receive the Word of revealed truth so that he can, at first instance, have the opportunity to say "I believe", and ask to be admitted to the Church. It seems to me that he cannot make those acts by "being initiated into" revelation in the sense Maximus is talking about, because he has - up to that moment - NOT given up sin and the world. There must be some order of knowing, BEFORE the proper initiation into revelation and theologizing, that ALLOWS him to choose to be initiated. There must be something that makes it humanly possible for the people first hearing St. Peter, and St. Paul, and other missionaries, to respond to their words in a positive way, that is not YET dependent on being "inside" of the transformation of the person that Maximus is talking about.
Whatever level of knowledge that is, that knowledge is (a) true and valid knowledge, or it would not lead to a true act of submission to revelation; and then (b) remains true after initiation. It may be surpassed by the light received under grace, but it is not falsified by the light of grace.
St. Isaac the Syrian likens knowledge to a slip that is spliced onto the tree of one’s nous. If the tree is sick, then the slip is not healthy and cannot produce good fruit.
To the extent that the early acts of receiving, considering, and affirming the preaching of St. Peter leads a person into the initiation into the Christian religion, just to that extent the slip MUST be producing "good fruit" at least in some sense. It is impossible for grace to act on nature to produce good fruit without nature having something right about it. Even if nature has been damaged by sin, it has not been damaged in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY, or it would not be possible for grace to correct it.
This is why such a separation between super-nature and nature is problematic; it assumes that the supernatural can only be understood within the natural;
That's almost the exact opposite of what Feser is saying. He is not saying that the supernatural is understood within the natural, AT ALL. He is saying that from the natural it is possible to grasp that there is something BEYOND what can be understood within the natural, that cannot be grasped by grasping the natural. And since (ontologically) the natural cannot exist without the supernatural as its ground, so the natural cannot possibly be wholly comprehended but through the supernatural.
Unknown,
DeleteTony is right in his reply. Also, it is not a strict East-West division. Many Eastern Othodox argue that there is some level of natural law and natural theology and that there is epistemological priority of nature to establish, among other things, what sin is before the spiritual disciplines begin. Also, many Protestants go the route of Francis Schaeffer or Cornelius van Til and critique Aquinas on similar grounds to which your interpretation of Maximus does.
I have the first edition wich is free on kindle unlimited; and I will read the essay by Dr. Feser about Actuality, Potentiality, and Relativity's Block Universe.
ReplyDeleteUnfornately, in Brazil, because of the bad politics of president Bolsonaro, the dollar is very expensive and this anthology is an international purchase.
There is another title in this series on formal causation (Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation) and the first article by Gyula Klima is well worth the price of the book (which is a tribute to Klima as it is very expensive!). The abstract to your article is tempting me to bite the bullet on another expensive book! (Please don't tell my wife).
ReplyDelete