long question final exam Flashcards
Briefly summarize Anselm’s argument against Roscelin’s view of the Trinity.
Roscelin
Roscelin thought he saw heresy in the doctrine of the trinity: if God is one, then all three persons should be incarnate in the person Jesus Christ (no divine unity and incarnation)
He thinks that they are three distinct persons, so they should all be Gods (3 Gods)
Anselm
Anselm’s ‘On the Incarnation of the Word’ is an attempt to answer that charge: Son is the only incarnate (reconciles humanity with the divine, he is the Word…) The divine essence remains fully present in the Son, even as the Son assumes human nature.
Unity of essence between the three persons, relations between them
Defends the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity
He argued that the divine nature is one and indivisible, such that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not separate entities but one God who exists in three persons.
Anselm maintained that to assert otherwise compromises the unity of God and leads to polytheism, which is contrary to Christian teaching.
Briefly explain Anselm’s Christology.
UNITY The son as being (the same nature in two different persons)
- The divine nature remains eternal, omnipotent, and immutable.
- The human nature is temporal, finite, and subject to change.
DISTINCTION OF NATURES
Anselm insists that only the Son assumes human nature, allowing the divine person of the Word to become truly human while remaining fully divine.
EXCLUSIVITY OF THE SON’S INCARNATION
He explains that the divine and human natures are not one and the same (they are ontologically distinct), but the person who possesses them is one and the same. Only the Son becomes incarnate, ensuring the integrity of both the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Christ has two person, fully human and fully divine, his human nature + all accidental are within the person of the trinity
Briefly contrast Anselm’s view with the traditional explanation for Christ’s incarnation.
Traditional
Adam and Eve: sin made them and descendants subjects of the devil’s dominion
Rights of the devil: exercising power over his rightful subjects
In trying to rule the sinless Christ, the devil forfeited his kingdom
Christ inherits it and can restore mankind to its proper condition: By his death and resurrection, Christ defeats the devil, inherits his “kingdom,” and restores humanity to its original relationship with God. This victory is portrayed as an act of divine wisdom and love, freeing humanity without violating the moral order.
Anselm
- Absurd for the devil to have rights against God
- Doesn’t replace rights of the devil with the rights of man, but with an even more complete submission of man to God
- Rational and philosophical approach, emphasizing logical coherence.
- Cur Deus Homo: Anselm’s said no to God extending immediate forgiveness, or else the disobedience would become like God, subject to no law, the proper beauty (order) of creation would not be repaired
Briefly explain Duns Scotus’ solution to the problem of individuation
Problem
* Realists face the problem of ‘individuation’
* If we say that ‘human nature’ is equally present in Robert and in Gordon, this tells us what they have in common
* But what accounts then for their difference? What makes Robert a distinct individual?
Solution
- Nothing is simply incompatible with some being through a privation in it alone, but rather through something positive in it’ (Blindness (privation of sight) does not conflict with the nature of sight itself, but rather blindness exists due to some positive condition in the eye (e.g., damage or a defect) that prevents sight.)
- Lack/negation (For example, blindness in an eye is a privation because sight is a natural quality of eyes.)
- Presence/positive (For instance, the nature of light as a positive quality is distinct from the absence of light (darkness).
- There is a shared ‘common nature’ which is ‘contracted’ by the individual’s singular ‘thisness’ or haecceitas
- It is… neither matter nor form nor the composite thing. A human being for instance is this composite being, composed of this matter and this form. The haecceitas does not confer any further qualitative determination, but it seals the being as this being’
Contrast with henry, Henry says that if animal subdivides in two subcategories, Scotus says that it doesn’t accounts for your individuality, that can’t divide, not an additional characteristics (thisness)
Briefly explain Duns Scotus’ approach to the question of God’s infinity.
- Begins with divine simplicity in thinking of God, and derive other attributes
- For Scotus we begin instead with infinity, the highest way of thinking of God (other attributes, e.g. goodness, derived from it)
- For Scotus infinity is a positive, intrinsic property: 3 steps
1) Imagine a potential quantitative infinite (e.g. n, n+1, can continue infinitely)
2) Then imagine this series is actual: fully realized (max. capacity, live all simultaneously)
3) Now imagine it’s an actual qualitative rather than quantitative infinite
e.g. Maximal goodness or beauty that cannot be exceeded
Briefly explain Duns Scotus’ doctrine of the formal distinction.
- Typical ‘real distinction’ between ‘a’ and ‘b’: two numerically different things or physically seperable
- Sometimes also conceptual distinctions (the Morning Star, the Evening Star, but they are actually the same thing, they are the same it is simply our mind that makes the distinction) (in the mind) depends on our way of thinking
VS
Def: has a basis in reality (not merely conceptual) without being a real distinction, A formal distinction refers to a distinction within a thing itself, based on distinct formalities (aspects or features) that are genuinely distinct in the entity but inseparable and not independent in existence.
Ex: Suppose a and b are logically identical
(not logically possible for a and b to be separated)
* But a and b have different definitions/characterizations
* Then they are formally distinct
No real distinction between Socrates’ characteristically individual haecceitas and common human nature
* They can’t exist separately –
* But this is a genuine distinction intrinsic to him
Similarly, there is no real distinction between God’s justice and God’s mercy – they cannot exist separately – but these are genuine rather than purely conceptual distinctions in God’s unified nature
Briefly explain what is meant by talk of Aquinas’ ‘destruction of the world.
Others
* There is a natural inclination to imagine all individual things as existing and acting ‘in the world’, as though the world were a kind of containing entity, in which other things are situated….’ (Copleston 110)
* = The World as Container
Aquinas
* ‘For Aquinas, however, the world is the system of interrelated finite substances and not something different from them; and in each finite substance he finds what may be called a radical existential instability, expressed abstractly in his essence-existence distinction…’
* ‘His ‘destruction’ of the world is a critique of the idea of the world as a quasi-entity, as a pseudo-Absolute, and not of the things which in their interrelatedness form the world’ (Copleston 110).
* The “destruction” is not a literal end or annihilation of the world but a transformation that will occur when creation reaches its final purpose in God’s plan. The world will not continue to exist as an autonomous entity, but will be reoriented towards God, culminating in a perfected state.
* Aquinas rejects the idea that the world is an independent or absolute entity. For him, God is the only true Absolute, the ultimate being who exists by necessity and from whom all other things derive their existence.
* In contrast, the world (and everything within it) is contingent, meaning that its existence depends entirely on God’s will and providence. The world is not an end in itself but is part of a broader cosmic order that ultimately points toward God as its source and final purpose.
* World as a unified entity with simple parts
Briefly explain Aquinas’ view about the relationship between the body and the soul.
- The relationship does not mean that a man is made up of two beings the body and the soul; it must rather mean that, though man is composed of soul and body, the body exists in and through the existence of the soul.
- he argues that the soul is the form of the body, meaning it gives the body life, organization, and purpose. The soul is not a separate entity trapped in the body but rather its essential principle of life.
- The rational soul is immaterial and immortal.
- The body and soul are independent component, but they are dependant in life. The soul needs the body.
- Death = soul persist, awaiting resurection
Plato, the soul is a substance, platonic view of what a human view, Aquinas agree, that the human is a composition of body and soul. The body is contained in the body. What makes the body a thing is the activity of the soul in the body.
- Briefly explain Aquinas’ view on the question whether an angel is in a place.
- Angels are incorporeal, do not have material dimension.
- Their “place” is not physical / lack quantity, but it is what their presence does. They act / exert an influence in a specific location.
- The place of the angel is “the application of his power to the place” and therefore is “not everywhere, nor in several places, but in only one place.”
they are not omnipresent in the way that God is, but they are present where their influence is being exerted.
- According to Aquinas, in what sense did the devil desire to be like God?
- He cannot wish to be equal to God because no one can desire to have another nature. Because you would lose you own nature
- The devil doesn’t want God’s total autorithy, but he will his own non-being. the devil sought independence from God’s authority and a kind of self-sufficiency, desiring to be the ultimate source of his own happiness and goodness rather than depending on God.
- Thus, he desires to be « Godlike » in achieving good through his own power, rather than through God’s grace
- Pride : acheive his own power rather than through God.
- Suppose to be like God, so then what goes wrong when the devil trues to do this, Trying to gain control over all nature, but he may be trying to achieve beatitude on his own, without the help of God and this is where he goes wrong
- Briefly explain Aquinas’ view on the sorrow of the demons
According to Aquinas, demons are angels who have fallen from grace, and like all angels, they are incorporeal beings. As incorporeal beings, they do not have physical bodies and therefore cannot experience sorrow in the same way that humans do, since sorrow is typically considered a response to bodily sensations (such as pain or loss). They are purely spiritual and do not possess physical senses, they cannot have sensory experiences so they don’t have sorrow in the human sense. They experience a kind of frustration of their will. Demons, like all angels, possess a will (the ability to choose and desire), but their will is now frustrated by their rebellion against God. The frustration of will leads to a leads to a kind of sorrow in demons.
- Briefly explain Aquinas’ view concerning charitable love toward irrational creatures.
- Is irrational love capable of friendship? 3 reasons:
- only give good to someone possessing good.
- They cannot love the same way because they do not share the same form of life.
- friendship = eternal happiness, connexion to god, dogs don’t go to god so do not share friendship.
3 resons
Cant be that you are friendly with your cat, can only wish good to smothing that can accept good it goes with freedom
Don’t have rationality, they cant chare form of life
Ultimate aim is ultimate hapiness, assist you to your afterlife
- Briefly summarize Aquinas’ view on love for one’s enemies.
For Aquinas, love is a willful choice to wish the good for another person, and this includes our enemies. For Aquinas, love is not just an emotional feeling, but rather a practical, willful act of desiring the good for another person. This means that loving our enemies is a choice to desire their well-being. Aquinas clarifies that we do not love the enemy as an enemy in the same way we love friends or those who are close to us. In other words, we don’t have to love the enemy’s harmful actions or the hostility they show. Rather, we are called to love the person as a creature made in God’s image and as a child of God. This means loving the person and their potential for redemption, but not necessarily loving their sinful or harmful actions. This could include praying for them, doing good for them, or showing kindness, even if they are not seeking our good in return.
Briefly explain why, according to Aquinas, each angel belongs to a species of its own
- -Aquinas first states that: What makes you an individual = the matter is different.
- But angels are not material = no matter so they cannot be individuated (no difference in the aspect of matter from each other because they are not made of it), so:
- they must be a unique specie of their own.
Briefly explain the difference between strong and weak theories of existence.
Weak theories of existence: for some (like Kant) the world is merely there, existence itself has no special character and the idea that to exist is to answer a description.
Others see existence as a mystery but doubt that philosophy can help.
Strong theories of existence: others demand explanation with the principle of sufficient reason, they reject the ‘no hypothesis’ hypothesis (rejection of sceptical view, things that can’t be explained), Aquinas sees existence/being as an activity in virtue where things are what they are. We just have to accept but ask for some further explanation, rather than just being something that we just accept.
Existence is the act by which essence has its being.
Difference: In the weak theories, existence is seen as given or self-evident. It does not need a deep explanation. Strong theories believes that existence requires an explanation. They believe that existence is an active process that brings essence into being and that everything must have an explanation for why it exists.
In the weak theories, existence is considered neutral. Strong theories are treated as an active principle. It is not static but an ongoing activity.
In the weak theories, philosophers argue that existence is beyond what philosophy can explain whereas strong theories argue that philosophy must attempt to explain existence.
