tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post1149251462032609666..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Latin trinitarianism and the perfection of loveAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36018745882399573292012-11-12T05:25:11.091-06:002012-11-12T05:25:11.091-06:00Alex,
The link to note 1 is dead. Can you, please...Alex,<br /><br />The link to note 1 is dead. Can you, please, revive it?Pavlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11062322734572382661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71987679258716681472008-04-29T18:20:00.000-05:002008-04-29T18:20:00.000-05:00Hi Alex,Man, you're posting so fast I can't find t...Hi Alex,<BR/><BR/>Man, you're posting so fast I can't find time to respond. But here's one:<BR/><BR/>My view is that this sort of speculation breaks down at your second paragraph. <BR/><BR/>Specifically here: "Perfection strongly suggests the presence of perfect interpersonal love.[note 1] Therefore, perfection considerations make it plausible that there is more than one divine person exhibiting perfect interpersonal love. Moreover, love has two kinds of perfections."<BR/><BR/>What sort of thing am I supposed to consult my intuitions about. A perfect *person*? If so, what's required is that it be perfectly loving in the sense of having a perfectly loving character or disposition. That it should be without opportunity to exercise this wonderful capacity wouldn't reduce its greatness one bit.<BR/><BR/>But, no, you say, not one person - rather, a perfect *being*. Well, my concept of a perfect being just is the concept of a perfect person. Back to the above, then.<BR/><BR/>I'll skip this move, unless you insist: God ain't a person, or a non-person, he's more-than-a-person.<BR/><BR/>No, you may say, not being/individual - rather, we're talking about a perfect essence/nature/haecceity. Well, the most perfect one of those I have a concept of, would be one had by a perfect person. Do I think a perfect nature/trope or whatever must "contain more than one person"? I guess I don't know what it is for things like that to contain persons (or "persons").<BR/><BR/>By the way, this is just how Anselmian reasoning generally works - its grounded in intuitions about what a perfect self/person/agent would have to be.<BR/><BR/>If you then say - no- we're talking about a perfect *community*, well then we're in ST land, and neither of us wants to be there. But it's really only here that the needed intuitions get traction - a perfect community would feature persons enjoying certain sorts of relationships...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-7265089648084040082008-04-28T11:34:00.000-05:002008-04-28T11:34:00.000-05:00While some Orthodox are quite happy with the "thro...While some Orthodox are quite happy with the "through", they aren't all. Catholics officially believe that the "through" formulation is also correct, and I think the "through" claim gives one all one needs vis-a-vis the argument I gave. <BR/><BR/>However, if one insists on understanding the "through" in such a way as to exclude generous giving on the part of the Son, then that won't do the job.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-748978436806729892008-04-28T10:34:00.000-05:002008-04-28T10:34:00.000-05:00A minor comment on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox:...A minor comment on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox: my understanding is that they would be happy to say that the HS proceeds from the Father _through_ the Son, or something like that. If the Latin model of the trinity is a triangle, the Eastern model is a line with a direction and three points (not a triangle missing one leg). So there is less of an argument here for Latin Xty over Eastern Xty than one might have thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-24848150535896384512008-04-28T09:33:00.000-05:002008-04-28T09:33:00.000-05:00The paradigm of the Latin view for me is Sts. Augu...The paradigm of the Latin view for me is Sts. Augustine and Thomas.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-15109154472703364212008-04-28T07:48:00.000-05:002008-04-28T07:48:00.000-05:00Interesting post. While the distinction between La...Interesting post. <BR/><BR/>While the distinction between Latin and Social is helpful in certain contexts, it seems that both, in general, are kind of hard to define. If by Latin Trinity, one means something along the lines of that which is advocated by B. Leftow, then I think the ST argument for "too much unity" still holds, precisely because it is difficult to reconcile that much unity with a real distinction between persons. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I think it may turn out that once LT and ST are worked out in clearly orthodox ways (i.e., neither modalist nor tri-theist), they may indeed turn out to be compatible, in which case there wouldn't be any disagreement.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08978728795312007392noreply@blogger.com