tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post9064221441790026193..comments2023-06-19T11:08:54.896-04:00Comments on Crimson Catholic: Leo Sweeney, SJ, on InfinityCrimsonCatholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-78265121272687557532007-03-27T17:44:00.000-04:002007-03-27T17:44:00.000-04:00Thanks for both the correction and the citations, ...Thanks for both the correction and the citations, Lee. I'm definitely vulnerable to the temptation in intellectual history to set everything up as a retroactive battle between "teams" on the side of one idea or another, as if Scotus and Aquinas were on the historical equivalent of the Yankees and the Red Sox. I definitely need to do more reading to be entirely fair to Scotus, although it sounds like I'm going to have to work on my Latin to do so.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-29954228503037253652007-03-26T22:41:00.000-04:002007-03-26T22:41:00.000-04:00since i'm here, your earlier request regarding sou...since i'm here, your earlier request regarding sources:<BR/><BR/>is all contained in the first 3 questions of distinction 3 part 1 of the ordinatio [vatican ed. III pp.1-ca. 150]<BR/><BR/>some bits have been translated in wolter's "duns scotus philosophical writings" and there is a bit in the Hyman and walsh anthologyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-23262380391978344032007-03-26T22:39:00.000-04:002007-03-26T22:39:00.000-04:00"...Scotus's confusion about St. Thomas's doctrine..."...Scotus's confusion about St. Thomas's doctrine of potency."<BR/><BR/>at the risk of coming across as being of a one track mind (I do have many interests beyond scotus, believe it or not), I think this is the sort of attitude that one gets reading scholars whose field of research is thomas or ancient philosophy or whatever. they think that because scotus says something different that he must be disagreeing with thomas or have thomas in mind. But scotus just doesn't care most of the time. he might not even have known the doctrine of thomas in question in any great detail, as thomas was forbidden to be read in the franciscan studium without the corrections of walter de la mare. Thomist academic scholars inparticular tend to project aquinas 19th century stature into the medieval period as if there was some moment when the university of paris bowed low before thomistic doctrine. which simply was not the case. in the post 1277 climate, henry of ghent was the dominating figure at the universit of paris, for over 20 years. to be sure, there was the correctorium controversies, though thomists seem to dislike those early defendors of thomas for getting him all wrong (but then, they were facing direct criticism of thomistic positions not conceived of by thomas himself, so it is understandable if they would differ somewhat.). anyhoo, my point is, in the discussions of infinity and univocity in scotus' writings, henry of ghent's views are the springboard. they are the views summarized then criticized.<BR/>paxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-62915675678764180162007-03-02T14:25:00.000-05:002007-03-02T14:25:00.000-05:00But isn't that was maximal simply means?I'd be rel...<I>But isn't that was maximal simply means?</I><BR/><BR/>I'd be reluctant to admit that, because I have trouble seeing how it doesn't confuse existence and essence. "Maximal," as it is ordinarily used, would seem to pertain to the latter and not the former. To some extent, the question with Aristotle is whether infinity can exist, not just whether it is "real" in any sense (given that Aristotle himself didn't distinguish the two).<BR/><BR/>Thanks to Prof. Gage for the kind comments. If you can get ahold of that volume of <I>Collectanea Augustiniana</I> with Fr. Sweeney's article contrasting Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, it covers Augustine pretty well. I'd say the best description would be "inchoate," in that he doesn't focus on the issue explicitly. Much like divine simplicity, you can see some patterns of what his thinking is, but it's generally lurking behind the discussion of some other topic.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-6112741120548352552007-03-02T10:55:00.000-05:002007-03-02T10:55:00.000-05:00Great post! It's interesting that Plotinus began ...Great post! It's interesting that Plotinus began the line of thinking that Aquinas perected. I wonder how Augustine fits into the picture--he being the most quoted source in the Summa (next to the Bible?), as I understand, and in many ways equivalent to Plotinus.<BR/><BR/>As far as the formal (divine)concept of infinity, it's perhaps not far of the mark to say that it is equivalent to saying "infinitely definite or articulated," where defintion is understood as a perfection.<BR/><BR/>The mistake to avoid with regard to divine infinity is that it's not some amorphous blah (the material infinite), but quite the contrary. That misconception is of course the trap that New Agers fall into.<BR/><BR/>LGLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-51082867402128452432007-03-02T00:54:00.000-05:002007-03-02T00:54:00.000-05:00JOnathan,But isn't that was maximal simply means? ...JOnathan,<BR/><BR/>But isn't that was maximal simply means? In a philosophy of religion conference here in rutgers, someone actually gave an argument saying that we should be careful in saying that God is infinite, or at least, we should try to understand what we really mean by that. He gave an analogy to zeno's paradox but I can't remember the argument. <BR/><BR/>Your working definition might work. I have to think about it more. Intuitively, I think one might see problems with it.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-90332657443353846462007-03-01T15:27:00.000-05:002007-03-01T15:27:00.000-05:00I'd say "free from limits in perfection," which ca...I'd say "free from limits in perfection," which can be applied with respect to a particular power or to powers in general.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-76392251185930240382007-02-27T17:00:00.000-05:002007-02-27T17:00:00.000-05:00Here is an interesting article on infinityhttp://w...Here is an interesting article on infinity<BR/><BR/>http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2006.00100.x?cookieSet=1<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure about the argument presented on your post. Does "infinite" simply mean maximal? humans can do infinitely many things. Language has the ability to express infinitely many things. It doesn't mean we are infinite.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.com