Which Theologian Makes Your Head Hurt?

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Yes - Duns Scotus.

I personally like Duns Scotus. Difficult, to be sure, but worthwhile once you “get there.”

I like his paradoxes. And his defense of the Immaculate Conception.

Good thread. :thumbsup:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Bah! St. Anselm is like sweet nectar to me.

My migraine inducing theologian is St. Thomas Aquinas. The difficulty in pulling out a convicncing argument from much of the Summa Theologica articles (like Aristotle he seems to have many hidden premises), and the basis of a lot of his reasoning on Aristotle (who is clearly inferior to Plato btw) is the primary cause of this. That doesn’t mean both St. Aquinas and his Summa are not some of the greatest things to ever have happen on good ol’ Terra.

Not everybody agrees that Aristotle is necessarily inferior to Plato, Dranu. Some actually prefer him to Plato. From my POV, both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Depends also on whether you are into a priori (Plato) or post priori (Aristotle) thinking.

Just giving my opinuon.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Any theologian that attempts to pit religion against science.

Any “theologian” who -]attempts to pit/-] pits science against religion. (No matter how many “international conferences” they attend, and no matter how many other similarly errant “theologians” agree with them.)

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Some (many) would argue that a realm with nothing in it is still a realm: see the theory of “modal realism”.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Extreme realism: Plato’s theory of the Forms as absolutely independent, cf. third realm.

Moderate realism: Aristotle’s theory of instantiated Forms, as a bi-dependency of the Form on what is instantiated, and what is instantiated on the Form.

Or, in another context:

Plato’s thinking was mainly a priori.
Aristotle’s was mainly post priori.
There ya go.

Simple.

 

[Dranu]

Not everybody agrees that Aristotle is necessarily inferior to Plato, Dranu. Some actually prefer him to Plato. From my POV, both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Depends also on whether you are into a priori (Plato) or post priori (Aristotle) thinking.

Definately a priori , though I think they can be brought together largely. I’m a weirdo though. I think all truth is analytic and necessary (in a way) so that necessarily makes me an a priori kind of guy. Anyhow I’m kidding with my degrading of Aristotle and putting Plato on high glory. Sort of… This may largely be due to my inability to grasp Aristotle or find his arguments convincing.

Khalid:

However, God-as-Form-of-the-Good or God-as-Form is incompatible with Aristotle’s view

I don’t see why there has to be a multiplicity of Forms if there is one in that ‘realm’, nor do I see reason for it having to be in a ‘third realm’ in general.

God, in Aristotelian conception, is actus purus, viz. the actuality that actualizes the potentiality of other Forms while having no potencies itself.

I see no difference between this and the Form of the Good. If He is pure act from which all other acts-in-kind derive their motion, that seems like the same thing Plato is talking about.