Tuesday, December 31, 2024

The thread you’ve been waiting for

Let’s close out 2024 and begin 2025 with a long overdue open thread.  Now’s your chance to get that otherwise off-topic comment posted at last.  From plate tectonics to Hooked on Phonics, from substance abuse to substance dualism, from Thomism to Tom Tom Club, everything is on-topic.  Trolls still not welcome, though, so keep it sane and civil.

Previous open threads archived here.

Posted by at

66 comments:

  1. NormDecember 31, 2024 at 12:51 PM

    Happy New Year Prof!
    May this year be full of opportunities to share the good news and the light of truth.

    Speaking of opportunities, This year was the most I heard you speak about offering up our suffering for the sake of Christ, you also shared a video of Eleonore Stump commenting on the same and in your interview with Matt Fradd as well.

    I was wondering if you think the opportunity to imitate Christ itself is a greater good that God derives from the suffering of every cognitively able adult even if they don't use that opportunity? Is the opportunity itself a greater good ?

    Anyone else can also answer.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 6:09 PM

      Dr. Stump has a great website

      Delete
    2. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:32 AM

      Hey Anon

      I know, it's just that I tend to trust Dr Feser more on these matters.

      So I'd like to hear his take on the matter.

      Dr Feser is someone who also often engages with the question of suffering.

      I respect Dr Stump but just as a matter of Thomist Orthodoxy , I prefer to get Dr Feser's take on whether he considers the opportunity to imitate Christ itself as a greater good that God has derived from our suffering even if one doesn't use it.

      My sense is that he does take that to be the case because I remember reading Dr Feser on original sin and he mentions that our first parents are worse of for not having the opportunity that God has given them which suggests that the opportunities themselves are goods.

      Would I be right there Prof ?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:03 PM

      Norm, the Prof doesn't engage with his readers as he did back in the day. Times have changed.

      Delete
    4. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:36 PM

      the Prof doesn't engage with his readers as he did back in the day.

      It's true that interaction here has dropped off, though I have tried to do a little more of it recently. I never really interacted much on open threads, specifically, though, because there are so many topics raised and there's no way I can comment on them all. For that reason, in open threads I've tended not to comment at all.

      Delete
    5. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:39 PM

      Hi Norm, I would say that that is among the greater goods -- particularly where suffering is accepted for the sake of others, since that is especially Christ-like.

      Delete
    6. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:07 PM

      Hey Prof, Happy New Year !
      Thanks for the response

      Oh that's interesting. In what mode is an "opportunity" a good though ? Is it a kind of potency ?

      It does provide a good answer to the question of those who might have faced unjust suffering (in childhood when they were without mortal sin) but eventually ended up damned.

      People might say that their unjust suffering was never compensated but if one were to consider opportunities as greater goods, one could say that their suffering brought for them a great opportunity for a particularly intimate union with Christ, a greater good which they ultimately squandered.

      But it all depends on if an unused "opportunity" in and of itself can be considered to be a good ?

      Since I have you Prof,Could you just clarify the way in which an opportunity might be taken as a good ?

      Delete
    7. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:24 PM

      Anon

      I usually comment in hopes that Prof sees it and somewhere down the line consciously or unconsciously addresses it, it helps if other people are curious as well.

      Prof gets thousands of questions but I have realised that as long as I can be substantive there's a good chance that others will also find it of interest and a chance of it being addressed.

      I always try to elevate the conversation and keep it classy.

      I was particularly heartened to see Dr Janet Smith praise the conversation in this combox, especially in an election year.

      So even in the understandable absence of Prof's response we can still be a model for rational discourse.

      I am formed within Indian culture where we have a special reverence for teachers. In contrast to a world where knowledge and education are treated as goods that one is simply entitled to, we consider it a privilege to be a formed at the hands of a master, this is part of the reason I often do directly address Prof, when you address the teacher, naturally one's question also tends to be substantive, since you want to be worthy of a response.

      Anyways Thanks again Prof, for all that you do!

      Delete
  2. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 1:39 PM

    Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 1:46 PM

    Is it good that the philosophy departments in some countries are totally dominated by analytical philosophy? I studied philosophy in Sweden and it was interesting in the beginning when I learned about Platon and Aristotle, but the focus was on the analytical philosophy after year 1900: Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein… It just became more and more boring. And that is sad, because philosophy should be interesting and it should be about questions that people really care about. Surely continental philosophy could be criticized, but I think that a true philosopher should know something about the famous continental philosophers and not only be totally focused on analytical philosophy. Of course, I prefer scholastic thinkers like Aquinas, but the only thing we learned about him in the university was his five proofs, and the teacher spent very little time on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NLRJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:20 AM

      I think a big part of it is that the nature of analytic philosophy makes it easier to do research in philosophy, i.e., publish articles.

      But unfortunately, philosophy is one of subjects that is least capable of being professionalized. You can be a professional teacher of philosophy (whether at a university or a seminary), but real philosophy can't just be produced on command. If people try to do that then the subject ends up getting sidetracked.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:12 PM

      As Etienne Gilson put it: the philosopher take about things, while the professor of philosophy take about philosophy.

      Delete
  4. ficino4mlDecember 31, 2024 at 2:01 PM

    In a colloquium several years ago, Lindsay Judson said that prime matter is not a bona fide Aristotelian concept because it is never found anywhere. I asked him, what persists through a change of air, say, into water, or into fire, so that we can say that something comes is generated "out of" air? If nothing persists, then we merely have a succession of primary elements but not generation "out of." Judson said that what persists is not prime matter but "the extension," i.e. the space that was occupied by the air and is now occupied by fire or water. With a laugh he added that he was nervous about what David Charles might have said had Charles been present.

    Any views on this? I am not asking whether Aquinas has a doctrine of prime matter but whether any participant in Prof's blog has a robust answer from Aristotle (Zeta or wherever).

    Happy new year!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NLRJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:07 AM

      Here's two articles that discuss this: "Aristotle without the Prima Materia", making a similar argument that it's not actually found in Aristotle (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2707550)

      And here's a response, "Prime Matter in Aristotle" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181937)

      I've only read the first one, but those might be a starting point. You can't download articles on JSTOR with a free account, but if you make one you can read up to 100 articles per month online.

      Delete
    2. ficino4mlJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:47 AM

      @NLR: thanks for the references. I do have JSTOR, actually, so I shall check these out. I also found Lindsay Judson's recent published version of what he presented in the colloquium. It will take me a while to assimilate these, though!

      Delete
  5. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 2:05 PM

    Hello Dr. Feser,

    I noticed in Aristotle’s Revenge an excellent bibliography with many scientific books of various difficulty levels for lay people. Any you would recommend for getting up to speed on physics or biology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:55 PM

      There's so much stuff out there that it's hard to single out one or two things. But as a general recommendation for the philosophy-minded reader, works that are written by philosophers who are also very conversant with the relevant scientific ideas are worth checking out. For example, Bertrand Russell and Michael Lockwood wrote useful general books on relativity, and several more recent philosophers of physics and philosophers of biology (of the kind whose work I've discussed in places like AR) have written useful works discussing various specific topics within those sciences.

      Delete
  6. Vini TadeoDecember 31, 2024 at 3:25 PM

    Happy new year, Ed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:09 PM

      Years ago, someone with the name Tadeo said on this blog that they had OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. If that was you. Tadeo, I have prayed for you (as well as for others) every day.

      Delete
    2. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:40 PM

      To you too, Vini (and to everyone else!)

      And Anon, I am certain that is much appreciated.

      Delete
    3. Vini TadeoJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:20 PM

      Hey Anon and Ed!

      Wow, what a wonderful surprise, Anon. It's me indeed. I suffer from OCD, but my OCD is not the typical handwashing/turn the light on and off kind of behavior but more of a 'thinking' kind. So, it's tough to stay out of my head, in the sense of not being overserved by my repetitive, trouble-fabricating thoughts.

      One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how beautiful the community Ed constructed in his wonderful blog is. The world is a dark place and it is very hard to find people who care about each other, pray for others in pain, and practice piety, love, and compassion. I may be young and very inexperienced about life, but one thing I do know more certain than anything else is that people who practice these virtues I've described are a gift to this world (and, in fact, can only learn and practice such virtues and goods from the Summum Bonum Himself by following wholeheartedly His Will!). So, people like you, Anon, are a gift to this world. Thank you so much for your prayers.

      Also, I don't know what surprises me more: the fact that that's been long ago and you still remember my name, or, the fact that you do bear the pain of others and feel compassion and pray for them in the way I described above.

      One other thing that I must also say is how blessed I've been by God. Even though I do suffer a lot from this disease, somehow God touches the hearts of others and extracts a greater good out of it. And, this fact kindly reminds me of how much I owe to Ed. The patience, the teachings, the advice and so much time and effort he invested not only in helping me personally but other countless readers through his vast amount of blog posts, books, articles, and much more.

      People nowadays are easy to forget about how much one has to sacrifice and dedicate to write such an abundant and meaningful amount of work (especially in this gifted, crystalline, and unique way that Ed does). In one of his books, which I think was Aristotle's Revenge, Ed used an apt expression that pretty much describes the intellectual work better than any other expression: chained to the desk.

      So, in the same way, I am very grateful for the time Ed spends chained to his desk I am grateful to you, Anon, for sacrificing your time praying for me. In both cases, it is undeniable that such actions and efforts can only come to fruition when men like you and Ed humbly transform your own wills to serve the will of the Father (either by loving one neighbor or through unraveling the 'hidden treasure' -- to use once again an apt expression highlighted by Ed on his recent talk with Matt Frad-- of perennial philosophy and Classical Theism).

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 2:06 AM

      Hey Vini, you've compelled me to comment for the first time. I also have OCD of the more "mental kind", though I do have various physical compulsions like checking locks excessively. I was diagnosed after rigorous testing and have been battling it for over a decade. If you havent looked into it, cognitive behavioral therapy will change your life. Not talk therapy or any of that other borderline pseudoscience, but cognitive behavioral therapy. Get a book for starters.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 12:50 PM

      Thanks for your thanks, Tadeo. And yours, Ed. I was told by a psychiatrist that I have an obsessive personality, but not OCD. I also have generalized anxiety. Like you, I tend to ruminate a lot and have repetitive thoughts. For OCD, the SSRI anti-depressants like Prozac or Lexapro can help some people. And yes, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy can also help. I have found that 300 to 400 mg of Magnesium (Nature Made found at Walmart) seems to relieve my anxiety. Also, hard physical exercise, running or fast walking, preferably outdoors, is beneficial.

      I pray for many people because it's what Christians are called to do, even though I am not a staunch Christian. St. Dymphna is the patron saint of those with mental affhttps://natlshrinestdymphna.org/site/lictions. Ask for her intercession.


      Yes, this is a supportive community...most of the time. I wish you well.

      Delete
    6. Vini TadeoJanuary 2, 2025 at 1:36 PM

      Hey again, Anon!

      Oh man, I'm really sorry to hear about that. A decade is a really long battle. And I know your pain. In fact, I want to share with you a little bit of my story with you.

      My OCD came to be known through my 14's but it subdued and became mostly unnoticed till my 20-21's. I'm 26 right now.

      My OCD became sparked and buzzing like crazy for philosophical reasons (which is a lot to explain, but I will spare you the details). For almost 2 to 3 years my life simply just stopped. The end of 2019 was like a real hell. There were a lot of times that I couldn't gather the strength to get out of bed due to how depressed I was. The mental pain was so distinct from any other I ever suffered that, even if I'm not in mental pain right now, I can remember exactly how it was in my worst phases.

      OCD feels like the literal hell in the classical Catholic sense because your mind wanders through the same old thoughts (and so the same pre-packaged pain, bad feelings, chest pain, headache, hand shakings) and you don't learn anything through the experience. It's like an infinite unbreakable cycle of pain and torment.

      My mind feels like there is a living sophist/relativist in there. I think OCD could be simply called 'the sophist disease' because it doesn't even matter how solid this or that judgment is my mind will simply trigger the feeling that "something is wrong." It is actually the opposite of myself and how I see myself. I never was a relativist or something like that throughout my youth. But somehow this disease floods my mind with things that, deep down inside, I know aren't true -- and in fact, I don't even believe it at all.

      When I reflect upon my life and ask myself how this came to be the way it is a lot of it breaks down to very bad thinking patterns (learn through the school system) and the large amount of ideologically motivated dogmas that our particular time takes for granted. For example, out of high school, you either end up being a commie, or an empiricist and naturalist who treats 'science' like a kind of unquestionable religion. The university ends up finishing the job and sharpens you up to be a cynical, a better sophist, or even a good pretender. And you don't realize how much these ideas have consequences and change you subtly till it's too late. The bad pattern of reasoning (the knee-jerking, irreflexive, and even the pride), the unreflected ideas... a lot of this is stuck in our psyche and is a pain in the arse to get rid of.

      In my case, I think that's exactly what happened. I graduated in law. Just like psychology and other 'pop' areas, law is the major field where people take metaphysical ideas for granted without even knowing their meaning -- but can't help themselves but philosophize about every single thing, like they're a PhD in every single aspect of reality. Materialism, relativism, and reductionism all play a major role in underlying a lot of laws, doctrines, thinkers, and stuff that we do. So, in a sense, I had everything to turn my mind in this disaster it is.

      (I think that's a lot of text already, I will continue below)

      Delete
    7. Vini TadeoJanuary 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM

      (continuing)

      To explain exactly how all of this fits with my situation is very hard to express through the comment section but I can firmly say that a little bit of everything I expressed above played a major role.

      And, Anon, I am really glad that you mentioned about CBT. Ed also gave me advice and recommended this approach and how effective it is.

      Unfortunately, I don't know if that's a regional kind of phenomenon, but it's very hard to find a good professional with this approach where I live (I'm Brazilian, by the way). Recently I found a guy who works with CBT (after some very troubling appointments with some oddballs), but, even though he's a nice guy it feels like the sessions/treatment is not going anywhere (paradoxically, Ed himself, which is professional philosopher gave effective advice better than the 'professional psychologists' I've met).

      In short, I don't know if it's the lack of good professionals that we have here but it's very hard to find good help. So, if you could share some names or even recommend some books that I may find across the web to buy, I would be very glad!

      PS: I have a bad feeling that some of my countrymen may say that I'm being an 'Americanist' in this comment section, but I will live with the consequences of what I wrote!

      Delete
    8. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 8:08 PM

      Tadeo is offered in Brazil. Google "cognitive behavioral therapy Brazil. "
      Also Google " transcranial mental stimulation Brazil."It's used to treat OCD and other psychological disorders.
      I speak some Spanish but no Portugese. "Que lata."

      Delete
    9. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 8:22 PM

      Dr.Feser
      Thank you for taking time from your very busy schedule to engage with your readers. That's why you have the best philosophy blog on the Internet, and why your books are all best sellers.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 2:32 AM

      I guess since I'm anonymous I should clarify that I am the fellow "decade long" sufferer.

      Interesting what you've written, particularly about OCD being a sophist-like. Paraphrasing what you said, it doesn't matter how strong the evidence is, you'll doubt the conclusion. Complete certainty is a hallmark of OCD. I too have recognized some philosophical parallels. Adopting certain metaphysics shouldn't impact treatment, but I do think dualism or at least a non-reductionist/materialist theory gels better with mental disease, particularly OCD. Therapists are tough to come by. Try a book. Happy to recommend if you're sincerely interested.

      Delete
    11. NormJanuary 3, 2025 at 10:48 AM

      Dr Feser indeed does have the best philosophy blog!
      I always wonder about the chain of events that led me to it, the memories seem rather fuzzy. But I am glad it happened either way.

      Delete
  7. WeouroDecember 31, 2024 at 3:52 PM

    What is the deal with the CTMU of Chris Langan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CosmicCatDecember 31, 2024 at 5:36 PM

      Be careful. Every thinking type is "very smart".

      "Clothes are the enemy." - Satsuki Kiriyuin.

      Delete
  8. TonyDecember 31, 2024 at 7:19 PM

    In light of the solemnity we observe tomorrow, I would like to know if there are any reasonably reliable traditions in the Church for a couple of things about Mary, the Mother of God: (1) had she been dedicated to serve at the Temple as a child; and (2) did she make some kind of perpetual commitment to virginity, and if so, what was the practical expectation for her marriage with Joseph?

    I have heard suggestions that some of this (perhaps) is found in some non-canonical "gospels", like the gospel of Thomas or James or something. And I know that there are some claims from private revelation - including by people of high repute (Blessed or Venerable) about this stuff, but of relatively "recent" vintage (within the last few hundred years). What I am looking for especially is whether there is any early traditions cited by the Fathers toward this stuff. And where to find it.

    Along somewhat similar lines but slightly differently: what can we reasonably surmise that Mary (and her parents) told Joseph about why she was going off to visit her cousin Elizabeth, that gave him a good reason to be comfortable with his just-betrothed "wife" to go off for 3 months? (The gospel both refers to them as "betrothed" and as married - which strongly buttresses the historical position that at that time the marriage process was a 2-part process, one for the giving of vows, then later for the husband to receive his wife into his now-made-ready home.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MJRJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:21 PM

      Tony, Google " Brant Pitre perpetual virginity of Mary." He is a brilliant Catholic theologian.

      Delete
    2. JordanJanuary 2, 2025 at 12:54 PM

      Hi Tony,

      For the dedication to the temple and the vow of virginity, the earliest surviving written source of that tradition that I know of is the Protoevangelium of James that you mentioned. It was written and circulating in the second century, but we don't know the author. Your mileage may vary on whether you consider that a reliable source. Like a lot of literature from that time, there's likely a mixture of truth a legend, but without a great way of separating out which is which. St. Augustine concludes that Mary must have taken a vow of virginity because of her response to the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:34 (How can this be, since I do not know man?"). You can read that in his treatise Of Holy Virginity (https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.v.iii.v.html). I believe there are other Church Fathers who concluded likewise, but I don't have any other quotes handy for you. There is a ton on her perpetual virginity, but not as much specifically on the two points you mentioned.

      As far as the reason for visiting her cousin, I've always concluded from the text itself that Mary was going to help her during her pregnancy. Gabriel says Elizabeth is six-months pregnant. Mary hurries to see her and stays for three months, meaning until the birth of John.

      Peaceful days,

      Jordan

      Delete
  9. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 12:09 AM

    Hi Ed,

    Thank you very much for publishing this blog. More than anything else, you have moved me from an atheist/materialist to a classical theist.

    A little while ago, you wrote a post called "Could a theist deny PSR?"

    I have a follow-up question -- does every version of atheism lead to accepting "brute facts"? Or is it possible for an atheist to reject the idea of brute facts while still holding to atheism?

    This may be a fruitful question for a future blog post, I'm not sure.

    Please have a happy, healthy, and productive 2025.

    - AKruger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:44 PM

      Many thanks for the kind words! As to your question, I'd say that while there can be atheists who accept some version of PSR, the problem is that once you do that, it is very hard to avoid accepting the reality of some ultimate explanatory principle that is going to entail theism of some kind (insofar as that principle will be necessary, or pure actuality, or what have you). To be sure, without further argumentation, that could amount to an impersonal absolute, or pantheism, or some other brand of theism I wouldn't accept myself. But it wouldn't really be atheism anymore in any interesting sense.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:17 PM

      Hi Ed,

      Thanks for the response. I get what you're saying, and I am coming to accept the same conclusion myself. Theism really does just seem to be a commitment to a thoroughgoing intelligibility of the world -- which seems highly plausible even at first glance, given the consistency of the natural order.

      I appreciate the time you took to write the response. Cheers.

      -- AKruger.

      Delete
  10. TeoneJanuary 1, 2025 at 2:15 AM

    Any plans for translating your books to Arabic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:48 PM

      I'm not certain, because almost always translations are initiated by someone other than me or my publishers (for example, by an individual translator or publisher in another country who acquires translation rights from the original publisher). Sometimes the person first inquires with me personally about it, other times I hear about it from a publisher, and sometimes I just find out after the fact that something has been translated. Re: Arabic, I don't remember for certain if I heard tell that one of my books was going to be translated -- I'll have to check into that.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 5:08 AM

    This is my understanding of St Thomas' answer to the problem of universals as I understand it. In particular, I emphasize the difference between a material thing's essence and its form. Can people let me know their thoughts and if (where) I've gone wrong in my understanding?

    A material species, qua species, does not have existence. Of course, even an immaterial substance does not per se have existence -- that's only true for God. But a material species lacks existence in an additional way to an immaterial substance. The latter is the same as its species. The essence of the angel is its species. Therefore its form can receive existence as it is. It requires nothing to be added to its essence for it to exist; it 'only' needs the act of existence. The form of the angelic species IS the essence of this angel. For any given angel to be what it is, it requires nothing other than its form. The form is complete in its essence, and requires only the act of existence to make a concretely-existing angel.

    Material things are different. The lower material things are more complex, not less, than the higher angelic things. The form of a tree is NOT the same as a concrete tree. If it were, then to destroy one tree would be to destroy the form of all trees, which is clearly false. The essence of a concrete tree is not the same as the form of a tree. Instead, the essence of a concrete tree is the form of a tree united to a particular chunk of matter (sometimes called signate matter). It is of the essence of a concrete tree to be a combination of a particular form, and a particular lump of matter. The form alone is not able to receive the act of existence, unlike an angelic form. Therefore, not only does a material species not have per se existence -- in this it agrees with the angels -- but it doesn't even have the per se capacity to receive existence. Something must be added to it in order for it to be able to receive existence. Its act of existence involves matter being united to it.

    As far as the species of a tree is concerned, it is of its essence to be the combination of a particular form, and matter-in-general (sometimes called insignate matter). A species of tree can't have existence without the addition of signate matter. This means that the species of a tree, qua species, can never act in and of itself. It can't grow, or make acorns, or grow leaves in summer and shed them in winter. It is false to say that the species is pure potentiality, because it can act as a power: for example, it is in act relative to its genus, and it can also act on our intellect. A bit more on this below. But it can't receive existence in and of itself, in the manner that an angelic species can. (Potentiality must be proportionate to act in order to receive it, as the Master says.) Therefore, species do not have an existence independent of the things that instantiate them.

    So the form is not the essence. The form is shared among all concrete trees. But the essence of a concrete tree is distinct from that of another concrete tree. It is the common form that makes them instances of the same thing. It is the distinct matter that makes them different. The form is therefore multiplied. It remains the same in kind, but increases in number, according to the number of composites that actualize it.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 5:08 AM

    ... continued from previous post

    The species of the tree is, of course, shared among all trees, just like the form (I'm not sure if the form is a synonym for the species, but I think not). The species exists virtually as a part of the composite. This means that it exists as a power of the composite. It is as a power, and only as a power, that the species can act; just as 'sight' can only act as a power of the person, never as some free-floating substance of sight. The composite has the power to move our intellects by means of its species. The species as such is immaterial and unchanging, and is therefore able to actualize our intellects -- ie to give us knowledge. The composite is material and changing, and thus cannot move our intellects other than by its species, but can move our senses by means of its material powers, such as reflecting light. (Indeed, no created substance can EVER operate, and can therefore never be known, except by means of its powers.) The active intellect is beyond the scope of this post, but that is the power by which the species is abstracted from the concrete.

    Is this a reasonable summary of St. Thomas' thought, as far as it goes? I am a little confused about one thing, which is that form seems to be, in some sense, in potency to the composite, but I thought the form was the principle of act (whereas the matter is the principle of potency). Precisely what is actualizing the form in order to make it exist? Obviously not the matter. Is it the act of existence, which acts by means of uniting the form to the matter? This seems a good way to answer the question. Any thoughts? Thank you very much!

    In any case, this seems to avoid the problems associated with both nominalism and extreme realism, as well as the version of moderate realism that identifies form with essence in material things (and therefore falls to the objection that to destroy one tree would be to destroy them all).

    ReplyDelete
  13. ScottDJanuary 1, 2025 at 9:26 AM

    Any reasonably accessible resources for understanding theories as to how grace exerts causal power without frustrating free will? Or, similarly, what powers demons can exercise, in light of both free will and generally-obtaining laws of nature/properties of substances?

    Both would be helpful in answering objections to the faith that are rooted in skepticism of the effects of supernatural causes on the everyday lives of the faithful (e.g., if the sacraments are efficacious grace, why aren't many Catholics more virtuous than they are/than non-Catholics?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Casual ThomistJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:24 AM

      Hey ScottD,
      A fascinating question! Quite funny to me that you posted this immediately before my question about divine foreknowledge, which is on an adjacent topic. Your first question on the efficaciousness of grace is starting to heat up again in Catholic circles, as a follow-up to a big twentieth century "Intra-Thomistic" debate. That debate pitted a so-called "classical-thomist" understanding of actual grace (the grace that brings us to perform virtuous actions) as infallibly efficacious against the accounts of so-called "revisionists" (Jacques Maritain, Francisco Marin-Sola, Bernard Lonnergan among others) who posited that grace had to be frustrable in some way or God was responsible for evil. I know its not quite the question you were asking, but if grace exerts its causal power infrustrably, even if we can still somehow call the will "free," it is hard to see how to avoid implicating God in evil when he "allows" the sinner to fall by not giving him that grace alone by which he could avoid sin.

      The "classical thomist" view (called Bañezian by its critics as it finds its genesis in sixteenth century thomist commentator Domingo Bañez) has received a rather clear treatment in English recently in Taylor Patrick O'Neill's Grace, Predestination and the Permission of Sin, which is quite accessible if you have basic knowledge of Aristotilean categories: https://www.amazon.com/Grace-Predestination-Permission-Sin-Thomistic/dp/0813232546

      For an easy look at a partial response that's quite accessible in a few minutes, Pat Flynn published a few blog posts that cover the gist of the "revisionist" positions in his own personal synthesis: https://www.chroniclesofstrength.com/predestination-debate-a-response-to-dr-taylor-patrick-oneills-critique-of-jacques-maritain/

      Also, DBH did an article back in '09 that offers an alternative metaphysical view that views the Thomistic conversation as based on a grave category mistake: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/hart-on-impassibility-as-transcendence.pdf

      All of the above authors at least discuss the attached issues even if they don't address your first question directly.

      I don't know enough to address your second question with resources, though I believe that St. Thomas has something in the Summa on it. Everyone agrees, at least, that no creature can directly influence the will by its very nature...

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:36 PM

      That is an excellent question , Scott. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to it. You can Google the question and get a number of links, though, that attempt to answer it. Or talk to a knowledgeable Catholic priest.

      Delete
    3. TonyJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:52 PM

      This addresses only in part, and the less difficult part at that: One way actual graces can act is to shine a "brighter" light on the better (true) good, so that its betterness is easier to grasp (or, perhaps, it takes more effort to turn away from the better to a lesser good?) This way would act more on the intellect than the will itself.

      Another way would be for grace to simply strengthen the will bearing an onslaught of temptation. One of the damages we suffer from as a consequence of original sin is "weakening of the will", so countering that damage by grace would support the will's freedom without impinging on its being free.

      Neither of these puts the crosshairs right on the central action of grace on the will, and would not explain the conversion of someone formerly bent on evil to turn to the good.

      From what I have heard from exorcists (online), demons cannot "read your mind" as such, they do not listen in on your interior conversation. Nor can they act on the soul in a manner like to how grace acts. They can read your outward actions with a more powerful intellect brought to bear, and inferentially estimate what your interior conversation was up to.

      It appears from the stories of angels in the Bible that they can affect material things around us by their powers, and very probably can create images for us to see that are comprised of nothing more than complex light activity such that our eyes are operating normally in seeing "an angel" - our eyes acting on the light received on the retina as usual. Presumably demons can do likewise. On occasion a demon will act so as to physically assault a saint, who comes out of the affair with bruises and welts: It seems apparent that God has intervened and generally forbids demons from acting on the material world around us so as to often and widely defeat natural causality, God lets it occur rarely only, kind of like he does miracles rarely.

      I hypothesize that one explanation of UFOs is that they are really demons performing (in effect) parlor tricks on us, out to perform a significant hoodwinking on the human race, something comparable to what they arguably did in the era before Christ to get lots of people worshiping idols. I don't have a strong argument that this is the real explanation of UFOs, but only (a) that it is possible (within their abilities and what God might allow), and (b) that it would explain a weird, otherwise unexplainable facet of UFOs, that they have played with us for 70 years without making themselves MANIFEST to us, but also without staying fully hidden, which (arguably) they probably could have done if they wanted to.

      Delete
    4. TonyJanuary 2, 2025 at 7:57 AM

      To follow up on what Casual Thomist said above: Another great resource on the general topic is Fr. William Most's "Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God". To give just a one-phrase summary, he clarifies that predestination to heaven (for the saved) does not necessarily imply there is also a co-equal predestination to hell (for the damned). (I think this also matches Pat Flynn's thesis.) But I think his excellence lies also in applying a strict Catholic theological methodology to help sort the problem.

      As to a "category mistake", I suspect that the intra-Catholic debate about actual graces being distinguished into "efficacious" and "sufficient" which fueled the Banezian - Molinist debate, is a something like category error. To help indicate the error, simply consider as a general matter (i.e. not only with regard to a moral act, but to any act) to be a "cause of motion" just is to be a cause of moving the moved to an end. It is impossible under A/T framework to speak of X cause "moving" the mobile Y "toward" without the "toward" being an end, a terminus. And (again, under Aristotle), if the motion is "a" motion, i.e. a one motion, the motion as a whole must have the terminus as its end, there simply isn't any other way for it to be a motion toward an "act", i.e. some definite actuality. In consequence, a cause of motion is ALWAYS a cause that moves the mobile to an actuality, unless some OTHER mover impedes the action - but that is always and necessarily some other motion than the original motion.

      Delete
    5. NormJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:43 AM

      If I may, I'd like to recommend this brilliant article by renowned Thomist philosopher and a highly respected authority on Aquinas, Fr Stephen. L.Brock, for context Fr Kevin Flannery who I suspect is well known to this audience refers to him as the living scholar who knows best the works of Thomas Aquinas.

      He goes into some detail on the issue of grace being discussed here especially in the notes.

      https://www.academia.edu/98802238/The_Causality_of_Prayer_and_the_Execution_of_Predestination_in_Thomas_Aquinas

      Thomists passing by should give it a read including our esteemed host Dr Feser.

      Cheers

      Delete
    6. Casual ThomistJanuary 3, 2025 at 9:22 AM

      Tony, I think you make an interesting point as regards the relationship between sufficient and efficient grace posited by the Bañezian camp. The issue they run into though, is that the Church has explicitly condemned irresistible, numerically single actual grace in its rejection of Jansenism. (cf Unigenitus https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem11/c11unige.htm).

      Now, in their defense, Banez wrote long before this controversy, so its not like the distinction is meant to avoid the condemnation. The question for them seems to be more a matter of how grace could in any sense fail to be efficacious, provided God were the source of the motion. If x is a creature, its movement towards the terminus could be fallible or disrupted (for example, the match igniting the wood could be impeded by dampness in the wood), but obviously God's communication of esse in efficient causality, they argue, must be both towards an determinate end, and not impedible. If God is the source of the motion, in other words, then they fear any frustrability in grace would mean the frustration of the divine will.

      I think that the issue they run into is an implicit conflation of God's will with His effect. You can explain this in at least two ways. One could, with Hart, argue that the idea that God imparts efficient causality in a manner analogous to the one above is to conflate the "ontological" dimension of God's creating "causality" with the garden variety causality of Aristotelian (meta)physics. This approach has a lot of promise, but I'm not quite ready to jettison the entire A-T framework for discussing actual grace yet.

      You can also say, as the French Benedictine Basile Valuet argued in a recent book (sadly untranslated), that while the motion is infallible and impels the will to a certain effect, it does not do so infallibly, precisely because the will's nature is to select its object from among proximate goods. There's a lot of legwork that's required to hold this, regarding divine foreknowledge, the exact structure of the act, and the nature of the divine will, but I think this has some promise. It can equally preserve grace as numerically one and yet frustrable in its ultimate object (it moves the will, but leaves the will the freedom to de-specify the act by rejecting the object), or distinguish between an infallible first move (which impels the choice) and a provisional movement of the will to a given object. Anyhow, not sure this is helpful, and I know there is need for a deeper explanation of the above, but I hope it at least provides some start!

      Delete
  14. Casual ThomistJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:40 AM

    Ed,
    Was wondering if you had any thoughts on predestination, specifically the Thomistic idea of physical premotion. Am a theology grad student and had a class on it this semester. I'll admit that I'm a Ressourcement guy in a Ressourcement school, but it looks like there are a lot of metaphysical assumptions that go into the question that are right up your alley. For example, what does divine simplicity require us to say about the relationship between God's foreknowledge and the course of events within history? It seems like Thomists tend to assume that divine simplicity requires that God's simple knowledge be causal, but I haven't been able to find anyone who argues that out. I know Oderburg defends physical premotion, but it seems like an aspect of the debate that is neglected but very relevant to the work you've done over the years engaging with atheists and ID folks, and yet it seems like we could do with a modern conversation within classical theism about what our position requires of us. Any thoughts on this helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:22 PM

    Thanks, but we want links! We used to fairly often get dozens of links to interesting reading and articles. What gives?

    Seriously, HNY and thanks for all you do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:37 PM

      Thanks, Anon. I'll try to revive that tradition, and I appreciate your telling me that you liked it.

      Delete
    2. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:11 PM

      I liked that tradition too!

      Delete
  16. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:55 PM

    Hi Dr. Feser! I have waited for this moment for months and I hope you don’t mind all this questions (some of them weird). Some may even give you post ideias. I specially ask for answers to the questions number 1, 2, 3, 7 and 10. Really thank you for all your effort!
    1. Are Catholics required to want the illegalization of pornography (and which types? erotic books? AI?), prostitution, drugs, homologous reproduction or the sell of contraceptives?
    2. What does a Catholic have to believe in regards to civil divorce? Can Catholics support no-fault divorce? A legal option where a spouse just has to sign a paper and in that moment divorce happens?
    3. If one has premarital/extramarital sex using a condom, is he commiting the sin of contraception? Or can this sin only occur inside marriage? If it isn’t a sin, can Catholic hospitals allow their staff to recommend contraceptives to unmarried patients?
    4. Can the State permit private schools to promote gender ideology, contraception or socialism? Where do we put the line?
    5. Does a Catholic have to believe (at least in theory) Pride parades or gay kissing should be prohibited by the State? Or does a Catholic have to believe these things shouldn't be prohibited?
    6. Imagine the wife has a permanent dangerous disease which is transmitted through sex. Could a husband wear a condom and because of the principle of double effect (neutral action; good effect bigger than the unintended bad effect) they wouldn’t commit the sin of contraception? If your answers is yes, see Denzinger 2795 and 3638. If your answers is no, why?
    7. The «Vademecum for confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life» (13) permits a spouse in some circunstancies to have sex with a contracepting spouse. One of the conditions is that “the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself” and then there is the 47 footnote, which points to Denzinger 2795 and 3634, which prohibit the wife to cooperate with condoms or the crime of sodomits but allows cooperation with the pulling out method. The National Catholic Bioethics Center approves cooperation with vasectomies by the wife and the pill by the man. Do you agree? And what about abortifacient hormonal birth control (see Vademecum 14 and its footnote)? Or cooperation by the husband with spermicide, IUDs or diaphragms (cf. Denzinger 3917a)? I would really like to have answers to these questions.
    8. Are baptised Catholics who obstinately say abortion is moral (while knowing the position of the Church) automatically excommunicated (because of heresy; cf. CIC 1364)?
    9. What are your views on embryo adoption? If you think it’s moral, who can do it? Married women, single women, nuns?
    10. Is anal stimulation (with a penis, finger, sex toy) a sin inside marriage (inside a sexual session with all sperm in vagina)? And if, hypothetically, there were no health issues?
    11. Provided that there is no risk of ejaculation or reaching orgasm, can a husband penetrate his wife for sexual pleasure (or intimacy/connection), stopping before either of them reaches orgasm (cf. Denzinger 3907)?
    12. Could a wife manual/oral stimulate until orgasm a husband who can’t ejaculate? If yes, would penetration be required in that sexual session? Could it be 3 seconds of penetration and 30 minutes of “mutual masturbation” (which wouldn’t be masturbation in reality)?
    13. If a sex position was discovered to have 10/20/50% of the chances of conception compared to other sex positions, could couples still use it?
    14. Is SSPX in schism? Is it in full communion with the Catholic Church? Is a Catholic sinning for going to an SSPX Mass?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyJanuary 2, 2025 at 12:17 PM

      I will give a suggested answer to #1, to start the ball rolling: It is morally permitted for a Catholic (really, for anyone) to not prefer / not intend / not actually vote and promote for laws that would outlaw acts and the accoutrements of acts proscribed by the natural moral law, within certain constraints.

      The critical factor is a point made by St. Thomas: it is not required for civil law to make illegal ALL acts against the virtues, and it is positively not good practice for civil law to mandate all acts of all the virtues. The civil law should limit itself to a smaller sphere of action than all actions that perfect virtue would require. In particular, generally it should make illegal primarily evils that all men, or nearly all men, can avoid (which is expressing the point as a rough rule of thumb, not as a definitive and absolutely complete standard).

      As a result, in different societies, different kinds and degrees of evil acts may be wisely and prudently ruled out of bounds. If a society has been largely immoral in sexual practices for a long time, with premarital sex, prostitution, divorce & remarriage, and polygamy, new and absolute laws against prostitution would be less prudent than the same laws in a society that had been mainly avoiding these evils as common practices. Even if the (relatively corrupted) society were to be converted 90% to Christianity and now believe prostitution was gravely immoral, the past practices might impinge too heavily to make it prudent to outlaw prostitution overnight, and might lead to worse evils from the moral and social pressures of attempting it.

      So, absent the constraints of particular situations of particular societies and their specific problems, the upright person will broadly and generally want laws that successfully best promote the most virtue in the people, and this general desire will translate into an aggregation of laws that BEST hit a fine-tuned mean: laws that support and promote virtue, and yet leave scope for individual choice free from legal constraint where law is not needed. In a society where 99.999% of all people have such an internal abhorrence of murder that they couldn't even conceive of being willing to do such an act, maybe you don't even need a law against it, whereas in a society where dueling is common, you most certainly do. Given the (fallen) state of humanity, it will be easily predicted that even the best of real, actual societies need a fair number of laws that set forth the basic framework of virtue, because the law is a teacher as well as a punisher of vice. Hence the 10 commandments.

      In the context of the actual US at this time, the repudiation by courts of anti-obscenity rules broadly happened within living memory, and one can conceive of at least the possibility of prudent rule-making that begins once again to limit pornography - it is certain that we need something now that will help stem that tide, even if it is uncertain how one might prudently make such rules now. A Catholic (or anyone) would fail in being wholly upright if they did not at least desire that society become improved against sexual vices now rampant, and would fail to be politically prudent if he or she was not at least willing to consider the possibility of laws that might promote such an improvement.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 1:14 PM

      Dr. Grisez may be able to answer some of your questions.
      http://twotlj.org/ His 3 Vol work on moral theology is free online. He was an orthodox Catholic moral theologian.
      This is a standard work (3rd ed) on Catholic sexual morality by three acclaimed orthodox theologians.
      https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Sexual-Ethics-Summary-Explanation/dp/159276083X
      You could probably Google those many questions you asked inserting the word "Catholic" and get answers.

      I will just say in passing, and in a kind way, not to get too caught up in some of your questions. Be at peace.



      .

      Delete
  17. William Applied VirtueJanuary 1, 2025 at 9:51 PM

    Hello, Professor Feser! Longtime reader.

    Recently on social media, there was a kerfuffle about immigration - lots of terms getting thrown around like "woke right."

    Ironically enough, it seems as though James Lindsay and others who point and call people "woke right" are the ones adopting 'woke' traits such as narrative thinking or a tendency for name-calling and censorship. My problem though is that these things are not uniquely woke at all. Wokeness is, as you've pointed out before, a paranoid, delusional egalitarian movement, and the people on the woke right tend not to be egalitarians.

    The conflict seems to be between those who see America as a people and thus desire the American government to enact policies that benefit those people and those who see America as a kind of team in an economic competition with other nations and desire policies that make America more economically competitive.

    What are your thoughts on this matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyJanuary 3, 2025 at 7:51 AM

      those who see America as a people...and those who see America as a kind of team in an economic competition with other nations

      I don't think those two views are exactly mutually exclusive: there are in each group those who are also in the other group. To see America as an "us" for which the government should act to help, AND an "us" in competition with everyone else who isn't "us".

      And both POVs are an incomplete expression of the whole truth. Each nation is in fact an "us," a people that is by that fact distinct from the people of other nations. By that distinction, there are things that are good for us in ways that would not equally be good for everyone else. (A simplistic example: an italian-made dish of pasta could be satisfying to an Italian and far, far less satisfying to a Thai person, because of their developed tastes being different.) Different nations need their own separate governments to see to their own good as a people.

      At the same time, the whole truth includes also that all peoples are also brethren, all children of Adam and Eve, all intended to be brothers and sisters in the eventually complete Communion of Saints. Hence, the real and appropriate competition with which the peoples and nations aim for achieving goods that are goods for them rather than goods for everyone should always also be tempered by the ultimate union the the whole brotherhood of men in the family of God.

      In general, competitive seeking for advancement that is at least in principle with others also advancing is morally upright, and competitive seeking for advancement that advanced by putting others down is not so much. Think in terms of a sport like track & field: Dick Fosbury gained an advantage over all other high jumpers when he invented a new way to leap. But doing so wasn't tantamount to kicking other jumpers' legs out from under them - once they learned his technique, they too advanced: the advance was in principle an achievement over lack of knowledge, not by knocking others down. The same principle should hold in competitive business: a business that invents a new technique for faster production, that smooths out some wrinkle that holds other businesses back, is not hurting the other businesses except as reflected in their LACK of advancement - which they eventually can repair by making the same adjustment. Competition that overcomes natural problems can (in the long run) lift all boats, not just your own boat.

      It is natural for a people to want itself, i.e. its own nation, to do well, and while there will be a temptation to measure that "well" as against other peoples, that can be a somewhat damaged attitude, it should be measured against "the ways in which we used to be NOT doing well", i.e. our own past defects and limits. And while there is something fine with being the first people to come up with some advance (e.g. the first to the moon), there is something even finer about showing others how to also match that new excellence alongside you. We should want other peoples to live just as well as we live, while they do so with their OWN peculiar styles and methods of doing it.

      Delete
  18. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 8:24 AM

    Can Catholics just desobey laws that go against the good (like forcing doctors to perform abortions)? Or can they also desobey laws that don’t promote good but don’t go against it (like a prohibition on pink hats)?

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 10:31 AM

    Dr. Feser,

    I recently finished (and very much appreciated) your "By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed." However, the book was published in 2017, before much of the current pontificate's pronouncements on the capital punishment issue. While your blog posts and other articles online have been helpful, I'm wondering if there is any prospect of a second edition of the book, updated to engage with the Catechism revision, "Dignitas Infinitae," etc.

    (Replies also welcome from any others who are aware of anything Dr. Feser has said on this prospect)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul D. Van PeltJanuary 2, 2025 at 11:31 AM

    *Greater good* is also a representation of Utilitarianism. The interests, motives and preferences (IMPs) therewith are whatever one chooses them to be, depending on what one makes of Utilitarianism. So, are differing religious faiths and/or dogmas utilitarian? it depends on which side of the benefit you are on, doesn't it? Lincoln, or someone, spoke of who may be fooled. Barnum and WC Fields said: screw them all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paul D. Van PeltJanuary 2, 2025 at 1:54 PM

    Yawn. Now, I remember why I am not here. 'bye...

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 5:51 PM

    Hello. I was wondering what the catholic view of self -confidence, and positive/negative mindset is, since ive been struggling with negativity but have no idea what the solution is from a traditional catholic perspective.Thanks in advance for any responses

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 7:25 AM

      Speaking from the POV of St. Paul and the other apostles, we are not confident of ourselves, but of God: Of myself, I am weak and certain to fall. But with God acting in me and with me, I can succeed (where "succeed" is first measured by love of God and love of others). Confidence then is the theological virtue of hope, in which its primary aspect is confidence that God wills my salvation and offers me the grace to achieve that good - all other goods in this life meant as means to that end.

      Of ourselves, we tend to be sinners, and even in those cases where we have not actually sinned, we often tend to act from such mixed motives where love of God either is not the prime motivation, it is so muddled with other intentions that our wills are saddled with loves that impeded the love of God. From ourselves alone we have nothing of which to be proud, for what comes out of us without aid is always defective. But with God, all things are possible, and while it is often the case that even in the state of grace our acts are still partially imperfect, in hope we are confident that God can perfect us, and that He will do so if we cooperate with Him.

      An ordinary, natural sense of self worth can be righteous if it is based on the correct understanding of the human person: every single human being is made in the image of God, every one of us has the immense dignity of personhood, and also of being called to be sons and daughters of God. Those who accept that call and unite themselves with the Church, the Body of Christ, are by grace lifted up as adopted children of God, by grace even now beginning to see and love God in a supernatural rather than natural love. That dignity is in principle no less than the dignity of the angels, a value far greater than any natural dignity of human nature alone.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 8:12 AM

      Hi Anonymous, I pray that you recover from the negative thoughts you are facing. I think that is the first thing; one should have a habit of praying for good health (spiritually, physically, and psychologically). "Deliver me, O Lord, from the spirit of negativity" can be your constant prayer.

      I'll offer a bit of theory and then a bit of practical advice (in addition to prayer):

      First, I don't see any problem with someone being very confident in his abilities, provided he ascribes all the good he possesses (talent, skills, knowledge, money, reputation, moral virtue, etc) to God and all the defects he possesses to himself.

      Even one's developed skills can be attributed to God, for a variety of reasons. God has blessed you with your bare existence, without which nothing is possible. Beyond that, in His providential plan, God has blessed you with your endowment of natural talents, with the opportunities that come your way, and with the grace to work hard and take advantage of these blessings (natural talent, opportunities etc.). So all the good you possess is attributed to God as the primary cause and you are the primary cause of your defects (you chose to mis-use all those blessings).

      That all being said, one can attribute all the good he possesses to God and yet be highly confident in himself. Magnanimity is the virtue by which you strive to accomplish great things for the common good (i.e. family, marriage, church, community, and country). It would be impossible to be magnanimous and be constantly lacking in confidence. So the practice of at least some virtues requires confidence. But you have to attribute the things you are confident about (the goods I mentioned above) to God as the primary cause of them.

      Regarding positive and negative mindsets. I think a realist mindset is what is called for. A realism that is flavored by a Catholic view of God's providence. God made the world and people good but allows through the Fall allows suffering and evil to exist in the world. Whether it is one's child or nephew getting cancer or a whole nation(s) being conquered or declining into a malaise or cruelty, God has allowed and will allow these evils again as part of a greater story of Good vs Evil, of fall and redemption.

      Practically speaking, I think we need to look at reality as a big grand story, a story with many subplots, and see ourselves as a character in that grand story with our own subplot (i.e. our life story). Good and Evil will come our way and we need to see it in light of God's providential plan, knowing that God knows us better than ourselves and has a plan for us that is better than anything we could have come up with.

      For negative thoughts specifically, I think we need to build positive memories with the people/activities etc. that we currently feel negative towards. And we need to not fixate on the negative (prayers like the one I mentioned above and then doing something to take our mind in a different direction would be helpful, whether that is focusing on something good about the person/activity we are negative towards or thinking about or doing something different altogether.). If it is a person we are negative towards, I think we can work on self-awareness, knowing that the thing about them that bothers us is often a defect in us too and THAT is why it bothers us (i.e. a guilty conscience). For me, my misuse of technology (though not nearly as bad as my wife's) causes me to judge her harshly and feel negative toward her, when the response should be compassion (I struggle with this, so I should be understanding of her deeper struggle).

      I hope all that helps.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 8:13 AM

      Kyle^

      Delete
  23. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 7:00 AM

    You've left twitter! Or have you been booted off?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)