tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post8745082179898458602..comments2023-08-10T05:32:21.163-04:00Comments on An Examined Life: Simplicity and NecessityVitae Scrutatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-43752948888306348222007-09-26T20:29:00.000-04:002007-09-26T20:29:00.000-04:00Not being a math guy, I nevertheless know enough a...Not being a math guy, I nevertheless know enough about "baby" set theory to be aware that all and only those things which satisfy<BR/><BR/> ~(x in {x})<BR/><BR/>are non-self-identical. The relevance of this fact to "the principle of individuation in Christian metaphysics" is beyond my ken. However, such objects do refute one of the foundational principles of set theory. Guess which one!tiochonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16792503852895000914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-14918638277223269122007-09-13T20:50:00.000-04:002007-09-13T20:50:00.000-04:00JonathanThanks for the reference--as a "math guy",...Jonathan<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reference--as a "math guy", I think you might be interestd in the work of <A HREF="http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/" REL="nofollow">Alexander Pruss</A>. In fact, you probably know all about him already, but just in case you don't, he's got some interesting essays there. I think he's a convert to Catholicism. He was trained as a mathematician but is now a philosopher.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-29605456169707014302007-09-13T17:10:00.000-04:002007-09-13T17:10:00.000-04:00I'm not even going to begin to debate the matter (...I'm not even going to begin to debate the matter (groan) being discussed in the combox, but I will simply say that I appreciate the post. I agree with you that the non-Leibnizian concept of identity is a practical necessity of any coherent Triadology and Christology, so that objections along those lines seem a bit hollow when coming from Christians.<BR/><BR/>You might be interested in <A HREF="http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2005/12/zummary-augustines-trinitology-and.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>, which relates Thomas Ryba's mathematical formulation of non-reflexive identity that one might use in saying that the persons of the Trinity are distinct relations on the same God. It's along the same lines as your observation, in that it responds to people who are too quick to dismiss certain notions of identity.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-7707805464874422132007-09-11T22:15:00.000-04:002007-09-11T22:15:00.000-04:00Dr Carson,I feel compelled to disagree. The metaph...Dr Carson,<BR/><BR/>I feel compelled to disagree. The metaphysical systems that accept or are more sympathetic to spiritual matter are the very ones most likely to insist that individuality is through the form, through a grade of haecceity over and above the species. The same people would deny that angels are sui generis, that the singular is unintelligible due to its affinity with matter, and so on. I'm speaking, of course, of the Franciscan School, which is almost uniformly neglected, to its own loss <I>as well as</I> that of Thomism, when the latter is held up as the gold standard of Catholic Metaphysics.<BR/><BR/>Personally I have suspected for some time that the metaphysics of certain Fransiscans is more compatible with and may--if ever disseminated and understood--prove more acceptable to Orthodox sensibilities than Thomism, for a host of reasons. In and of itself this doesn't, of course, make Scotus of Bonaventure's metaphysics more likely to be <I>true</I>, but I think it's definitely worth keeping in mind.<BR/><BR/>--Michael SullivanMichael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-54588737595743930052007-09-11T19:12:00.000-04:002007-09-11T19:12:00.000-04:00LeeA good point, I probably ought to have written ...Lee<BR/><BR/>A good point, I probably ought to have written "in certain Christian metaphysics", but it seems to me that as long as we're going to be counting such things as intelligible matter as matter then probably a term like this covers a lot of ground.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-74885638591390772452007-09-11T18:20:00.000-04:002007-09-11T18:20:00.000-04:00"matter is the principle of individuation in Chris..."matter is the principle of individuation in Christian metaphysics.)"<BR/><BR/>I really should lay low as this wasn't the point of your post...but is this true of modern christian metaphysics not of the thomistic bent? Scotus and Bonaventure wouldn't agree. And I even know certain contemporary people of a Bonaventurian cast who would probably maintain his notion of spiritual matter.<BR/>best,<BR/>LFLee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com