Extremely good.https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1040397628196843520 …
-
-
Replying to @tomxhart
Don’t think so. Not that I want to defend Peterson’s takes, but I simply cannot agree with the po-mos’ language games. Any philosophy that focuses so much on semiotics and language is so dreadfully barren in its metaphysics, & anti-realist. Alas, modern, all too modern!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Konstant_V
On another matter, do you think that quote I sent you is reconcilable with a Catholic God?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart
In my view not quite—the passage seems to me to suggest a pantheistic identification of God with the universe. The Catholic doctrine of creation is predicated on God being ontologically different from His creation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Konstant_V @tomxhart
Though if the distinction between Creator & creation be maintained, there is no reason not to contemplate the interconnectedness of the entire universe. In a way the connection exists b/c every created thing exists by partaking of God’s being.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Konstant_V
I tend to think that the creator/creation division adds an unnecessary level of complication. Why suppose something more than what is?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart
One of the reasons for the doctrine is the gratuity of the act of creation. God is not under any necessity; therefore His choice to create is free—and He is thus consistent with His loving nature. If creation is not a free act, it isn’t an act of love.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That is a sound reason, but it doesn’t address why one should posit something more than my quote’s interrelation of energy. My dilemma is this: is there such a thing as metaphysics or not? I have not made up my mind, sometimes I think metaphysics is a mental error—sometimes not.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.