tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post9066495891636302874..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Choices, no-brainers and heavenly joyAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-64832191379563985852011-08-02T17:03:03.846-05:002011-08-02T17:03:03.846-05:00That's a very hard question.
One piece of the...That's a very hard question.<br /><br />One piece of the puzzle is that Aquinas thinks that Lucifer's choice occurred <em>before</em> he had the beatific vision. (The "before" refers to the order of explanation, but maybe not the temporal order.) Could it be that the advantages of the heavenly vision are only fully seen as trumping everything when one has them?<br /><br />Another piece of the puzzle is that according to Aquinas, Lucifer desired his heavenly beatitude, but wanted to have it by his own effort rather than by God's grace. Lucifer, thus, was the ultimate Pelagian. Now, it could be that once one has the heavenly beatitude by grace, it no longer makes any sense to seek to seize it on one's own. But before you have the heavenly beatitude, there is a good of <em>independent</em> happiness that presents itself to the will, and Lucifer seized it.<br /><br />But why can't someone in heaven desire to have the good of independent happiness? Maybe because their destiny is all set, so independence is no longer seen as a possibility?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45098314455276065552011-08-02T16:34:53.335-05:002011-08-02T16:34:53.335-05:00Dr. Pruss, You give heavenly beatitude as a prime ...Dr. Pruss, You give heavenly beatitude as a prime example of a no-brainer for the souls in heaven. I am wondering about Lucifer's sin and whether this might present a difficulty. <br /><br />Heaven clearly was not a no-brainer for Lucifer. Yet, prior to his sin, Lucifer was presumably a good angel. I think Aquinas would say that there is no falsehood in his intellect at that time. Aquinas writes, "Now it is quite evident that the quiddity of a thing can be a source of knowledge with regard to everything belonging to such thing, or excluded from it; but not of what may be dependent on God's supernatural ordinance. Consequently, owing to their upright will, from their knowing the nature of every creature, the good angels form no judgments as to the nature of the qualities therein, save under the Divine ordinance; hence there can be no error or falsehood in them" (<i>Sum</i>, I, 58, 5). Aquinas goes on to admit the possibility of error in angelic intellects, but only for those that are already demonic. Those that are good are without intellectual error. So, Lucifer's intellect could not have failed to present the advantages of heaven to his will prior to his sin. Further, heavenly joy was immediate for Lucifer, so immediate gratification cannot be the reason for Lucifer's choice.<br /><br />It seems to me that Lucifer presents us with a radical instance of libertarian free will. He turned his will against the advantages that his intellect apprehended. In other words, Lucifer had a choice even when it was a no-brainer.<br /><br />It might still be the case that if determinism is true, there are only no-brainers. However, if it is true that Lucifer rebelled despite having no intellectual error, we might be able to conclude that even if there were only no-brainers, there still could be choice and freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com