tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4454196157593264120..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Craig on divine simplicity and theistic personalismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger244125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83080607845703908582019-06-27T07:32:20.834-07:002019-06-27T07:32:20.834-07:00@Tony
Is there something online you can point me ...@Tony<br /><br />Is there something online you can point me to that elaborates on this? This is one of the areas I'm having a difficult time grasping. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17640217621901005932019-05-06T06:08:13.718-07:002019-05-06T06:08:13.718-07:00What would you make of the truthmaker account of G...What would you make of the truthmaker account of God's attributes? Meaning, the truth of some statement "God is X" is grounded in God himself, so that God is identical to that which makes him X, not X itself. So really, its just like saying God is identical with himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39736808213238198122016-05-24T07:18:53.059-07:002016-05-24T07:18:53.059-07:00Philip… Sounds like a tall order; I'll chip aw...<b>Philip… Sounds like a tall order; I'll chip away at it. Thanks for your responses.</b><br /><br />Welcome, welcome, Kirk, but there's no royal road to Wisdom. happy chipping!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15055765617110858168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48359941457330777862016-05-21T18:27:14.397-07:002016-05-21T18:27:14.397-07:00Now all this needs a lot of background and further...<i>Now all this needs a lot of background and further clearing before it can be somewhat appreciated.</i><br /><br />Philip… Sounds like a tall order; I'll chip away at it. Thanks for your responses.Kirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32851938055771520682016-05-10T03:55:24.204-07:002016-05-10T03:55:24.204-07:00Kirk,
'My problem is precisely with identifyi...Kirk,<br /><br />'My problem is precisely with identifying a sense in which 'goodness' is a quality. I have an idea what is mean by qualities like redness, hardness, and kindness, but I don't seem to have such an intuition about 'goodness'.'<br /><br />I hinted at an explanation in my previous comment, but to appreciate it fully, you'd have to understand the Thomistic Natural Law Theory. It's in that sense that Ed uses the word.<br /><br />So, as I said above, a minimally vegetative being will find a food good to the extent that the food serves to nourish it; a minimally intelligent being would find a book good to the extent that the book communicates its ideas in a clear way and serves to increase the understanding of its reader; and a man is said to be good in Natural Law Theory to the extent that he fulfills his purpose as man, which is ultimately to know God. The more a man approaches this goal, the better he's said to be.<br /><br />Now all this needs a lot of background and further clearing before it can be somewhat appreciated. Luckily, Edward had dealt with the subject of natural law, morality, goodness, etc. in several places, even on this blog. You may want to check them out.<br /><br />Cheers!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15055765617110858168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75871550079473420552016-05-04T12:47:58.157-07:002016-05-04T12:47:58.157-07:00.
@Tony There is something in virtue of which ....<br />@Tony <i>There is something in virtue of which we can say of two things - both of which are suitably fulfilled as the kind of thing they are supposed to be - that one is better than the other…. [O]ne has more to be good about than the other.</i><br /><br />That isn't an application of 'better' that I've come across in common use.<br /><br />If someone says "This dog is better than that dog" I reckon he might mean this dog is faster, or calmer, or louder-barking, or better at fetching newspapers. I know he's assessing the two dogs against criteria that are important to him.<br /><br />But if he says "This dog is better than that raspberry bush", then I'm stumped. I don't know what it means to compare things of such different kinds, and I suspect my reaction is shared by most.<br /><br />The OED tells us that <i>good</i> is the most general adjective of commendation. I infer that you commend things more highly when they comprise more layers and kinds of sub-things. I also take it that you would commend this view to others. I'd be interested in learning your reasons for favoring it.Kirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27624787449606559712016-05-01T19:10:10.241-07:002016-05-01T19:10:10.241-07:00To go a layer deeper into the OED: good means '...<br /><i>To go a layer deeper into the OED: good means 'Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have.' I think we can assume that property equals quality. Then 'x, y, and z are good' would mean Each of x, y, and z possesses, to a degree that satisfies me, the qualities I believe a thing of its kind ought to have.</i> <br /><br />Kirk, this is fine, but it is possible to go still another layer deeper. There is something <i>in virtue of which</i> we can say of two things - both of which are suitably fulfilled as the kind of thing they are supposed to be - that one is <i>better</i> than the other. A raspberry bush is a better thing than a water molecule. A dog is a better thing than a raspberry tree. And an angel is a better thing than a dog. Each of these is true because in each comparison, one has <i>more to be good about</i> than the other. A healthy, vibrant raspberry bush has all the perfections of a water molecule, and still more perfections. Same with a healthy, happy dog. The dog has the goods of life and nutrition, but adds the goods of sensation and movement. The greater good in the dog is true not merely in virtue of the fact of having in adequate degree the properties of a fulfilled dog, but in virtue of having more layers and kinds of good to be good in than a bush or a molecule. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28401580445863383192016-05-01T12:26:52.686-07:002016-05-01T12:26:52.686-07:00Kirk: 'What I'm not following is how the s...<i><b>Kirk</b>: 'What I'm not following is how the sentence would be read as asserting an analogy between things 'in' the food, books, and man.'<br /><br /><b>@Philip Alawonde</b>: The word 'in' is not meant here in a substantive sense... Goodness is a quality, not a substance.</i><br /><br />I hadn't thought 'in' was meant in a substantive sense, but I believe your introduction of <i>quality</i> helps clarify the issue. My problem is precisely with identifying a sense in which 'goodness' is a quality. I have an idea what is mean by qualities like redness, hardness, and kindness, but I don't seem to have such an intuition about 'goodness' .<br /><br />If <i>good</i> is the most general adjective of commendation, then saying 'x is good' means essentially 'I commend x'. Perhaps x could then be said to have the quality of commended-ness, but it's hard to see how this is helpful.<br /><br />To go a layer deeper into the OED: <i>good</i> means <i>'Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have.'</i> I think we can assume that property equals quality. Then 'x, y, and z are good' would mean <b>Each of x, y, and z possesses, to a degree that satisfies me, the qualities I believe a thing of its kind ought to have.</b><br /><br />From this point of view:<br /><br />a. Goodness is a derived quality. A thing has goodness if each quality on a certain list is present in an adequate degree. The list and the adequacy-cutoff points both depend on (1) the thing's kind and (2) the judgment of the speaker.<br /><br />b. Saying there's an analogy between 'the goodness thing' in different objects seems to mean it's both the same and different. It's the same because goodness always has a list-and-degrees derivation. It's different because the qualities on the list vary between kinds and between assessors.<br /><br />If point (a) captures the intent in saying that the food, books, and man are all good, and (b) captures the idea of analogy between the goodnesses 'in' them, then I think I've grasped the original statement. But if either misses the mark I'd welcome explanation and elaboration.Kirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33853932465452032332016-04-28T06:51:52.129-07:002016-04-28T06:51:52.129-07:00'What I'm not following is how the sentenc...<i>'What I'm not following is how the sentence would be read as asserting an analogy between things</i> in <i>the food, books, and man.'</i><br /><br />The word 'in' is not meant here in a substantive sense, which is what seems to be confusing you. Goodness is a quality, not a substance. Though he does not use this word, that is what Ed means when he says that there's something in the food which is in Craig's books and Craig himself, namely goodness. His claim is that it is not exactly the same kind of goodness that's in these things, which seems obvious to me anyway, but which follows rigorously from the doctrine of the analogy of being.<br /><br />Since the food is not identical to the books which are not identical to the man, we cannot predicate the same thing of each of them in a univocal sense (i.e., in precisely the same sense), not even existence, since the goodness of the food only exists in relation, as you've pointed out to how a minimally nutritive soul finds it good to its health; the goodness of the books can only be evaluated by a minimally rational soul; and the goodness of the man (moral goodness) applies only to rational beings. So, that is what it all means: there's a quality possessed by these things, and these qualities are similar, yet not entirely identical.<br /><br />This is the doctrine of the analogy of being, from which the more well-known merely linguistic doctrine of the same name properly follow.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15055765617110858168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59927409406500621612016-04-27T18:43:39.683-07:002016-04-27T18:43:39.683-07:00.
'...when I say that the enchilada I had for ....<br /><b>'...when I say that the enchilada I had for dinner last night was good, that William Lane Craig writes good books, and that William Lane Craig is a good man, I am not using the word <i>good</i> in the same, univocal sense. Rather, I am saying that there is something in the food which is analogous to the goodness of the books, something in the books which is analogous to the goodness of a man, and so forth, even if it is not exactly the same thing in each case.'</b><br /><br />Based on the OED's statement that <i>good</i> is 'the most general adjective of commendation', the first sentence above would be read as saying that the enchilada, Craig's books, and Craig himself, are all thought praiseworthy by Prof. Feser. This interpretation feels natural to me.<br /><br />What I'm not following is how the sentence would be read as asserting an analogy between things <i>in</i> the food, books, and man. Rather, goodness seems to be a <i>relationship</i> between each of them and its assessor...in the same way that beauty can link an object and its beholder.<br /><br />This line of thought can scarcely be novel; I'd welcome pointers to any helpful discussions.Kirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11758502687072019702016-04-27T03:00:41.712-07:002016-04-27T03:00:41.712-07:00Is anyone else still hoping Craig picks up on this...Is anyone else still hoping Craig picks up on this and tries to respond? It could be a learning experience for him. I think WLC simply has a psychological bias against Divine Simplicity as I have said. I do not state that in any pejorative sense. Divine simplicity doesn't fit well with preconceptions arrived at from a literalist biblical exegesis. There is also the old, and inaccurate view among some Protestants that Catholicism somehow got polluted by pagan doctrine, as if Greek philosophy wasn't being approached discerningly by Christians(this is a kind of mythology, like the inaccurate view some held about the medieval period after the enlightenment). <br /><br />I do wish Ed would speak a little more on this topic but of course he is a busy man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20024765428522142642016-04-23T22:15:01.428-07:002016-04-23T22:15:01.428-07:00@laubadetriste said...
"@Mihai:'...an obv...@laubadetriste said...<br /><b>"@Mihai:</b><i>'...an obvious, sulfur-smelling, provocation...'</i><br /><br /><b>Heh. :) See? ↑That's a delightful phrase. Kyle, you know what "sulfur-smelling" means. Or if not, you should, because it's a triple-entendre."</b><br /><br />But wh...? So are you say...? Do you mea...? <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XQzQRaQINns?start=75&end=81&autoplay=1" rel="nofollow">Whu?</a></b><br /><br />(But this horse is now well and truly dead, so don't feel obliged to tolerate me a second more. Well, not in this post's combox anyway. ;-) )Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27593669909203762962016-04-23T15:05:34.830-07:002016-04-23T15:05:34.830-07:00@Kyle: "I was all ready with a witty come-bac...@Kyle: "I was all ready with a witty come-back to the effect that I preferred la crème anglaise, but then realized that particular phrase was ill-advised given the context. But *then* I realized that any kind of...ahem...come-back could end up with me having...sigh...egg on my face. I should probably stop here. Ed's blog is, after all, intended to be '...from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective'."<br /><br />You are quite right. :) Which is why I switched to French, that being the contemporary American equivalent of what they used to do for the English public schools, which was translate the choice bits of (e.g.) Martial into Italian...<br /><br />"(Besides: I never said I *liked* Father Ted.)"<br /><br />What subtle misdirection. You also never said you didn't. *Sigh.* Very well, now *I* like the show, so you have that on your conscience.<br /><br />"'I did nothing else but to reply in a humble, Christian manner,...' / Really? That's all you did? You don't think there's a bit more to it than that?"<br /><br />Brandon said <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/craig-on-divine-simplicity-and-theistic.html?showComment=1461111157917#c8453391094948598565" rel="nofollow">earlier</a> that, "These are very gentle ways of crying foul. On occasions when people around here get personal, the slapdown is, shall we say, much more vehement than this." He was quite right. I won't quote chapter and verse on that--for that purpose, I'm afraid French would be insufficient--but the stuff on this post is truly mild.<br /><br />Around here, when folks are done the courtesy of having their words taken seriously, the acrimony is, especially by internet com-box standards, very creative, intelligent, and even restrained (and I do not exclude the wilder disputes we have been party to). It is *interesting*. In point of fact, other than the regular drive-bys, we do not suffer the nullity of a race to the bottom.<br /><br />"Another minute and it uttered his name again; and then, like a minute gun, 'Ransom ... Ransom ... Ransom,' perhaps a hundred times. / 'What the Hell do you want?' he roared at last. 'Nothing,' said the voice. Next time he determined not to answer; but when it had called on him about a thousand times he found himself answering whether he would or no, and 'Nothing,' came the reply. He taught himself to keep silent in the end: not that the torture of resisting his impulse to speak was less than the torture of response but because something with him rose up to combat the tormentor's assurance that he must yield in the end. If the attack had been of some more violent kind it might have been easier to resist. What chilled and almost cowed him was the union of malice with something nearly childish. For temptation, for blasphemy, for a whole battery of horrors, he was in some sort prepared: but hardly for this petty, indefatigable nagging as of a nasty little boy at a preparatory school. Indeed no imagined horror could have surpassed the sense which grew within him as the slow hours passed, that this creature was, by all human standards, inside out - its heart on the surface and its shallowness at the heart. On the surface, great designs and an antagonism to Heaven which involved the fate of worlds: but deep within, when every veil had been pierced, was there, after all, nothing but a black puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself with the tiniest cruelties, as love does not disdain the smallest kindness?"--<a href="http://www.rednovels.net/classics/u5580_26.html" rel="nofollow">Perelandra</a><br /><br />@Mihai: "...an obvious, sulfur-smelling, provocation..."<br /><br />Heh. :) See? ↑That's a delightful phrase. Kyle, you know what "sulfur-smelling" means. Or if not, you should, because it's a triple-entendre.<br /><br />I do hope Mary comes back. She seemed like a keeper. A bit quick to intimidate rather than argue--"I take 'metaphysical parts' to be a conceptual primitive" indeed--but a keeper all the same.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88151495263474718712016-04-23T13:31:21.533-07:002016-04-23T13:31:21.533-07:00@laubadetriste:
"...having the taste in telev...@laubadetriste:<br /><b>"...having the taste in television that you do, you likely are also an enthusiast of le vice anglais, and a <br />rolled-up newspaper might be salutary."</b><br /><br />I was all ready with a witty come-back to the effect that I preferred <i>la crème anglaise</i>, but then realized that particular phrase was ill-advised given the context. But *then* I realized that <i>any</i> kind of...ahem...come-back could end up with me having...sigh...egg on my face. I should probably stop here. Ed's blog is, after all, intended to be "...from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective".<br /><br />(Besides: I never said I *liked* Father Ted.)Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17766208745666081042016-04-23T13:20:29.848-07:002016-04-23T13:20:29.848-07:00@Mihai
"I did nothing else but to reply in a...@Mihai <br /><b>"I did nothing else but to reply in a humble, Christian manner,..."</b><br /><br />Really? That's all you did? You don't think there's a bit more to it than that?<br />I know. Why don't we go find out? No? Aw, c'm'on, it'll be fun!<br /><br />[Kicks horse to pretend it's not already dead...]<br /><br />So, you started off with what I think most readers would have seen as a critical comment about <i>"wannabe philosophers and theologians, who assertively spread their opinions on matters with which they are in fact not acquainted even at the elementary level."</i> More to the point though, you implied that the main purpose of Ed's writing is correcting such people. And you did that in the context of the point I'd made, where I described my realization that I had made an unsafe assumption about Ed's purposes. In other words it looked quite possible that you were making the very same error I had. You appear to feel you understand Ed's *motives*, in addition to (I assume) his *philosophy*. <br /><br />Now of course, maybe you *do*. Maybe you know Ed. Or maybe you've read more of his stuff than I have. To test that[1] I then led you in a line of questioning that would perhaps throw some more light on this. You were critical of those speaking about that of which they know nothing. You then spoke about something of which in my experience the vast majority of people know nothing. However, I do know of a very small number whose descriptions and behaviors are such that I suspect they may be different, so I wanted to check to see if perhaps you were like them. Hence my question, *and* it's provocative nature. <br /><br />The people I'm referring to would have responded very differently from you, in two ways. First, they would have offered information that I *suspect* (I'm not sure this kind of thing is particularly describable at all) would have exposed their direct experience; second, they would not have risen angrily to the provocation, would not have claimed humility, and would certainly not have made strange references to how "someone like [me]" would have to pay you a high teaching fee, or to how I sing .. what was it?...childish rhymes, or, strangest of all, to the "sulfur-smelling" (whatever that means) nature of what I'd said. Nor would they have assumed anything about how complicated my dreams are.<br /><br />The old saying, that to "assume" makes an ass out of "u" and me, applies. But *I* had already acknowledged the "me" side of the ass-edness....<br /><br /><br />[1] Well what did you expect? You don't go to a boxing gym to learn to do crocheting, do you? We're in the combox of the blog of an <i>analytic scholastic philosopher</i> remember, not a church therapy group. That Is The Whole Point.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33846662866963778112016-04-23T00:51:57.762-07:002016-04-23T00:51:57.762-07:00Protestants I meet seem to mean God the Father whe...Protestants I meet seem to mean God the Father when they use the word "God." They'll say that Jesus is the Son of God. But I haven't heard them call Him "God the Son." So they might ask, "Dr. Feser, why would anyone doubt that God is a person when there are three divine Persons in the Trinity?" "God" is not a proper name.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14051707091618161781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80238617261486424932016-04-22T11:10:52.478-07:002016-04-22T11:10:52.478-07:00@Kyle
I did nothing else but to reply in a humble,...@Kyle<br />I did nothing else but to reply in a humble, Christian manner, to an obvious, sulfur-smelling, provocation by telling you that if you need guidance in your ascetic endeavours you should search for someone having the <b>authority</b> to teach you on that path, i.e. a spiritual father, just as if you wanted to learn philosophy I would have offered to teach you myself (which for someone like you would certainly be for no small fee), as I have the <b>authority</b> to do it. If I stopped your singing of childish rhymes by explaining you that the things are far more complicated than you dream, you should have realized that I spoke from knowledge and not from ignorance. How much that knowledge of mine is immediate and how much mediate is certainly not of your business.<br />Have a nice weekend!Mihaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00456220635029499133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18276261295412348512016-04-22T10:49:25.665-07:002016-04-22T10:49:25.665-07:00@Kyle: "Sigh. Not again. / [Leans over and ac...@Kyle: "Sigh. Not again. / [Leans over and accepts, with as much good grace as he can muster, his well-deserved smack on the head.]"<br /><br />Well, I meant to smack Mr. Disease Sin Evil Death deny Good Omnipotent God Life Matter is Nothing All Being Spirit God Mind is Good Good is God all in All is God; but I suppose, you having the taste in television that you do, you likely are also an enthusiast of le vice anglais, and a rolled-up newspaper might be salutary.<br /><br />@Erich:<br /><br />I don't know the answer to your question. However, I have heard some good things about <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Tri-Personal-Studies-Analytic-Theology/dp/0199681511/" rel="nofollow">these</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Readings-Philosophical-Theology-Incarnation/dp/0199237468/" rel="nofollow">books</a>.<br /><br />And I would add that *currency* would be low on my list of things to look for in a philosophical argument.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15593825192651076912016-04-22T09:00:03.780-07:002016-04-22T09:00:03.780-07:00@Tony I teach adolescents at a boys school. Asham...@Tony I teach adolescents at a boys school. Ashamed of the consequences of my actions? I couldn't be more proud of myself! Robhttp://ralspaugh.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52332270814062185522016-04-22T08:51:15.777-07:002016-04-22T08:51:15.777-07:00Tony,
Pentagon missile control systems, resulting...Tony,<br /><br /><i>Pentagon missile control systems, resulting in a possible completely unpredictable unauthorized total launch. Leading to the end of the world. Now, aren't you just a little ashamed of yourselves!?</i><br /><br />Yes, I am (though not for long).Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62954639008578783492016-04-22T08:44:12.329-07:002016-04-22T08:44:12.329-07:00Kyle,
@Glenn:
"...a good man does not practi...Kyle,<br /><br /><i>@Glenn:<br />"...a good man does not practice wizardry,..."<br /><br />See, this is a perfect example of how all this philosophizeicationism (it is too a word) is often just straw.<br /><br />Gareth Edwards, Sugar Ray Robinson, Yehudi Menuhin, the bloke who makes the vanilla slices in the bakery near my house. Those wizards are good men. *Don't* tell me they're not good men. I won't have it.</i><br /><br />Good point. I now see the light. (Oh, btw -- you forgot to mention Thomas Edison.)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73317226467460991352016-04-22T08:22:03.894-07:002016-04-22T08:22:03.894-07:00@Rob, Glenn, & Kyle:
Y'all gone done mad...@Rob, Glenn, & Kyle: <br /><br />Y'all gone done made me laugh. And that caused me to hit some wrong keys, creating typos in the program I was writing. These typos have caused mistakes in NORAD / Pentagon missile control systems, resulting in a possible completely unpredictable unauthorized total launch. Leading to the end of the world. Now, aren't you just a little ashamed of yourselves!?Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1142036343801687052016-04-22T07:58:43.838-07:002016-04-22T07:58:43.838-07:00@Glenn:
"...a good man does not practice wiza...@Glenn:<br /><b>"...a good man does not practice wizardry,..."</b><br /><br />See, this is a perfect example of how all this philosophizeicationism (it is too a word) is often just straw.<br /><br />Gareth Edwards, Sugar Ray Robinson, Yehudi Menuhin, the bloke who makes the vanilla slices in the bakery near my house. Those wizards are good men. *Don't* tell me they're not good men. I won't have it.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43860276254198586372016-04-22T07:32:15.416-07:002016-04-22T07:32:15.416-07:00@Mihai:
I'm confused. As I pointed out, you...@Mihai:<br />I'm confused. As I pointed out, you'd previously said, I assumed approvingly:<br /><b> "[Ed’s] efforts have been mainly directed towards [those]…who assertively spread their opinions on matters with which they are in fact not acquainted even at the elementary level."</b><br /><br />But now you're saying:<br /><b>'My "knowledge" on the subject is generally limited to what I was told in the Church and to the information I got by reading...'</b><br /><br />Forgive me, but in that case it sounds like you're merely repeating what others have told you. Doesn't that make all the stuff you said tantamount to little more than you merely <i>assertively spreading your opinions on matters with which you are in fact not acquainted even at the elementary level</i>?<br /><br />And so, aren't you doing the very same thing the correction of which (given that that's what you feel Ed was doing) you appear to approve?Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383366739539632245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59263371887980799812016-04-22T07:07:28.650-07:002016-04-22T07:07:28.650-07:00@Erich: I don't know of one, but that doesn...@Erich: I don't know of one, but that doesn't make it safe to conclude there isn't one. It may be relevant to note that Raymond Lull's view has been officially rejected by the Church (he was apparently a brilliant writer, and a martyr, who would likely have been canonized if he hadn't made this blunder), so...David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.com