Modern theology and substance metaphysics?

[Philip]

We are speaking of tabula rasa, which is not Augustinian; so your claim to consistency is proven false there.

I was referring to metaethics, not to epistemology. Of course Thomas's epistemology differs from Augustine's, but that doesn't make him any less consistently Augustinian in ethics.

In the interests of intellectual virtue, to have Hegel and Kant introduced as counter-points to my statements, without any "reason" or "moral judgment" attached to their introduction, is not philosophical.

They were counterpoints to an assertion you were making about the development of modern western thought.

~Did the modern era really move from substance to Subject?

No, it moves from objectivity to subjectivism. God is unknowable in se. We know Him as He has revealed Himself, and this is perfectly adapted to our creaturely limitations, including our common notions of object, substance, being, etc. The dialectical theologians cannot rest in the revelation of God. They seek to faith-leap from revelation to Revealer and plunge themselves into an existential chasm.

I agree with everything you have said, but I've read a good bit of Hegel and while he does use the categories of essence/substance, they seem eclipsed (or sublimated, to use a Hegelian term) by the category of Subject.

As I understand it, Jacob was merely commenting on your reading of the "turn to the subject" in German philosophy and how Hegel attempts to subsume previous metaphysics into his schema. Bringing up Hegel in this context is quite relevant and a summary judgment wouldn't contribute to the discussion.

 

[MW]

I was referring to metaethics, not to epistemology. Of course Thomas's epistemology differs from Augustine's, but that doesn't make him any less consistently Augustinian in ethics.

You were offering what you considered to be a "more correct" statement to the one I made, and the one I made was concerned with the tabula rasa, so your clarification that you were not dealing with epistemology merely makes your "more correct" statement redundant.

 

[MW]

As I understand it, Jacob was merely commenting on your reading of the "turn to the subject" in German philosophy and how Hegel attempts to subsume previous metaphysics into his schema. Bringing up Hegel in this context is quite relevant and a summary judgment wouldn't contribute to the discussion.

I suppose if philosophical indifference is to be accounted intellectual virtue then anything is relevant.

 

[RamistThomist]

As I understand it, Jacob was merely commenting on your reading of the "turn to the subject" in German philosophy and how Hegel attempts to subsume previous metaphysics into his schema. Bringing up Hegel in this context is quite relevant and a summary judgment wouldn't contribute to the discussion.

I suppose if philosophical indifference is to be accounted intellectual virtue then anything is relevant.

<insert warning hegel is bad>

Who said philosophical indifference? You are reading motives and states into us after we have denied that.

 

[RamistThomist]

To critique modern theology and modern philosophy, one must first understand it. Further, every premise of the argument cannot be "Hegel is bad," otherwise it ceases to be a logical argument.

It's like writing a book on WWII. Every sentence in the book can't simply be "Hitler is bad." Just because the author doesn't say that every other paragraph doesn't mean one thing or another. Sometimes you have to establish context.

 

[Philip]

It's like writing a book on WWII. Every sentence in the book can't simply be "Hitler is bad." Just because the author doesn't say that every other paragraph doesn't mean one thing or another. Sometimes you have to establish context.

More to the point, I have met very few Hegelians. I have met very few who are even sympathetic toward Hegel, even in the secular world. In philosophical circles, he is mostly considered an historical curiosity who one must know because of his influence, not because anyone today espouses his philosophy, in a similar manner to Leibniz or Berkeley.

 

[RamistThomist]

It's like writing a book on WWII. Every sentence in the book can't simply be "Hitler is bad." Just because the author doesn't say that every other paragraph doesn't mean one thing or another. Sometimes you have to establish context.

More to the point, I have met very few Hegelians. I have met very few who are even sympathetic toward Hegel, even in the secular world. In philosophical circles, he is mostly considered an historical curiosity who one must know because of his influence, not because anyone today espouses his philosophy, in a similar manner to Leibniz or Berkeley.

I think Zizek is the only Hegelian I can think of, and praise God I haven't met him!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Or because I move to a conclusion at the end of the line of discussion.

It seems that, more often than not, you have formed a conclusion beforehand such your posts seem to be but a tactic intended to steer the discussion towards your forthcoming revealed conclusion.

I get that you like to read all sorts of esoteric materials and then comment effusively about the material. What I often wonder is what exactly is your ultimate goal in traveling these off-road paths. Sooner or later our efforts and studies, if we are to be good stewards of the time we have been granted, should bear fruit in the furtherance of the Kingdom. From all your posts on topics far and wide in the realm of philosophical discourse seasoned with occasional theology, what are you building atop this foundation you have laid? Let us know where you are headed and perhaps you will be pleased to discover that there will be those willing to help you get there.

 

[RamistThomist]

Or because I move to a conclusion at the end of the line of discussion.

It seems that, more often than not, you have formed a conclusion beforehand such your posts seem to be but a tactic intended to steer the discussion towards your forthcoming revealed conclusion.

I get that you like to read all sorts of esoteric materials and then comment effusively about the material. What I often wonder is what exactly is your ultimate goal in traveling these off-road paths. Sooner or later our efforts and studies, if we are to be good stewards of the time we have been granted, should bear fruit in the furtherance of the Kingdom. From all your posts on topics far and wide in the realm of philosophical discourse seasoned with occasional theology, what are you building atop this foundation you have laid? Let us know where you are headed and perhaps you will be pleased to discover that there will be those willing to help you get there.

To some extent everyone has a tentative conclusion in mind before they post. In any case, that wasn't true here. I was unclear on some points of substance metaphysics, which Philip graciously corrected me. I then saw points of convergence between rejections of substance metaphysics and Hegel. I then began to pursue and flesh out those connections. I thought--wild idea--that it would help people who have to read through the difficult literature on this point.

Because I didn't say everything I believe at every moment of the post (something about the finite not containing the infinite--limitations of being human and such), people began to read false positions into my position.

 

[MW]

Because I didn't say everything I believe at every moment of the post (something about the finite not containing the infinite--limitations of being human and such), people began to read false positions into my position.

I haven't read any position into your position, let alone a false one. I addressed your method and simply asked for up-front clarity on the fact you found certain philosophies, which you introduced into the discussion, to be faulty. Seeing the trouble it causes to offer you a little constructive criticism, I will leave you to yourself in future, and everyone can remain in a cloud of unknowing as to what might be your intention in raising one disparate thought after another; and Philip can utilise his powers of philosophical discernment to act as your interpreter and apologist.