Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 20 2006, 01:53 AM']Wouldn't Dr. Briel be proud of the three of us.......? And for Myles, you are on the right track.....expand your thought. [right][snapback]861508[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well its as if Newman envisions the exercise of the intellectual virtues apart from the moral virtues. Naturally, sin clouds reason and thus a vice ridden logicist mightn't be in exactly the best position to repent and recieve the gospel. However, a virtous Jew just because he is virtous might not be receptive to someone simply reciting articles of the Creed to him/her. The cardinal virtues include prudence and acting according to practical wisdom I should expect a virtous individual to at least investigate truth claims before discounting them. Nonetheless, if that virtous Jew asks the person preaching to them why the [i]Memra[/i] (Aramaic for 'Word' used in Targums) has/needs hypostatic existence in Christainity or why it was neccessary for the Word to become flesh will an ignorant answer from the Christian satisfy the proper exercise of virtue? Maybe a moral heart is in a better position than a logicians to recieve truth but surely the best position to be to have both moral and intellectual virtues? I agree however you slice it the moral heart is the best one for God to work with and God can guide and prompt and provoke it to seek truth. Yet, a virtous heart contains the intellectual virtues also and these should be exercised with the moral virtues in unison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 [quote]Well its as if Newman envisions the exercise of the intellectual virtues apart from the moral virtues. Naturally, sin clouds reason and thus a vice ridden logicist mightn't be in exactly the best position to repent and recieve the gospel. However, a virtous Jew just because he is virtous might not be receptive to someone simply reciting articles of the Creed to him/her.[/quote] More or less, but not completely. He addresses them separately and he believes that they are distinct, hence the illative sense, but they don't operate apart from one another. The illative plays a bigger role. You start to get to it with your Jew analogy. Keep thinking about it and see what more you can come up with. You however, are on the right track. And you are in the heart of the controversy. The role of the illative. N.B. It is a logician, not a logicist. But I think that you knew that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 21 2006, 06:11 AM']N.B. It is a logician, not a logicist. But I think that you knew that...... [right][snapback]862625[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Perhaps a proponent of logicism could be called a logicist. I'm gonna start using that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 12:23 PM']Perhaps a proponent of logicism could be called a logicist. I'm gonna start using that. [right][snapback]862628[/snapback][/right] [/quote] If you use it enough it should end up in the dictionary but I'll take Cam's correction for my part : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 07:53 AM']If you use it enough it should end up in the dictionary but I'll take Cam's correction for my part : [right][snapback]862646[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Dictionaries are by nature behind the times anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 02:09 PM']Dictionaries are by nature behind the times anyway. [right][snapback]862654[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What does that say about (religious) language L_D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 02:32 PM']What does that say about (religious) language L_D? [right][snapback]862835[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What do you mean? Nothing in particular though. Technical language has its own little sphere so if you mean the language of theology I'd have a slightly different answer than if you mean popular religious language. In light of my other post I suppose I might just say that even the best dictionary of theology (or philosophy) is inaccurate to some degree. And religious language is hardly immune to the fluid nature of language itself. You could pick any common religious term and find a slew of meanings associated with it. I'd like to see a universal definition of even such basic terms as [i]ousia[/i], [i]hupostasis[/i], or in Latin [i]esse[/i], [i]suppositum[/i], etc. What did the fathers at Nicea mean by [i]ousia[/i], verses the fathers at Chalcedon? Or Nyssa verses Damascene, or Thomas verses Erigena, etc.. I wouldn't absolutize religious language.. Language just isn't an absolute sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now