tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7316579649487530682..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Augustine on divine illuminationEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85821162300229154272020-12-26T20:25:14.771-08:002020-12-26T20:25:14.771-08:00@Ed Feser:
I wonder where you would fit Henry of ...@Ed Feser:<br /><br />I wonder where you would fit Henry of Ghent's historically important (I'd have thought) views into your account. His early account seems to be something like, it's fine to have your empirically grounded opinions, but to grasp the essence of things with certainty it is necessary to go beyond fallible natural reasonings, although the fallible natural reasonings are necessary as providing the object for divine illumination to act upon. And, <i>nota bene</i>, such illumination leading to objective certitude certainly does not follow as a matter of course from just any avid investigation of whatever it might be, so it's not just something otiose.<br /><br />Henry's later view is more on deflationary lines, I suppose, but still interesting. The natural activity of the intellect is hidden as to its divine likeness. Instead there's a whole lot of ignorant arrogant ungrateful dumbasses who think and act like they know a buttload of crap about everything, but they don't. And to rise above this all-to-evident everyday depressing morass of intellectual posturing it is necessary for what is always present (the active concurrence in the life of the human intellect of the life of the divine intellect) to make itself manifest in accordance with the inscrutable working of nature and grace under divine providence. I'm not sure how to set that beside St Thomas's perhaps more precise views. But I don't see this has anything to do with reconciling Augustine and Aquinas, it's just a thinker thinking, trying to understand <i>die Sache selbst</i>.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76538927848320872242020-12-17T11:17:41.562-08:002020-12-17T11:17:41.562-08:00Just wanted to say I love these sorts of posts whe...Just wanted to say I love these sorts of posts where you analyze an argument of some ancient or medieval thinker. My favorite was the series on Plotinus (who seems to me to be a seriously underrated philosopher in modern times). I also remember enjoying the Avicenna posts.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06302131576186856435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16359494688555541412020-12-14T11:55:45.723-08:002020-12-14T11:55:45.723-08:00This goes to show just how poor non-libertarian po...This goes to show just how poor non-libertarian political philosophy has always been. The medievals were no exception. The "natural law" reasoning supposedly justifying -- nay, necessitating -- the existence of Muh Holy Roman Empire is based entirely on an obvious non-sequitor. It does not logically follow that because peoples need ways of peacefully settling their disputes that the existence of a supra-national empire is necessary. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22460894773391620762020-12-13T23:00:45.257-08:002020-12-13T23:00:45.257-08:00I disagree as to Miguel's meaning, but I agree...I disagree as to Miguel's meaning, but I agree with your assumption, if that makes sense. The myths are allegories about the activity of the Gods, not literally physical events. I'm no more troubled by Zeus and his supposed exploits than most monotheists are by Yahweh breaking wind while on a battlefield. Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35033188084719795132020-12-13T19:49:32.097-08:002020-12-13T19:49:32.097-08:00@Richard
I could be wrong, but i think that when ...@Richard<br /><br />I could be wrong, but i think that when Miguel says that Aristotle did not believe in the Greek Gods he meant that the philosopher did not take the myths as literal history. Sure that he was a polytheist at the end of the day, but i don't think what you posted is evidence of him believing on Zeus, Hades, Hera etc as the average ancient greek peasant thought of they. <br /><br />Take his teacher for instance. I remember reading Plato book The Republic and there Socrates says that Homer writings did not paint the gods right, for to him Homer Gods are too human-like, full of vices and ignorance etc. He even goes on to defend that the myths should be changed. He was a polytheist too, he argues for it on The Laws, but i think he did not believe on the myths literally.<br /><br />Sure Neoplatonists were polytheists, but i suppose that they saw the myths in a more allegorical way that we usually tend to assume, that is how i usually see modern pagans talking about they. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76937674357136571732020-12-13T09:17:40.103-08:002020-12-13T09:17:40.103-08:00The idea that Aristotle didn't believe in the ...The idea that Aristotle didn't believe in the Gods of his traditional religion is adequately addressed by what I wrote above. His prime movers were not the summit of divinity, as I showed above. When any of these writers speak of the Gods, it means all of them. It does not just mean the Gods of the Greeks, but all Deities. Greek philosophy was not an eliminative project, it sought to understand all things inclusively so that the totality of all things could be adequately comprehended. So when they mention the Gods they simply mean all Gods. That's one of the funny things of a God pre-existing instantiated ontology, they also pre-exist the pantheonic relations that constitute that ontology. Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80794630041275827362020-12-13T07:29:05.830-08:002020-12-13T07:29:05.830-08:00Nevertheless, Aristotle didn't believe in the ...Nevertheless, Aristotle didn't believe in the gods of traditional religion. Are the gods of Plotinus those of the traditional cults of his society? What are their names? <br /><br />I would refer to the Thomistic understanding of what Aristotle meant by Prime Mover. However, Aristotle did not pray to him or expect any providential action there.<br /><br />As far as undiluted reason goes, I was trying to be polite to ancient philosophers. For all their efforts, they are burdened by false ideas and ignorance on issues that bear directly on the issues they discuss (original sin and the possibility of perfection for humans).<br /><br />I'm not sure what Plotinus meant by his gods and can't entertain you with a proper discussion about him. My point further back with which you agreed was simply that he did not believe in God as Abraham or St. Peter did. <br /><br />There must be problems with clarity in Plotinus however. On this blog, lucid people have managed to describe him as either monotheist or polytheist. Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33338425108309592812020-12-13T06:49:48.980-08:002020-12-13T06:49:48.980-08:00"The affection of children for their parents,..."The affection of children for their parents, like that of humans for the Gods, is the affection for what is good, and superior to oneself, for they have bestowed on them the greatest benefits in being the cause of their existence and rearing, and later of their education," (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1162a4-7).<br />"We understand the Gods to enjoy supreme felicity and happiness. But what sort of actions can we attribute to them? … If we go through the list we shall find that all forms of virtuous conduct seem trifling and unworthy of the Gods … But for a living being, if we eliminate action, and a fortiori production, what remains save contemplation? It follows that the God's activity, which is transcendent in blessedness, is the activity of contemplation; and therefore among human activities, that which is most akin to the divine activity of contemplation will be the greatest source of happiness." (Nicomachean Ethics, 1178b7-24).<br /> "The things there [outside the heaven] are of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age them … they continue throughout their entire duration [aiôn] unaltered and unmodified, living the best and most self-sufficient of lives." De Caelo (279a18-22) This literally points out an indefinite multiplicity of "things beyond the heaven". So while Aristotles concept of the unmoved mover allows one to deduce the need for Gods purely from physics, it does not limit the number of Gods in any way.<br />"Friendship exacts what is possible, not what is due; requital in accordance with desert is in fact sometimes impossible, for instance in honoring the Gods, or one's parents: no one could ever render them the honor they deserve, and a man is deemed virtuous if he pays them all the regard that he can." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1163b) We can see here that this isn't a merely civic duty the polis is to undertake for the sake of it's health, and with the reference to parents we can see that the duty towards the Gods comes from their primordial activity as each things cause.<br />So far as it goes for the ancient philosophers not using undiluted reason, I can't really imagine a more hilarious complaint. If one has access to undiluted reason, then one has a perfect intellect, and is in some sense perfect, which begs the question against the doctrine of original sin itself. For Plotinus, his perfection was perfection as a human, not as a God, and it came through the Gods. In the passage I quoted in my previous post, Plotinus literally includes prayer in his meditation, pointing out the providence required from Deity for any perfective activity we undertake. This also points out that the idea that the Gods don't "do anything" or are totally absent is ridiculous. So much for the "Greek ideal" of independence and self-sufficiency. <br />And as far as this goes, nothing in your response could remotely serve as a response to any of the philosophical points I made above.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26037945766709836842020-12-13T03:08:05.240-08:002020-12-13T03:08:05.240-08:00Richard, It's true that Plotinus wrote about g...Richard, It's true that Plotinus wrote about gods, but that doesn't amount even to what pagan cults of his time professed. Aristotle also talked about them and the need to conserve the traditional pagan religion of his time in the ideal polis, but not because he believed in them. He also didn't believe in praying to the Prime Mover. Nor did he think the Prime Mover could act in any kind of providential way, even if he could hear us. These thinkers were not about religion.<br /><br />Man can know the existence of God by the use of his reason. Unfortunately, ancient philosophers did not use undiluted reason and there is surely a lot of "ideological" baggage we have to discriminate between(thanks to men like St. Thomas). If Plotinus states that "man's one task" is personal perfection, without a relation to God, who is absent in any real way from the world, then his musings can go on forever. It's very difficult to see how such thinkers could rid themselves of the mirage of self-perfection without consciousness of the reality of original sin. Instead, the old inducement "you can be as God" still held. <br /><br />Indeed, the Greek ideal of independence and self-sufficiency is the quintessence of sin for Christianity. So the mentality behind Plotinus is still very fashionable, but I couldn't advise you to take it seriously. Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64068604917812334432020-12-12T22:54:56.520-08:002020-12-12T22:54:56.520-08:00Richard
To stop blogging is one thing, but to de...Richard<br /><br /> To stop blogging is one thing, but to delete such a treasure trove of valuable posts, including a myriad of interviews , is another. That suggests to me some kind of instability, or at least such a change in perspective as to see your previous activity as being undesirable or positively harmful. If he was beginning to explore the arguments for monotheism , perhaps he experienced conversion to Christianity say, and so saw much his previous theorising and output as being sinful?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13758849400084424302020-12-12T20:24:15.222-08:002020-12-12T20:24:15.222-08:00@Richard
Thanks for you help, Neoplatonism seems ...@Richard<br /><br />Thanks for you help, Neoplatonism seems pretty diferent from what i thought it was.<br /><br />It is a pretty pluzzling but also pretty interesting view. I will sure try to understand it better eventually. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28379651933571588872020-12-12T16:44:11.273-08:002020-12-12T16:44:11.273-08:00True, Divine attributes are analogical and not uni...<br /><b>True, Divine attributes are analogical and not univocal, but I don't see how that helps here. It is still the case that all Divine attributes are identical to the Divine essence, which is identical to the Divine existence.<br /><br />When we say God is just or God is merciful, it means God is identical to justice and mercy themselves, although those terms, when applied to God, aren't univocally the same as our human concepts of those terms, but only analogous. Of course, our mere human intellects can't comprehend this completely, but it's not a contradiction. But when Platonism tries to say the idea of a triangle is "in" the Divine intellect, this entails that the idea of a triangle is therefore also identical to the Divine essence, even if the "idea of triangle" as applied to God is only analogous to our idea of a triangle. This, I claim, is absurd. The ideas of a perfect triangle vs. a perfect square are fundamentally contradictory in a way that perfect justice vs. perfect mercy are not, such that God cannot be both the idea of a perfect triangle and the idea of a perfect square, whereas He can be (and is) perfect justice and perfect mercy.</b><br /><br />Well, okay, but you’re wrong for the exact reasons I gave. God knows Himself, and through this self-knowledge, He knows everything else. This is the sense in which the form of the triangle and the form of the circle are “in” God. <br /><br />Understand, if these things weren’t “in” God in some sense, we’d have to conclude that either God did not create the Forms or that the Forms do not exist. Both of these are equally incoherent positions. If you have some alternative, then please give your answer.<br /><br /><b>Moreover, if we know the idea of a perfect triangle because God illumines with His idea of a perfect triangle, then this implies God illumines us with Himself, which epistemology a Thomist would reject.</b><br /><br />Sure, but I wasn’t arguing for Augustinian epistemology, and I don’t think Professor Feser was either. He contrasts St. Thomas’s view with St. Augustine’s view in the article. I assume he’d side with the former over the latter. <br /><br /><b>As for the second objection, the Platonist cannot rigorously refute that each object has its own unique Form which it participates "perfectly" in. So your "imperfect" triangle might actually be a "perfect" google-a-gon. Yes, our brains see "triangle" and not "google-a-gon", but that is merely a data reduction.</b><br /><br />Yes, and you might be a robot or an angel. Humans can make mistakes about what they experience. That doesn’t invalidate the idea of the Forms. My mistaking a good google-a-gon for a bad triangle doesn’t have any greater philosophical significance. <br />Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85697488555106084832020-12-12T16:10:57.564-08:002020-12-12T16:10:57.564-08:00@Anonymous: Jime got sick of the paranormal commun...@Anonymous: Jime got sick of the paranormal community online, and simply deleted his blog. I think when it came down to it, many people were turned off or became upset when Jime got around to arguments in favor of monotheism. Knowing the paranormal community as I do, I'm not surprised at his choice at all. When I last emailed him a few years ago, he was still researching and learning, but I haven't seen hide nor hair of him since then. He is very missed.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14451281490051394062020-12-12T14:39:18.477-08:002020-12-12T14:39:18.477-08:00Hey Richard, just been looking at the list of blog...Hey Richard, just been looking at the list of blogs you follow. I used to read 'Subversive Thinking' years ago, but one day it simply vanished, all its myriads of posts gone. Do you know what happened to it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21434724048483263102020-12-12T14:29:22.309-08:002020-12-12T14:29:22.309-08:00 I think that Cervantes will think your beliefs a... I think that Cervantes will think your beliefs a little odd Richard, and likely reject them for lack of evidential support. That is because he displays an egregious lack of self awareness regarding his own condition.FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28232130268196412672020-12-12T14:15:58.812-08:002020-12-12T14:15:58.812-08:00 So you are saying that this Plotinus character ha... So you are saying that this Plotinus character had bouts of mental illness during his life?FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30698850088154979972020-12-12T09:58:12.752-08:002020-12-12T09:58:12.752-08:00To be clear, I'm claiming Platonic Forms is 1)...To be clear, I'm claiming Platonic Forms is 1) contradictory to Thomism and 2) not rigorously demonstrable from first principles.<br /><br />True, Divine attributes are analogical and not univocal, but I don't see how that helps here. It is still the case that all Divine attributes are identical to the Divine essence, which is identical to the Divine existence. <br /><br />When we say God is just or God is merciful, it means God is identical to justice and mercy themselves, although those terms, when applied to God, aren't univocally the same as our human concepts of those terms, but only analogous. Of course, our mere human intellects can't comprehend this completely, but it's not a contradiction. But when Platonism tries to say the idea of a triangle is "in" the Divine intellect, this entails that the idea of a triangle is therefore also identical to the Divine essence, even if the "idea of triangle" as applied to God is only analogous to our idea of a triangle. This, I claim, is absurd. The ideas of a perfect triangle vs. a perfect square are fundamentally contradictory in a way that perfect justice vs. perfect mercy are not, such that God cannot be both the idea of a perfect triangle and the idea of a perfect square, whereas He can be (and is) perfect justice and perfect mercy.<br /><br />Moreover, if we know the idea of a perfect triangle because God illumines with His idea of a perfect triangle, then this implies God illumines us with Himself, which epistemology a Thomist would reject.<br /><br />As for the second objection, the Platonist cannot rigorously refute that each object has its own unique Form which it participates "perfectly" in. So your "imperfect" triangle might actually be a "perfect" google-a-gon. Yes, our brains see "triangle" and not "google-a-gon", but that is merely a data reduction.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />GoneFishingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24071234470846157062020-12-12T07:51:57.054-08:002020-12-12T07:51:57.054-08:00@Miguel Cervantes? I do, in fact, believe this.@Miguel Cervantes? I do, in fact, believe this.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29977467516986026722020-12-12T05:42:16.203-08:002020-12-12T05:42:16.203-08:00In fact, here is an example from the meditations o...In fact, here is an example from the meditations of Plotinus where we see the Gods together: <br />Let there be, then, in the soul a shining imagination of a sphere, having everything within it, either moving or standing still, or some things moving and others standing still. Keep this, and apprehend in your mind another, taking away the mass: take away also the places, and the mental picture of matter in yourself, and do not try to apprehend another sphere smaller in mass than the original one, but calling on the God who made that of which you have the mental picture, pray him to come. And may he come, bringing his own universe with him, and all the Gods within him, he who is one and all, and each God is all the Gods coming together into one […] (V.8.9.8-17)<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32152990817839060592020-12-12T05:36:31.284-08:002020-12-12T05:36:31.284-08:00I hope you don't believe this.I hope you don't believe this.Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85149724863791012382020-12-12T01:34:41.325-08:002020-12-12T01:34:41.325-08:00A three word precise definition of the One as expe...A three word precise definition of the One as experienced by Plotinus during the profoundly ecstatic contemplative state which he apparently entered into on numerous occasions during his life time. Which is also the native state of all human beings.<br /><br />Sat-Chit-Ananda<br /><br />Such could also be expressed in the ecstatic statement:<br />Truth Is Beauty - Beauty Is Truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87800636677496696022020-12-11T21:46:05.292-08:002020-12-11T21:46:05.292-08:00Just saying that a term "sounds mysterious&qu...Just saying that a term "sounds mysterious" isn't a convincing argument.Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15484194618631956132020-12-11T20:45:34.597-08:002020-12-11T20:45:34.597-08:00I'll start at the top. As each God is non-ext...I'll start at the top. As each God is non-extended, each God is -in- each God. This is the first relation which can only come about from each God existing as Themselves first, so that this second fact can be understood properly. This is not a question of parts relating to a whole, where each God would be a part of an abstracted divine class, but would instead be a case of wholes relating to wholes. So the "knowledge" each God has of Themselves is equal to the "knowledge" They have of each other God. This encompasses the first relation between the Gods. A God, if it so chooses to participate in the ontic manifold, may choose another Deity as a "parent", but this parentage does not create the Deity as such, instead it is a revelatory choice that points out where that Gods activity will be. So yes, Gods are active and choose things although They need not do so, since They are free to simply exist as Themselves without bothering with ontology at all.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34434531549374269632020-12-11T20:04:35.776-08:002020-12-11T20:04:35.776-08:00It seems that Monotheism is really not a Neoplaton...It seems that Monotheism is really not a Neoplatonic thing, but the tradition is not like what i thought it is.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25177368523211506082020-12-11T20:02:24.492-08:002020-12-11T20:02:24.492-08:00@Richard
Very interesting, i really need to take ...@Richard<br /><br />Very interesting, i really need to take a closer look to Neoplatonism someday, i did read Plato but a lot of what he writed likely just went over my head. I though there where just this divine and absolute impersonal reality(The One) and that everything else was like a manifestation of it(like on some forms of Hinduism for instance), but you are showing me that this is not exactly the case. <br /><br />Thanks again and last question: so the Gods actually do things similar to choosing, knowing, acting etc? That is something i did not understood before.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.com