Patrick Deen is a Catholic political science professor at the University of Notre Dame. About 5 years ago, he released a book called 'Why Liberalism Failed', which posed a robust critique of the liberal project, which he claims has eroded traditional, civic, and communal bonds over the past few centuries. What do you think of his position?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mKScDP1lcs&t=141s

What does this mean exactly? And what should we do to "become like God"?

While the bible is infallible, it's not first, and also it does contain minor insignificant errors. Creation contains no errors, it's 100% infallible, unless you think quantum physics is an error like Einstein. It also precedes any oral or written tradition. God gave us an intelligible universe and a rational mind first. In fact, the first task given to Adam was to use his intellect to name the animals. As he did, he placed them in an abstract category that he realised he is not fully a part of, partially due to the fact that he has these higher abstraction and reasoning faculties.

Our ability to interpret the natural world certainly is fallible, however so is our ability to interpret the bible. We may have the infallible church help us interpret the scripture... but we still have the problem of interpreting what the church says (boy, did I have a problem with understanding what is meant by transubstantiation...)

Having said all that, investigating the natural world through science, philosophy, or natural theology can only yield us knowledge that is predictable, such as about the nature of things. There is no way to investigate free will events, such as history and revelation, without any records. So it does play a different role, but nevertheless, it's the first fully infallible source of information.

Thoughts?

I'm inclined to believe so, but I recently came across a hypothetical in fiction that is the blurriest case I know of. As to prevent spoilers for the series, here is a parallel hypothetical:

An innocent person is kidnapped, put on an extremely powerful drug that makes them murderous and mindless, and given the means to kill people (say a knife).

Would a police officer, with very limited means of restraining or debilitating the person, be justified in shooting them?

We can see many debates between Kantianism and Thomism (including Aristotle) across topics of ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, etc. The tension seen in these topics can't be underestimated, and had historically produced starkly different world views.

I'm asking here on a seemingly more "quite" topic in this debate, where both Kant and Aristotle/Aquinas had important contributions: the nature of physical reality, i.g., space, time, motion, change, etc.

My question: Is there a significant tension and contradiction in these topics as well? Thus, is Kantianism relevant to read as an antithesis to Thomis, vice versa?

While plantinga's argument is popular, more specifically in response to the question of moral evil, I think it might be a heresy. It's standard theology that God, as primary cause, can cause someone to freely will something. Catholic theology doesn't generally hold with the "free will" defense against the PoE, but rather holds the God allows evil so that He might works some greater good. For example, God allowed the sin of Adam so that Christ could come and demonstrate God's mercy, not because God could not have prevented Adam from sinning. God allows evil, evil doesn't force God's hand.

Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm#article1

Could it be said that, in respect to the OT, divine pedagogy is probably a major and core feature of it? For example, a being such as God asking for something so archaic as animal sacrifice is only for the sake that he might communicate to archaic man in the manner of progressive revelation or pedagogy?

If God is somehow limited by logic, then that would mean that logic is somehow "exterior" to God. That would imply that laws of logic are more fundamental than God, and therefore, that God is a contingent, finite being among other beings. So, how can this be?

Answers to this comment?:

«I'm struggling to understand how God 'being known by Himself' constitutes a distinct 'awareness' or person, or how God 'being known by Himself and knowing Himself' (which sounds like 'God knowing that He knows Himself') does either. I feel like those 'states of awareness' just reduce back down to God being alone. I'll have to think about it»

I have the same doubt

Why cannot somethings essence be cnrgient on existence? For example, if I cease to exist, I am different.

I saw a prot on twitter that claimed that a bunch of church fathers explicitly denied that Mary is sinless, here is the list that he leaved:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement and Origen of Alexandria, Theonas of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Eusebius of Emeza, Hilary of Poitiers, Zeno of Verona, Athanasius the Great, Ambrosiaster, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus of Alexandria, Amphilochus of Iconium, Evagrius Pontus, John Chrysostom, Chromatius of Aquileia, Severian of Gabala, Rufinus of Aquileia, Jerome of Stridon, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine of Hippo, Nilus of Ancyra, John Kasjan, Asterius, Cyril of Alexandria

Plus, he also stated about the famous quote by St Ambrose:
"In it a personified human nature asks Christ to be accepted into God's family, so that our body, although it fell in Adam, would be accepted by Him as born not of Sarah (the mother of the Old Covenant), but of Mary (the mother of the New Covenant) and free from all sin. In the text Ambrose himself and consequently all Christians ask to be accepted in this way - as children of God freed from all sin. The passage is commonly mistranslated as to speak of Mary, or not our human nature."

How would you respond to all of this?

Is it worth reading?

An Athiest YouTuber named Digital Gnostic published a video critiquing Thomaistic apologetics, I am not very well versed in phislophy, so I was wondering what you guys thought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VLH7J7-m8k&t=1s

Infinite sets exist in mathematics, and I wonder if they can exist in reality, like, can there be an infinite set of contingent beings or moments?

The Bible says that the dead know "nothing more" repeteadly in the book of Ecclesiastes and in the Psalm 88, yet we see dead people been councious multiple times in other passages, Jonah 2:2-3, Luke 16:19-31, Isaiah 14:10, 1st Samuel 28:16, and so on. What does the verses in Ecclesiastes actually mean then?

This is a very common principle appealed to by various people (especially those who like Medieval philosophy). In general the principle makes sense, but I've been thinking about two cases recently.

1. This argument is often appealed to by Thomists who argue against evolution. Because a member of species A does not contain within its nature the possibility of being species B, a child of species A could never be a member of Species B (insofar as the parent is a cause of the child). Were evolution to occur, it would be a violation of the principle in question.

(This is really over simplified since evolution takes place at the population level and over many generations, but I don't think that is relevant for the example).

Assuming evolution is true (and not caring to actually argue about it here), would the error in the Thomist argument be a) the claim that evolution is an instance of this principle, or b) the principle itself is not true / needs to be modified?

2. Another example I was thinking about. Let's say I'm lifting weights. On day 1, I cannot lift 100 lbs. But I can lift 90 lbs. After 9 days of lifting 90 lbs repeatedly, on day 10 I can lift 100 lbs.

The most straightforward analysis of this example is that cause A - lifting 90 lbs led to effect B - lifting 100 lbs., which seems like a violation of the principle in question. Although maybe A isn't lifting 90 lbs once, but lifting 90 lbs repeatedly over 9 days?

This is mostly in the context of the so-called bullying epidemic but applies to self defense, in general. I don't have any kids and probably won't manage to have any BUT if I do, I've always thought that if I did, I would probably enroll them in some form of martial arts/combat sport (in addition to some fun physical activities to make them well-rounded athletes, like bouldering or something along those lines that is physically challenging but playful) and then weapons handling when they get older and emphasize that it's OK to fight back, and if they did, to strike back hard.

Bullies tend to pick on the most easily available targets. If given a choice between targeting some poor autistic kid and a state champion wrestler, they’d go for the former. I’m not saying martial arts and athletic ability is going to make them invulnerable but it will give them a fighting chance to make an uneven playing field more level. Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war, as they say. If it’s time for them to meet their doom, I’d rather they go down swinging.

I would also be teaching my kids not to trust people unless it's been earned. Maybe it’s unhealthy but it’s a mindset I would hope to give them. Hope for the best but expect the absolute worst. Be as innocent as doves but wise as a serpent. I want them to be streetwise and somewhat cynical.

Goodness does not equal being harmless. I want my kids to be as dangerous as possible in their own way. I want them to develop a capacity for violence and pray they never have to use it. It’s better to have that killer instinct and the ability to project effective violence against human predators on the worst day of your life than not.

I'm just wondering if this sort of mindset is compatible with Christianity. It seems like the Spotless Lamb is only one side of the Coin. On the other side is the Lion of Judah. Christianity used to have a martial culture, is it time we resurrect it from the dead?

God, had a desire. A desire to create us, the human race, and to share His love with us.

He knew that if He pursued this desire it would result in the suffering of billions both earthly misery and hellish pain. This was a want and not a need since God needs nothing. But He went ahead with pursuing this desire and created things and allowed events to happen accordingly to create this outcome we have today.

Billions will suffer because God pursued this desire. It shows me that if God wants something He's willing for a lot of people to get hurt to get it.

I don't understand how such an act can be loving or kind. To create this place with so many hell bound people. Make the demons fall to earth of all places, allow them to interact with Adam and Eve, then purposely harden their offspring (Romans 9:18) and make most of them vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) so He can display His power and wrath and glory to a few He chose to be vessels of mercy.

God's quest for pleasure and glory results in so many being hurt. Possibly for an eternity. I have to question, "How, dear God, could this have been worth it in Your eyes? Do those who will be lost mean nothing to You in comparison?"

I'll end in my own confusion and this verse. (Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.) Revelation 4:11

If we hold that the actions of the 3 persons of Holy Trinity are one and the same as long as they are done out of the divine nature, how can we also affirm that only God the Son, aka the Logos, aka Jesus, was incarnated into a man but not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit?

So, as of receently, I have been philosophically struggling with the Faith, and I have a question about the privation theory of evil and inherently immoral actions. Wouldn't they seem to contradict the theory? I know that, for example, murder is wrong because it deprives another of his life, therefore causing a privation. But murder itself doens't seem to be the result of a privation of good in any action i.e. i can't see any action from which you can derive murder (or any other inherently evil action) by removing a perfection of that action. I know that taking a life is sometimes justified, but this doesn't seem to hold for all possible actions that are inherently immoral. Thanks in advance for the answers, and sorry for any mistakes: English is not my first language.

EDIT: A similar argument seems to hold for artifacts created for evil, because they have an evil purpose; so, wouldn't their existence in itself be evil?

Insofar as they have being, which is convertible with goodness (following the convertibility of the Transcendentals), they are never “Completely evil,”.

However it feels inappropriate to say that a demon participates in any share of the good.

So I realized: what if the most logical explanation as to why a concious mind exists on any planet would be to suffer? Suffer, however, based off our more fortunate standards specifically: to suffer the—what we would consider—"pains" of things like inconvenience, discomfort, misfortune, and displeasure.

Its the incessant indulgence in these things that lead a concious mind to be completely blind to the woes of such, thus the compassion and ability to empathize that comes with the experience (or knowledge) of suffering. It's hardly just an "eye for an eye"—the inherent need for ourselves to retaliate due to being concious of ourselves—that leads the world to be blind, it's our sense organs reacting to our environment and any desire for ourselves conjured from this reaction that is the most blinding; it's this that leads to the vanities we imagine in our heads, that we end up revolving our lives around, and make most important, that leads away from the "true life" a life of selflessness has to offer: a life most lived in the present, opposed to stuck in our heads, the images of what we consider the pain of our "past" and the thirst or fear for the "future" (our sense of time being yet another consequence of consciousness—like selfishness) dominating how we feel today.

It's our sense organs reacting to the extent we've presently manipulated our environment that leads to an addiction to it, even happiness, to the point where we become convinced that it's even lifes meaning: to become as happy as possible, but when we make our highest happiness the satisfaction of our greatest desires, we're only lead to an inevitable, massive disappointment, due to all exploitation of desire only being temporary. This begs the question: out of all the desire, and vanity that's bred from it, would there by any that don't end in inevitable disappointment due to being temporary? Love—but not Disney World kind of love, no, the Gandhi, MLK, Leo Tolstoy kind: selflessness—is the only desire that not only holds the ability to potentially last as long as man does, but also doesn't lead to inevitable disappointment. Dare I say: it's what the idea of a God or creator of some kind (not any man made God, but the substance of them)—its will: selflessness, to even it's extremes like self-sacrifice, that is the only desire worth seeking. But if you're someone against the idea of a God or creator (good luck finding the will to be selfless to the extremes) then let the fact that we're the only living things that have ever existed (on this planet, as far we know) that can even begin to consider abstaining from itself for any reason at all, be enough.

It's this that would end all suffering, but not by ending it, but by normalizing it I suppose you could say, by suffering for the sake of selflessness. To take the empty, ultimately only disappointing desire of stimulating our sense organs and fulfilling our vanities—for the sake of ourselves, and replace it, with the logic and alternative perspectives and behaviors that our inherency to selflessness breeds.

What if we're designed to not be comforted or pleasured incessantly. Just look at most rich people, obese or crooked in some way or another, the idea of their temporary lifestyle they've become so attached to no longer being an avenue to being comforted and pleasured, saps or corrupts their concious mind, even to the point where their willing to even kill to keep it. It's a life of abstaining from your sense organs, and teaching yourself to thirst and desire for the least, that ultimately leads to a life of the most.

Hello all! The philosopher Van Iwangen objected to the PSR on the grounds that it seemed to make the world neccesary, as (excepting free will of God) God's "choice" (using terminology of free will) to create the world would neccesarialy follow from God's existence (presuming no free will and the PSR, it seems).

Now, I understand that God's free will makes this objection to fail, but is that the only rebuttal? To be honest, it isn't so satisfying... on person says "free will exists, so the PSR is fine" and the next guy denies free will and the PSR alongside it.

I was wondering if there's any other rebuttal to his objection that you know of?

Personally, it doesn't definitely seem that, presuming naturalism, even if free-will didn't exist, that there couldn't be a god (albeit one which lacked free will), as you might just be left with the understanding that there is a kind of god, just that everything it does it does necessarily and that everything that exists exists necessarily. Not that Van Iwangen argued against the existence of a god; I'm fairly sure he was a Christian.

Side question: Could someone help me out on how to answer the objections raised in this short paper? Thank you so much! https://www.krismcdaniel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PSRAN.pdf

I know that Aquinas’ disagreements with Aristotle are rare, but they do occur. Does anyone have some expertise here, or could point me to some resources?

I'd like to start by saying this is mostly a thought experiment.

Aquinas believed that all living things had "immaterial" souls. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but he at least didn't believe life was "composed" in the normal sense.

He also believed that animals could propagate their form to their offspring without a special act of divine creation. I find this important to note, because Aquinas did not believe this was possible for human souls. Now, the souls of humans are special, in that they have immaterial activity, but the mild paradox got me thinking about all-souls.

All-souls show up in Eastern religions, such as some variants of Hinduism. The essential idea, for those less familiar, is there is some kind of universal identity or essence that is re-instantiated in individual organisms. This kind of thing is very incompatible with Thomistic thought, and Christianity generally... or is it.

I am a rational animal. I have a human soul, and a body, and that body has various parts. For instance, I have a right arm, and can distinguish it from my left arm. I don't need to have a right arm though; I would still be human without it. So my right arm is an accident of my human substance, yet can be said to have individuation in its own right. Likewise, a mushroom is one organism, but its root network goes wide, and many fruiting bodies may appear seeming as unique organisms themselves.

Now it would be un-Catholic, and contrary to our lived experience, to suggest we share a single consciousness or single immaterial spirit... but is it un-Catholic to say these individual selves share an essence that is separate from those identities? Could we be "accidents" of a single greater substance (which itself would not constitute an individual, but merely serve as the formal cause of individual living things).

Philosophically, it's an idea with some good meat in the from-substance metaphysics. All life is descended from a common organism. And all new life is generated not by efficient causation on inanimate matter, but by division of already living cells. This seems to directly suggest a kind of direct inheritance of form, which in this picture would be a tad more literal.

If all life can be conceptualized as accidents of an all-soul, then we can avoid one of the main objections to essentialism in animals: the unclear delineation of evolving species. We don't need to say "this is the form of a chicken, and this is the form of a turkey"; both can be thought of as expressions of "living thing".

Individuation of disembodied human souls could make a good bit more sense in this picture; Aquinas originally suggests this individuation comes from matter. But how is matter supposed to individuate when you aren't connected to it? Is the soul supposed to "remember" the chunk that spawned it? In the first place, matter is exchanged over a given life, so to me this has always been an aspect of the metaphysics that I found half-baked (as in, I like the gist but feel something is missing). But as accidents of a single living substance, individuation is relational in the same way my right arm is easy to distinguish from my left. Propagation and individuation collapse into a single mechanism, which is pretty elegant.

Finally, I find that this offers an enticing account of original sin. Original sin is normally conceptualized kind of as a generational curse; our first parents did something to corrupt their nature, and they kind of passed it down like the spiritual equivalent of a genetic disease.

But Jesus describes original sin as something that directly impacts human nature itself. When he sacrifices himself, it affects not just a specific group of descendants but humankind generally. Jesus unites human and Divine nature, inviting us into the divine family.

The mystery of how exactly this happens is, of course, ineffable. BUT if there was something like a shared "humanity" that we all source from, then the magnitude of Adam and Eve's crime becomes apparent. Perhaps it is this "humanity", or even "life" itself that were corrupted. And so, in this framework, Jesus's sacrifice is the salvation of this living essence that we (still as individuals) all borrow from.

I should recognize the parallels to Platonism is here, but I think this is still more of a neo-Thomistic variation (or desecration depending on how much you all hate the concept lol).

Anyhow, I wanted to talk about the concept. I'm sure it's not excessively original, but I do wonder if it's been done within neo-scholastic philosophy specifically. What do you think? Am I "in bounds" Catholically-speaking? Is this pure garbage, or am I onto something? Or is there some aspect of the metaphysics that bans this approach?

An incredibly short clip granted but in his debate with Ben Shapiro, Alex O'Connor made the case that free will doesn't exist, Alex O'Connor is obviously a determinist and thus believe that we are pre-determined to do things, but how would you respond to Alex's arguments against free will?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oacrvXpu4B8

I am wondering if anyone has a good response to this?
https://being-in-energia.blogspot.com/2024/11/on-impossibility-of-impossibility.html