Error

[o_mlly]

That’s an interesting passage you bring up … but I don’t think it contradicts the theory that error is a result of one’s bad choice to accept an idea based on insufficient knowledge. **There is a difference between ignorance and error. ** Ignorance is where you simply don’t have knowledge about something. And error is when you actually believe something that is actually false … when you think you know … but don’t. One is suspension of judgment, the other is a poor application of judgment. Ignorance can be possessed innocently (which would be invincible ignorance, as opposed to the culpable studied ignorance).

Now, Mary, at first, did not know what sort of greeting this was at first … and I would said it was invincible ignorance. However, she didn’t use her will to make a rash judgment on the matter immediately … that is, she didn’t judge that this vision was actually a demonic one, for example. She simply pondered. And of course, when someone has ignorance, especially in regard to supernatural phenomenon, it is only natural, and not sinful, to be troubled by it, for there is the possibility (for example) that it could be Satan. It’s an emotional and not intellectual response.

Does that make sense? Once again, I don’t necessarily believe that a person’s error is on account of the will, but I’d like to know … from someone who could verify or debunk it. I can’t debunk the idea, but it seems to lead to some pretty big questions … ones which I have a hard time even articulating and conceiving … let alone the answers to them.

On ensoulment:
“And thus it must be said that the vegetative soul is first in the seed, but it is discarded in the generative process and another succeeds it that is not only vegetative but also sensitive, which, having been discarded, again another is added that at the same time is vegetative, sensitive, and rational.”

St. Thomas Aquinas
(QDA XI.ad 1; cf. QDP III 9.ad 9; ST Ia 76.3.ad 3, 118.2.ad 2; SCG II 89; Compendium theologiae [CT] 92; Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis III.ad 13).

Of all the characteristics ascribed to the great saint, invincibly ignorant is not one with which I’m familiar. Thomas was wrong but to err is to merely lack omniscience. To be non-omniscient is not a moral impediment but merely the human condition. We are all ignorant of all facts and in order to live must make judgments in partial ignorance.

Thomas Aquinas argues that an embryo or fetus is not a human person until its body is informed by a rational soul. If Thomas had his embryology correct, he would not have erred.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Dameedna]

This is a really interesting Post.

I will put “moral” or at least obvious moral errors to the side.

Let’s talk about a mistake. As an individual, I have been diagnosed with ADD. I have done enough research to realize it’s probably the most underdiagnosed, overdiagnosed, misdiagnosed "disorder’ ever. In fact, I don’t really think it’s necessarily a disorder but it is DEFINATELY a way of being.

And as a female, during my pms period, ADD becomes significantly worse. So, I drop things. All the time. I will put a plate on a bench, and miss the bench(spacial skills are somewhat light during that time). I may break a “favourite” plate of mine, or horror of horrors a wonderful gift given to me.

Is it my fault that my brain is doing this? No…so I don’t beat myself up. But…I take it as a learning opportunity. I know(fairly well) when I’m going to be in that “mood”. So, I setup my life in accordance with it. I have a set of plastic plates and cups I use during this time. Why?

One thing. One very important lesson. I…am not in charge. I simply CANNOT control everything, even my own stupid limbs. It’s the most humbling of all things, to realize that you have no ultimate power, but it’s the most important of all lessons humans need to learn. Probably THE most important with a capitol THE!! The only lesson that teaches us this more, than our own errors is death. I, am not in charge of this world.

Now as an agnostic athiest, I strongly suspect there is nothing in charge of a supernatural nature, but regardless of beliefs, I know…the thing in charge is not me. This isn’t a form of false humility, it’s just the way it is. I laugh about it now. And everytime I have an ADD moment, or a PMS(+ ADD) moment, I sit there and go…thanks for that reminder. I need to stop being in charge all the time. I can’t control the world.

It’s a hard lesson to learn. How much can we control and how much can we not control. Sometimes you just have to laugh at your own stupendous belief, that you run the show.

Cheers
Dame

P.S I’m not in any way saying we are not responsible, but sometimes, we can be a little 'too" responsible for other’s behaviours and beat ourselves up over things we personally cannot control.That IS false humility. Our own errors, show us humility. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Dameedna]

My argument, however, or at least the thing thing I brought up to consider as a possibility, was that all error is at least a kind of moral error (in one sense) because it is you will that chooses to form an idea based off incomplete knowledge or not.

Every single thing we do, is made with incomplete knowlege. I do not know how any one can see it any differently.

Lack of certainty, is quite possibly the only certainty I have. I think it is this inability to admit to uncertainty, that is so much a problem within human life.

Does anyone ever have complete knowlege about any situation they are in? Or does every situation have an element of uncertainty, ie a lack of knowlege.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

On ensoulment:
“And thus it must be said that the vegetative soul is first in the seed, but it is discarded in the generative process and another succeeds it that is not only vegetative but also sensitive, which, having been discarded, again another is added that at the same time is vegetative, sensitive, and rational.”

St. Thomas Aquinas
(QDA XI.ad 1; cf. QDP III 9.ad 9; ST Ia 76.3.ad 3, 118.2.ad 2; SCG II 89; Compendium theologiae [CT] 92; Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis III.ad 13).

Of all the characteristics ascribed to the great saint, invincibly ignorant is not one with which I’m familiar. Thomas was wrong but to err is to merely lack omniscience. To be non-omniscient is not a moral impediment but merely the human condition. We are all ignorant of all facts and in order to live must make judgments in partial ignorance.

Thomas Aquinas argues that an embryo or fetus is not a human person until its body is informed by a rational soul. If Thomas had his embryology correct, he would not have erred.

Peace,
O’Malley

Well said.

Every single thing we do, is made with incomplete knowlege. I do not know how any one can see it any differently.

Lack of certainty, is quite possibly the only certainty I have. I think it is this inability to admit to uncertainty, that is so much a problem within human life.

Does anyone ever have complete knowlege about any situation they are in? Or does every situation have an element of uncertainty, ie a lack of knowlege.

Sounds like you are also certain
Of your physical issues,
And their adverse affect on your happiness.