"we needed none of these having for our comfort the holy Books, that are in our hands." --Maccabees 12:9
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 28, 2020, 09:29:34 PMNouvelle Théologie - New Theology, Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican IIYes, by Jürgen Mettepenningen. I've read it. It's a good overview of the history of the New Theology movement.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 28, 2020, 09:29:34 PMThere was also this book mentioned in the video I had seen concerning the new theology: https://www.amazon.com/Disputed-Teachings-Vatican-II-Continuity/dp/080287438XInteresting. I see the author is from Seton Hall University. That's where the physicist-theologian Fr. Stanley Jaki, O.S.B. taught.
|26||I piei confitti ti sono scalone acciò che tu possa giognere al costato, il quale ti manifesta il segreto del cuore. Però che, salito in su' piei de l'affetto, l'anima comincia a gustare l'affetto del cuore [...]||Wherefore these pierced feet are steps by which thou canst arrive at his side, which manifests to thee the secret of his heart, because the soul, rising on the steps of her affection, commences to taste the love of his heart.|
|59||Ma molti sono che pigliano il loro cominciare e salire sì lentamente, e tanto per spizzicone rendono il debito loro a me, e con tanta negligenzia e ignoranzia, che [...] perché imperfettamente ànno salito e preso il primo scalone di Cristo crocifisso, e però non giongono al secondo del cuore.||But there are many who begin their course climbing so slowly, and render their debt to me by such small degrees, and with such negligence and ignorance, that [...] because they imperfectly climb to the first step of the Bridge of Christ crucified, they do not arrive at the second step of his heart.|
|60||Questi cotali allora allentano, voltandosi con impazienzia di mente. Alcuna volta lassano per molti modi i loro esercizi, e spesse volte sotto colore di virtù dicendo in loro medesimi «questa operazione non ti vale», sentendosi privati della propria consolazione della mente.||These weak ones of whom I speak relax their energy, impatiently turning backwards, and sometimes abandon, under color of virtue, many of their exercises, saying to themselves, "This labor does not profit me." All this they do because they feel themselves deprived of mental consolation.|
|In molti inconvenienti cade l'anima che à salita questa scala solo col timore servile e con l'amore mercennaio. Debbansi adunque levare ed essere figliuoli e servire a me senza rispetto di loro [...] mentre che stanno nel mercennaio amore Io non manifesto me medesimo a loro; ma essi, con dispiacimento della loro imperfezione e amore delle virtù, con odio dibarbicando la radice dell'amore proprio spirituale di se medesimo, [...] giogneranno all'amore dell'amico, e così manifestarò me medesimo a loro sì come disse la mia Verità quando disse: «Chi m'amerà sarà una cosa con meco e Io con lui, e manifesterolli me medesimo e faremo mansione insieme». (Jn 14,21) Questa è la condizione del carissimo amico: che sono due corpi e una anima per affetto d'amore, perché l'amore si transforma nella cosa amata. Se egli è fatto una anima, niuna cosa gli può essere secreta, e però disse la mia Verità: «Io verrò e faremo mansione insieme», e così è la verità.||The soul who has climbed this step with servile fear and mercenary love alone, falls into many troubles. Such souls should arise and become sons, and serve me, irrespective of themselves. [...] While they remain in the state of mercenary love I do not manifest myself to them. If they, through displeasure at their imperfection, and love of virtue, dig up, with hatred, the root of spiritual self-love [...] they will be so pleasing to me that they will attain to the love of the friend. And I will manifest myself to them, as my Truth said in these words: "He who loves me shall be one thing with me and I with him, and I will manifest myself to him and we will dwell together." This is the state of two dear friends, for though they are two in body, yet they are one in soul through the affection of love, because love transforms the lover into the object loved, and where two friends have one soul, there can be no secret between them, wherefore my Truth said: "I will come and we will dwell together," and this is the truth.|
|75||Dove cognobbe questa dignità di vedersi unita e impastata nel sangue dell'Agnello, ricevendo il santo battesmo in virtù del sangue? Nel costato, dove cognobbe il fuoco della divina carità. [...] perché [...] l'operazione attuale di sostenere pene e tormenti era finita; e per la cosa finita non poteva mostrare tanto amore quanto più amavo, perché l'amore mio era infinito. E però volsi che vedeste il secreto del cuore, mostrandovelo aperto, acciò che vedeste che più amavo che mostrare non vi potevo per la pena finita. (Let 189)||Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in holy baptism, in virtue of the blood? In the side, where she knew the fire of divine charity. [...] Because [...] I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because my love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished thee to see the secret of the heart, showing it to thee open, so that thou mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain.|
|76||Gionti sono costoro alla bocca, e però el dimostrano facendo l'offizio della bocca. § 23 La bocca parla [...] [e] gusta. [...] Or così l'anima: prima parla a me con la lingua che sta nella bocca del santo desiderio suo, ciò è la lingua della santa e continua orazione. [...] offerendo a me dolci e amorosi desideri in salute dell'anime, e attuale parla annunziando la dottrina della mia Verità, amonendo consigliando e confessando [...] prendendo il cibo dell'anime per onore di me in su la mensa della santissima croce [...] Schiaccia ogni ingiuria: scherni, villanie, strazi e rimproverii con molte persecuzioni, [...] per salute dell'anime. [...] E poi che l'à schiacciato, el gusto il gusta, assaporando il frutto della fadiga e'l diletto del cibo dell'anime, gustandolo nel fuoco della carità mia e del prossimo suo. [...]||Such as arrive at the mouth show it by taking the office of the mouth. The mouth speaks [...] and tastes. [...] The soul does likewise. First she speaks to me with the tongue of holy and continual prayer [...] offering to me sweet and amorous desires for the salvation of souls, and actually announcing the doctrine of my Truth, admonishing, counselling, confessing [...] taking the food of souls, for my honor, on the table of the cross [...] swallowing, for the sake of the salvation of souls, insults, villainies, reproofs and persecutions. [...] She then tastes the relish of the fruit of toil and the delight of the food of souls, on fire with my love and that of her neighbor. [...]|
|Or questo fa l'anima che in verità è gionta al terzo scalone della bocca. Il segno che ella vi sia gionta è questo: che ella à morta la propria volontà quando gustò l'affetto della mia carità, e però trovò pace e quiete nell'anima sua nella bocca. Sai che nella bocca si dà la pace. Così in questo terzo stato l'anima truova la pace per sì fatto modo, che niuno è che la possa turbare, perché à perduta e annegata la sua volontà, la quale volontà quando è morta dà pace e quiete.||The death of the sensitive will, after the soul has eaten of the affection of my charity, is the sign by which it is known, in truth, that the soul has arrived at the third step, that is the mouth. And in the mouth she finds peace and quiet, and nothing can disturb her peace and quiet, because her sensual will is dead.|
|Questi parturiscono le virtù senza pena sopra del prossimo loro. Non che le pene non sieno in sé pene, ma non sono pena alla volontà morta, però che voluntariamente sostiene pena per lo nome mio.||They who have arrived at this step, bring forth the virtues upon their neighbor without pain, not because pain is no longer painful to them, but because, their sensitive will being dead, they voluntarily bear pain for my sake.|
|Questi corrono senza negligenzia per la dottrina di Cristo crocifisso, e non allentano l'andare per ingiuria che lo' sia fatta, né per alcuna persecuzione, né per diletto che trovassero, ciò è diletto che il mondo lo' volesse dare. Ma tutte queste cose trapassano con vera fortezza e perseveranzia, vestito l'affetto loro dell'affetto della mia carità, gustando il cibo della salute de l'anime con vera e perfetta pazienzia. La quale pazienzia è uno segno dimostrativo che mostra che l'anima ama perfettamente e senza alcuno rispetto, però che se ella amasse me e 'l prossimo per propria utilità, sarebbe impaziente e allenterebbe nell'andare.||They run without negligence, by the doctrine of Christ crucified, and slacken not their pace on account of persecutions, injuries or pleasures of the world. They pass by all these things with fortitude and perseverance, their affection clothed in the affection of charity, and eating the food of souls with true and perfect patience, which patience is a sign that the soul is in perfect love, loving without any consideration of self. For did she love me and her neighbor for her own profit, she would, in impatience, slacken her steps,|
|Ma perché essi amano me per me, in quanto Io so' somma bontà degno d'essere amato, e loro amano per me e il prossimo per me, per rendere gloria e loda al nome mio, però sono pazienti e forti (67r) a sostenere, e perseveranti.||but loving me, who am the Supreme Being and worthy to be loved, she loves herself and her neighbor through me alone, caring only for the glory and praise of my name, which causes her to be patient and strong to suffer, and persevering.|
|78||Questi seguitano lo immaculato Agnello, (Ap 14,4) unigenito mio Figliuolo, il quale stando in croce era beato e doloroso: doloroso era portando la croce del corpo sostenendo pena, e la croce del desiderio per satisfare la colpa dell'umana generazione; e beato era perché la natura divina unita con la natura umana non poteva sostenere pena, e sempre faceva l'anima sua beata mostrandosi a lei senza velame. E però era beato e doloroso, perché la carne sosteneva, e la deità pena non poteva patire; né anco l'anima quanto alla parte di sopra de l'intelletto.||Such as these follow the Immaculate Lamb, my only-begotten Son, who was both blessed and sorrowful on the cross. He was sorrowful in that he bore the cross of the body, suffering pain and the cross of desire, in order to satisfy for the guilt of the human race, and he was blessed because the divine nature, though united with the human, could suffer no pain, but always kept his soul in a state of blessedness, being revealed without a veil to her, so that he was both blessed and sorrowful, for, while the flesh endured, neither the Deity nor the superior part of the soul, which is above the intellect, could suffer.|
|Così questi diletti figliuoli, giunti al terzo e al quarto stato, sono dolorosi portando la croce attuale e mentale, cioè attualmente sostenendo pene nei corpi loro secondo che Io permetto, e la croce del desiderio, cioè il crociato dolore dell'offesa mia e danno del prossimo. Dico che sono beati, però che'l diletto della carità, la quale gli fa beati, non lo' può essere tolto [...]||So these, my sons of delight, who have arrived at the third and fourth states, are sorrowful, for they carry both a physical and a mental cross--that is to say, they bear pain in their bodies according to my permission, and in their mind the cross of desire, for they are tortured by sorrow at the offence done to me, and the loss of their neighbor. Yet I say to thee that they are blessed, because the delight of charity which makes them so, cannot be taken away from them [...]|
|79||levatesi l'anime con ansietato desiderio, corse con virtù per lo ponte della dottrina di Cristo crocifisso, giongono alla porta levando la mente loro in me: passate e inebriate di sangue, arse di fuoco d'amore, gustano in me la deità eterna, el quale è a loro uno mare pacifico dove l'anima à fatta tanta unione, che veruno movimento quella mente non à, altro che in me.||Souls, arising with anxious desire, run, with virtue, by the Bridge of the doctrine of Christ crucified, and arrive at the gate, lifting up their minds in me, and in the blood, and burning with the fire of love they taste in me, the eternal Deity, who am to them a sea pacific, with whom the soul has made so great a union, that she has no movement except in me.|
Quotethe Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.*The Council of Florence defined the dogma (Denzinger 694):
QuoteWe likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.ibid. ch. 1:
QuoteIf any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.Christ's invisible Headship
QuoteThen he shows these attributes apply to Christ:
- Order, indeed; for the head is the first part of man, beginning from the higher part; and hence it is that every principle is usually called a head according to Ezech. 16:25: "At every head of the way, thou hast set up a sign of thy prostitution"
- Perfection, inasmuch as in the head dwell all the senses, both interior and exterior, whereas in the other members there is only touch, and hence it is said (Is. 9:15): "The aged and honorable, he is the head"
- Power, because the power and movement of the other members, together with the direction of them in their acts, is from the head, by reason of the sensitive and motive power there ruling; hence the ruler is called the head of a people, according to 1 Kgs. 15:17: "When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel?"
QuoteNow these three things belong spiritually to Christ.Invisible vs. visible headship
And thus it is plain that Christ is fittingly called the Head of the Church.
- [Order,] on account of His nearness to God His grace is the highest and first, though not in time, since all have received grace on account of His grace, according to Rm. 8:29: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born amongst many brethren."
- He had perfection as regards the fulness of all graces, according to Jn. 1:14, "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory']... full of grace and truth"
- He has the power of bestowing grace on all the members of the Church, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we have all received."
Quotehead influences the other members in two ways.Christ the Head influences by #1, whereas the "great men, heads of the people" (Amos 6:1), such as bishops, influence by #2.
- by a certain intrinsic influence, inasmuch as motive and sensitive force flow from the head to the other members;
- by a certain exterior guidance, inasmuch as by sight and the senses, which are rooted in the head, man is guided in his exterior acts.
Quote#2 explains why a Pope is called the Vicar of Christ. "Vicar" is related to the word "vicarious," that which "takes or supplies the place of another thing or person"; a Pope represents Christ.
- Christ is the Head of all who pertain to the Church in every place and time and state; but all other men are called heads with reference to certain special places, as bishops of their Churches. Or with reference to a determined time as the Pope is the head of the whole Church, viz. during the time of his Pontificate, and with reference to a determined state, inasmuch as they are in the state of wayfarers.
- Christ is the Head of the Church by His own power and authority; while others are called heads, as taking Christ's place, according to 2 Cor. 2:10, "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have done it in the person of Christ," and 2 Cor. 5:20, "For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God, as it were, exhorting by us."
Quote[Bill] MOYERS: But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual, philosophical pursuit? Or was there something that happened? Did come up on... was there a revelation?
[Bill] GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were almost involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it's fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.
My mom was on the [Judeo-Freemasonic] United Way group that decides how to allocate the money and looks at all the different charities and makes the very hard decisions about where that pool of funds is going to go. So I always knew there was something about really educating people and giving them choices in terms of family size.
Quote15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,"(Matt. 22:21) and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men."(Acts 5:29) And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.Thus, the Devil, who opposes the will of God, has no authority.
QuoteThe question arose as follows: God and Satan are as it were two masters who contend for the possession of mankind. Hence men by departing from God fell under Satan's power, by whom they are now kept in bondage. As, moreover, men had fallen into his power, not unwillingly, but of their own choice, may we not say that the Devil has over them a real right, a right of property and a right of conquest? Hence, when God decided to free Satan's captives, was He not bound in justice to recognize and take into consideration the Devil's rights? Many of the Fathers [e.g., St. Irenæus, Origen, and St. Gregory of Nyssa] answered this question affirmatively.t;Error has no rights," as Abp. Lefebvre said; so why should the Devil?
QuoteIt pleased God that in order to the rescuing of man from the power of the Devil, the Devil should be conquered, not by might, but by righteousness.... What, then, is the righteousness by which the Devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Christ? In this redemption the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, by accepting which the Devil was not enriched, but bound, that we might be loosed from his bonds.
After corresponding with you, frequenting your online library, and perusing your forum, I can tell that you and I share foundational interests. (It's very difficult to find such a convergence of minds in today's intellectual cesspool.) That said, I was hoping you might help me resolve a question.
In my few years of serious study, I believe the work of both John Deely and Fr. Benedict Ashley has equipped me with unassailable principles in the pursuit of knowledge. That said, I've found Deely's dismissive and downright denigrating presentation of Church History to be nauseating. On the other hand, Ashley was much more balanced, but I suspect he conceded too much to the historical critical and scientistic narrative as well. Being philosophical specialists--and, in Ashley's case, a theological specialist as well--these brilliant minds had to rely on streams of information they took on trust. It seems neither of them was as comfortable with the details as might seem (especially Deely).
Let me illustrate: Deely and Ashley accepted many features of the Darwinian-Einsteinian paradigm, and much of their life's work went into affirming their truth. (I'm aware that there are qualifications to be made, as Fr. Ashley's Way Toward Wisdom acknowledges the problems of bare Darwinism.) To their minds, the prospect of something like geocentrism was ridiculous. This tidbit I find interesting, however: On matters intensely scientific, Ashley would often defer to his colleague Fr. William Wallace. To my knowledge, Wallace also never entertained geocentrism. That said, when it came to the greatest mystery in science--the quantum world--Wallace explicitly referred his readers to Wolfgang Smith's The Quantum Enigma.
Here's the irony: Smith, one of the only experts capable of addressing this most fundamental mystery of science, is himself a geocentrist! And he maintains that a proper understanding of the former implies the latter. I've discovered this from reading Smith's latest book, Physics & Vertical Causation. If you're interested, the new documentary, The End of Quantum Reality, is a summary of Smith's life work and, in particular, this book. (You'll love this one: A philosopher named Olavo de Carvalho, who absolutely idolizes Smith, is interviewed in the documentary. There is a quick scene in which the audience sees Carvalho reading Deely's Tractatus, 2nd Edition!)
Anyway, right now I'm suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance. Ages ago, I passed through a "creationist"/geocentrism frenzy. Robert Sungenis was my reference point. Regardless, after becoming a little more philosophically literate, I lost interest in those (I supposed) reactionary ideas. Maritain, De Koninck, Deely, and Ashley offered a Thomistic worldview that seemed to account for all the facts of modern science. In contrast, Sungenis is a philosophical ignoramus, even if he exhibits a powerful empirical mind. But has he been right all along?
At present, I'm ready to embrace--once again--a geocentric cosmology. But young earth creationism seems fanciful. I can't see how some form of macroevolution didn't happen. I like Ashley's stance: we live in an old universe in which macroevolution was effected via the angels and, ultimately, God. Is this coherent? How have you resolved these questions to your satisfaction?
I ask because I suspect you've seriously wrestled with the issues. My major handicap here is that I am scientifically illiterate, though one day I hope to amend that. (The problem is that I don't know where to begin when it comes to the literature.)
May God bless you on this holy feast day of Pentecost.
Quote from: Geremia on May 31, 2020, 03:31:04 PMVery good summary!
I tried to get Deely interested in Pierre Duhem; I think he would've been had he lived longer. Deely did know Fr. Wallace's excellent works on the logical treatises of Galileo, etc., though.
"Deely's dismissive and downright denigrating presentation of Church History to be nauseating". That was my initial reaction, too, but I think Deely is more nuanced than that. See the last ¶ on pp. 35-6 of Purely Objective Reality for his most in-depth discussion of "Galileo affair" that I've seen.
I like how Deely, in several of his works, insists that Poinsot knew about Galileo: Tractatus de Signis p. x:QuoteThe Naturalis Philosophiae Secunda Pars, on astronomy, was suppressed in the year of scheduled publication (1634, the year of Galileo's condemnation in Rome) by Poinsot himself, and there is no extant text of this Part known at the present time"
Cf. ibid. pp. 402-5, the "Editorial Afterword", on Poinsot's omission of the Naturalis Philosophiae Secunda Pars on astronomy from his collection of other works that he called "a finished curriculum of Arts". It's interesting that St. Thomas's De cœlo was also unfinished. I wonder if Poinsot burned Naturalis Philosophiae Secunda Pars on astronomy? Portuguese friend tried to look for it, but he couldn't find any clues; it might've just been lost in a fire.
Cosmology is very important; "error with regard to the nature of creation begets a false knowledge of God" (Pope St. Pius X, Doctoris Angelici)!
I know Sungenis and De Lano personally. I invited them to present on The Principle in 2014; see this video.
I haven't seen De Lano's new doc, but I'm glad to see him pulling Wolfgang Smith out of retirement (with De Lano's https://philos-sophia.org/ project etc.).
I agree "Sungenis is a philosophical ignoramus" when it comes to the philosophy of physics. I sent him a copy of Pierre Duhem's To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo, but I'm not sure he read it. Still, Sungenis has done good historical and (albeit somewhat deficient) exegetical work (partially making up for Deely's deficiencies).
Sungenis's waek point is that he completely dismisses St. Augustine's view that one needn't interpret Genesis's 6 days as a temporal succession (cf. I q. 58 a. 6), but this is a unique, minority view among the Fathers.
You forgot to mention the physicist Dr. Anthony Rizzi and how Fr. Ashley tried to get him away from Maritain!
Happy feast of the descent of the Spiritus Veritatis! 🕊️
Quote from: Geremia on May 31, 2020, 03:42:13 PMQuoteMy major handicap here is that I am scientifically illiterateYou've got to read Pierre Duhem's Aim & Structure of Physical Theory, then.
I read it at the end of my formal studies of modern experimental & theoretical physics, and it confirmed what I had learned from experience as well as giving me more profound insights.
See also this, written by a Duhemian historian of physics:
- Dugas, René. "Physical method according to Duhem in view of quantum mechanics." Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées, no. 49 (1937): 68-71.
Maneamus in Spiritu Veritatis.
Quote from: Geremia on June 01, 2020, 10:59:07 AMQuoteWhere would you suggest I start for leaning mathematics and its relation to physical theory? (Maybe that's in Duhem.)Yes, Aim & Structure of Physical Theory discusses that in-depth.QuoteSo do you think that young earth creationism is a dead end? If you haven't ruled it out, what is the most sophisticated literature in its defense that you know of?It is a dead-end in the sense that it doesn't properly distinguish theology and natural philosophy.
The ancient Greeks hindered the progress of science by confusing confusing theology with natural philosophy, too; cf. Duhem-expert Fr. Jaki's The Savior of Science, where he shows that their pantheism resulted in a "still-birth" of modern science.QuoteAnd, if you care to elaborate, why exactly is Maritain's philosophy of science erroneous? That is, why would Ashley warn Rizzi against it?I think because Maritain (1951, pp. 89-98) considers modern "empiriological" physics to be a distinct science (although he does seem to think it, too, is the study of ens mobile; that natural philosophy's subject is ens mobile, cf. Cajetan Tractatus de subjecto naturalis philosophiae), but Duhem argues (Aim & Structure pp. 163-4) that modern (idioscopic) physics "Is Less Certain but More Precise and Detailed than the Non-scientific [i.e., natural philosophy or "cenoscopic"] Establishment of a Fact"; viz., the difference between natural philosophy and modern physics is a matter of degree (more concrete → more abstract), not species.
In a way I agree with Feser (Aristotle's Revenge 1.1): "when each of the three main views in this dispute within Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy has been suitably qualified, it is in my view not clear that much of substance really rides on the dispute." However, (as I mentioned above re: young earth creationism), distinguishing sciences is very important!
Feser says (ibid.): "the distinction between natural science and the philosophy of nature is not always observed in practice by either philosophers or scientists". But it should be! Metaphysics 995a10 [174.]: "it is absurd to search simultaneously for knowledge and for the method of acquiring it"!
Quote from: Geremia on June 01, 2020, 02:47:37 PMQuoteWhat you say about Feser sounds right. Brian Kemple has made the same point in one of his CP-Insight YouTube videos, that not much of substance rides on the dispute.Are you referring to Quaestiones de Quodlibet - Prima Series, Q.1, A.1?QuoteAs his dissertation makes clear, "ens ut primum cognitum," that most general and confused apprehension of mind-dependent and mind-independent being, is a more foundational issue than the epistemological primacy of material or spiritual being.His dissertation is very interesting! First principles is something that has fascinated me, ever since I read Posterior Analytics's solution to the ∞-regress problem (cf. Weisheipl, O.P.'s fascinating quote of Aristotle).QuoteSemioticians, it seems, don't get too excited about the above dispute. While Deely (more or less) sided with the Laval/River Forest school, he didn't get it too much coverage in Four Ages.C. S. Peirce has probably the most developed classification of the sciences.
Duhem & semiotics
Although Duhem doesn't explicitly used the word "semiotics", he does speak of signs:
Duhem, Aim & Structure, "1. What Is the True Nature of a Physical Theory and the Operations Constituting It?", pp. 19-20 (my emphases):QuoteA physical theory is not an explanation. It is a system of mathematical propositions, deduced from a small number of principles, which aim to represent as simply, as completely, and as exactly as possible a set of experimental laws. [...] These mathematical symbols have no connection of an intrinsic nature with the properties they represent; they bear to the latter only the relation of sign to thing signified.
Une théorie physique n'est pas une explication. C'est un système de propositions mathématiques, déduites d'un petit nombre de principes, qui ont pour but de représenter aussi simplement, aussi complètement et aussi exactement que possible, un ensemble de lois expérimentales. [...] ces symboles mathématiques n'ont, avec les propriétés qu'ils représentent, aucune relation de nature ; ils ont seulement avec elles une relation de signe à chose signifiée.
Duhem also understands applied mathematics as translation (which is a semiotic operation); ibid. p. 133:QuoteThus as both its starting and terminal points, the mathematical derivation of a physical theory cannot be wedded to observable facts except by a translation. In order to introduce the circumstances of an experiment into the calculations, we must make a version which replaces the language of concrete observation by the language of numbers; in order to verify the results that a theory predicts for that experiment, a translation exercise must transform a numerical value into a reading formulated in experimental language. But translation is treacherous. Between the concrete facts, as the physicist observes them, and the numerical symbols by which these facts are represented in the calculations of its theorists, there is an extremely great difference.(as quoted in Sarukkai 2001 "Mathematics, Language and Translation")
This brings up the question of whether Duhem was a scientific conventionalist, instrumentalist, or realist. I'd say (with Duhem scholar Needham "New perspectives on Pierre Duhem's The aim and structure of physical theory" pp. 7-12) that he was a moderate realist. I'd also consider him a structural realist (Feser discusses structural realism in Aristotle's Revenge, but he, like Wallace, seems to classify Duhem an instrumentalist).
Papers comparing Duhem & Peirce:
- Winfried Nöth, "The Semiotics of Models," Sign Systems Studies 46, no. 1 (May 7, 2018): 7-43
- J. E. Tiles, "Iconic Thought and the Scientific Imagination," Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 24, no. 2 (1988): 161-78
Duhem also discusses analogy (I can give you the quotes if you want, but this is getting a bit long already...).
Duhem wasn't a Neo-Thomist, however; he opposed that movement (perhaps also for similar reasons why Kemple does: Neo-Thomism's simplistic, insuperable ens reale / ens rationis divide?).QuoteBy the way, sorry for bombarding you with these questions. They should be coming to a close. Just looking for some clarity.That's fine. Keep asking questions. "Do Not Block the Way of Inquiry."
Quote from: Geremia on June 02, 2020, 09:40:08 AMQuoteThat quotes from Aristotle is magnificent.The Magna Moralia, I, c. 34, 1197a20-23 / "scientia est conclusionum, et intellectus principiorum" one? Or the Metaphysics one about how one can't do methodology and science simultaneously?
Magna Moralia is interesting; I don't think Aquinas et al. knew about it.QuotePeirce's classification of the sciences, the diagram I've seen, looks remarkable. Once I get a better grounding with Duhem, I think I'll be able to understand it better.Duhem and Peirce, although contemporaries, never knew each other or cited each other, that I know. I've asked both Duhem scholar Stoffel (who maintains almost all of Duhem's correspondences) and a Peirce scholar.
So, who knows what Duhem would've thought about Peirce's classification.
Philosophically, Duhem was a Pascalian. Duhem frequency mentions Pascal's esprit de géométrie vs. esprit de finesse distinction--the former: "geometric", "ample", "broad-but-shallow" mind (Duhem says this is characteristic of British minds.), the latter: "intuitive", "supple", "narrow-and-deep" mind (Duhem says this is characteristic of French minds.). (It's interesting that intellectus, νοῦς is sometimes translated as "intuition".)
There's a lot of debate about what exactly Pascal meant, but from how Duhem describes it in Aim & Structure pt. 1 ch. 4, it seems an esprit de finesse is one who loves resolving thought into first principles, whereas an esprit de géométrie loves juggling several principles simultaneously. Duhem gives the example of how Napolean was a "British mind" because he coordinated several military strategies in his mind simultaneously, and Newton was a "French mind" for resolving physics into three axioms.QuoteBy the way, have you seen this book (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BX1DN9K/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o04?ie=UTF8&psc=1)? It looks perfect for someone like me. I was great in Math back in high school but have lost touch with it over the years.I've never read Morris Kline, but my 8th grad math teacher recommended his calculus book, and he does seem to be a respectable historian of math. Was he the one who began calculus with integration first, then differentiation?QuoteWow, based on those quotes from Duhem, I really think Deely and Ashley could used him for an even stronger support. I can't wait to read him.Frs. Ashley and Wallace didn't seem that enthused with Duhem. I think they were suspicious he was an instrumentalist and/or conventionalist.QuoteFinally, I need to learn French. My intellectual aspirations appear to be blocked if I don't have a working knowledge of that language. Do you have any grammar books to recommend?I learned to read French just to read Pierre Duhem's scientific works (almost all of which have never been translated into English!).
I became better at French reading by doing computer assisted translation (CAT) of Duhem, using OmegaT (with the Google Translate (without API key) plugin).
I think knowing Italian helped, though.
The best way to learn languages is to listen and read it. Listening is how we all learned our mother-tongue in the first place.
You'd be interested in Polyglott: How I Learn Languages by Kató Lomb, who knew 16! Cdl. Mezzofanti (during Gregory XVI's reign) knew 38 languages fluently!
Veni Sancte Spiritus!
Quote from: Geremia on June 03, 2020, 09:56:31 AMQuoteI find that Duhem comparison between the British and French hilarious.I figured you would. haha
He calls Maxwell "English", too. (He was Scottish.)
Duhem wrote another called German Science, in which he praises German science over English science.
In The Electric Theories of J. Clerk Maxwell p. 6, Duhem writes that Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force"Quoteaims to be a mechanical model that describes or explains (for an English physicist, the two words have the same meaning) electric and magnetic action.English physicists tried reducing everything down to a mechanical model, epitomized by Oliver Lodge's cogwheel machine for modeling the ether, cord-and-beads model for a dielectric, rubber band model for electromagnetic field, and other overly fanciful things... cf. Darrigol §5.3 "Picturing Maxwell", in the ch. "British Maxwellians", pp. 180-9 for pictures.
Physical theories are not machines! This is the root of the "quantum enigma": You can't understand quantum mechanics by reducing it to a machine, a mechanistic collection of particles.
Duhem (e.g., in Evolution of Mechanics), like Dr. Wolfgang Smith and Pascal, also fought against Cartesianism.
Quote from: Geremia on June 03, 2020, 10:21:03 AMQuoteWhat makes this so difficult is that the Magisterium still needs to work out a comprehensive ecclesiology.Ecclesiology is fascinating because it encompasses so many branches of theology, esp. Christology (∵ Christ = Mystical Body = Church). It's like a "meta-theology".
Fr. Stanley Jaki did his theology dissertation on ecclesiology. An English translation of it is in the final stages and will be published by Real View Books.
Quote from: Geremia on June 07, 2020, 03:11:06 PMQuoteHappy Feast of the Holy Trinity!Indeed!
Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 10 q. 1 a. 3 "Utrum spiritus sanctus sit unio patris et filii" really helped my understand why we often conclude our prayers "...in unitáte Spíritus Sancti. Amen.":QuotePossunt enim pater et filius considerari vel inquantum conveniunt in essentia, et sic uniuntur in essentia; vel inquantum distinguuntur in personis, et sic uniuntur per consonantiam amoris: quia et si per impossibile poneretur quod non essent unum per essentiam, ad perfectam jucunditatem oporteret in eis intelligi unionem amoris.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., shows the role of Trinity in Catholic intellectual life, intro. of De Deo Trino et Creatore:QuoteIn the Trinity we see the infinite and eternal fecundity of the divine nature, which is communicated by the Father to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. The Protestant theologians mentioned above say that the mystery of the Trinity is an enigma without meaning for our interior life, but the traditional theologians say that in this mystery of the Trinity we come to some knowledge of the most perfect intellectual life, that is in the three persons, who in the same divine truth live by the same act of pure intelligence which is subsisting intelligence itself.We certainly know how Trinitarian the semiotic thought of John of St. Thomas, O.P., is! He clearly saw "traces of the Trinity (vestigia Trinitatis)" in nature. Or Peirce's Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness.
felix festum Sanctissimæ Trinitatis! ☘