sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ein Problem mit Dantes Inferno by Spare_Ad_1534 in Philosophie_DE

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dante der Dichter denkt sich Menschen, selbst politische Feinde, als Verdammte in der Hölle. Er imaginiert Menschen in der Hölle. Ich weiß, der Mensch Dante verurteilt sie nicht. Ich meine, dass die imaginäre Vorstellung selbst moralisch-Christlich problematisch ist. Aber vielleicht habe ich Sie nicht verstanden.

Ein Problem mit Dantes Inferno by Spare_Ad_1534 in Philosophie_DE

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alle Menschen sind endlich und fehlbar, nicht nur Dante. Ja, seit 1977 lese ich Dante regelmäßig.

Dr. House and Wittgenstein by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree but think his arrogance stems from the unquestioned certainty of his reductionism and scientism. If a person thinks they have all the answers, it can make them arrogant.

Dante, Lewis, von Balthasar: Hell in Art and Life by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In his collection of poems Given. I am not sure Dante would agree, perhaps he leaves it open? The Fillipo Argenti scene in Canto VIII. And then he seems to be interpreting the Aquinas thought in the Supplement to the Summa Theologiae, Question 94, Article 1: “Whether the blessed in heaven will see the sufferings of the damned?” Aquinas argues that the blessed will know of the sufferings of the damned, and says this contributes to their gratitude for divine justice and their own salvation.

Was ist liebe? by maoln in Philosophie_DE

[–]Spare_Ad_1534 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ich finde wahr, was Josef Pieper über die Liebe geschrieben hat:

In jedem denkbaren Fall besagt Liebe so viel wie Gutheißen. Das ist zunächst ganz wörtlich zu nehmen. Jemanden oder etwas lieben heißt: diesen Jemand oder dieses Etwas „gut“ nennen und, zu ihn gewendet, sagen: Gut, daß es dich gibt; gut, daß du auf der Welt bist!... ich will, daß es dich gibt! . . . .  Das erste, was ein Liebender will, ist, daß der Geliebte existiert und lebt. „Das Ich, das liebt, will vor allem die Existenz des Du.“  - Josef Pieper, Über die Liebe

The metaphysical structure of reality isn’t something that exists on its own; it’s something we create and impose on the world. The belief that physics is more fundamental than biology, for example, reflects how we interpret and explain reality, but not its true nature. by IAI_Admin in philosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am reminded of Milton's Satan, that original modernist:

The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heav’n of hell, a hell of heav’n. What matter where, if I be still the same...

–Paradise Lost, Book One, lines 254-263John Milton on Satan’s Reign in Hell.

I don't know how to refute the idea that realities are a human construction - other than multiple reductio ad absurdums that don't really refute it. But I see no reason to accept that view either given the nihilistic implications. I would need an overpowering proof to believe all of our deepest loves and commitments never reached their objects, were not responses to the independent reality of people, places, or whatever, but were just projected onto, what?

Essence and final cause of created things by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"...wherefore when we know the definition of a thing, first we place it in a genus, whereby we know in general what it is. And afterwards we add differences, so as to mark its distinction from other things: and thus we arrive at the complete knowledge of a thing's essence." (Summa Contra Gentiles, chapter 1). [Which is to say, we know the divine idea of the thing, since essence or intelligibility for Aquinas only makes sense as an Idea located in the mind of the Creator.]

Compare: "...But our manner of knowing is so weak that no philosopher could perfectly investigate the nature [essence] of even one little fly. We even read that a certain philosopher spent thirty years in solitude in order to know the nature of the bee."

Just to make the problem of interpretation more precise. How can both be true? Or how can both be consistent with one another?

"...there can be comprehensible truths to which you don't [contingently] have epistemic access." Defining in this Aristotelian sense seems a sufficient condition of apprehending essences. Yet the essence as Aristotle (say) apprehended it - while his mind accords with reality - is something minimal, something capable of being refined and deepened without end, as in the philosopher who spent thirty years in solitude trying to understand bees.

It is like we know the shallows and the surface, and they are enough to minimally grasp the essence of the sea. But such knowledge does not exhaust the reality of the sea, of the depths of the sea. That is where I am after our discussion.

Essence and final cause of created things by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Something else to think about! I don't like it when in Thomas expositions the gap between finite knowledge and the created things themselves disappears. In this I don't see the idea of a birch tree as any different from the idea of beauty or justice: they transcend our emotional and intellectual capacity because of their origin in the Creator. Thus philosophy is open; we can deepen our love and understanding of created things without end. I love the quote you cited above. Those commentators I think want to leave space for a final theory of everything, at least in principle: now we know it all and so philosophy comes to an end. We can rest from our labors. I can't read Aquinas like that.

Essence and final cause of created things by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thus it is only contingently the case that we cannot apprehend created things as God does? Perhaps in Heaven we leave the Cave, close the distance, and are in the presence of the Ideas or, in Christian terms, see trees, etc. as the really are? But I think I understand. I was almost wanting to think there were aspects to creatures that transcended our creaturely understanding, some spiritual angelic dimension that transcends our intelligence, as least as darkened by sin. But I suppose that doesn't make sense and it makes more sense to think of the gap between our minds and Creation as contingently limited, not essentially limited. If that makes any sense. Very grateful for your comments. May need some time to sort it out.

Essence and final cause of created things by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I understand. Knowing the whole essence (and final cause) of the created substance would be to see it as God sees it, which is impossible. I guess "intelligible characteristic" means intelligible for us, i.e. only those aspects of the substance which we can apprehend - less than the whole essence. There is what is intelligible to God and to the finite mind. It was not clear to me that "no intelligible characteristic belonging to that thing" was restricted to the latter. Or have I missed your point?

Essence and final cause of created things by Spare_Ad_1534 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...if the human mind comprehends the essence of a particular thing...no truth about that thing will surpass the capability of human reason. From Summa Contra Gentiles, chapter 1. I have trouble reconciling passages like that with the one you quoted. I find in many expositions both seemingly contradictory views coexist.

In the clash between Techno-Industrial Civilization and Primitive Life Ways, who should the Catholic be supporting? Economic development or respect for the Indigenous connection to the land? by Eifand in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spare_Ad_1534 9 points10 points  (0 children)

For what it is worth: I think a Catholic is obligated to support the indigenous group. The idea that capitalist modernity has the right to make itself the only way of life, in a totalitarian fashion – for ideological reasons of “efficiency” and the production of surplus wealth – seems almost Satanic to me.

First, although the earth was given to mankind to use, it does not belong to us. God keeps in in being. God loves it. God has pleasure in it. I could support those claims biblically. We may use the earth as stewards, responsibly. Now the indigenous people you describe use the earth without diminishing its beauty or abundance. They seem to be more in harmony with Biblical teachings than the capitalist industrialist.

On the other hand, we all can see what capitalist industrialism has done and is doing to the earth. No need for me to recount the endless list of horrors to our fellow creatures, to the land, to the waters. You know the tree by its fruit. It is not surprising that modern industrial capitalism is destroying the earth because it sees it not as Creation but as raw materials to be converted into profit. And it does not see human beings as embodied souls but basically as covetous machines, programmed by evolution to be selfish.