:smile:

And this:

All fair, except that in this discussion we might want to keep the wound open rather than heal it - it might help us (me?) to see the value in what Adorno is proposing.

The comforting Davidsonian view is that we can give an account that settles our differences. The uncomfortable Adorno view is that we not only can't, but ought not.

Referential opacity occurs between contexts. Indeed, it can be considered part of what defines a context. Getting the scope right clears up the mess.

Same substance, different form. — DingoJones

Number 1.5, Divine Life Streams, in the Stanford General Catalogue of Variations on the Trinity?

Yes, these threads have very little value when folks just want to tell us what their beliefs are. — Hanover

Perhaps; perhaps. seems to think the wounds worth keeping open. I wonder if that's why he commits to these fora.

The Trinity isn't stupid, worthless, or even nonsense — Hanover

I'll again make explicit that I agree. It has a place in a language game, a use. So it is not meaningless, if meaning is use; nor is it worthless, not for the faithful, and not for those who might try to understand them. And without sense, if we are to understand that in terms of coherence - the contradiction in the Trinity is what leads to the ad hoc self-justification of Thomism and such.

What stands is the view expressed in the OP, that the acceptance of such convolute, complex reasoning, apparently in order to achieve some semblance of coherence, is puzzling.

One question here is surely whether the Trinity is to be understood as a starting point, as a hinge proposition, not to be doubted; or as a deduction from first principles as @Bob Ross would have it; or if those accounts that supposedly render the Trinity coherent can have wider application, or are to be kept only inside the room in which we talk about God.

I've noticed you're quite fond of using this example too. — Jamal

Dogs are servile and neurotic. I'm more a cat person. Cats live in our houses despite not having been domesticated - their only concession being to make use of the litter tray, although arguably this is for their comfort anyway.

I tried to work out what manifest image was, by searching this thread. My impression is that it's not unlike the third vertices of Davidson's triangulation, which for him is an unavoidable agreement between speaker and interpreter, as to how things are,.

But whereas Davidson uses charity to reach an understanding between speaker and interpreter, Adorno delights in the uncharitable, in the failure of translation, a difference such that the interpreter can never reach a coherent account of the utterance. And Adorno sees this as worthy.

The present discussion in the christian narrative might be a neat sandpit example of such failure to agree, and the resulting interminable dispute. That ceaseless taunting and counter play becomes the point of the exercise, rather than any resolution.

Is that Adorno?

I could go on, but the cat says its bowl need filling. Must go.

Glad you liked it.

...you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. Turning every subject into the same discussion — Fire Ologist

Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is.

Intriguing how apt today's Frank and Earnest comic was... on multiple levels.

Divine intervention?

Pearls before swine... :wink:

I'm pretty sure Banno doesn't care about disproving any religious doctrine. He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, @Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions. — frank

Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?

That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.

Leon is helpful in these threads becasue he is so predictable. When someone disagrees with him he will variously denigrate them personally, misrepresent what they have said and claim to have already provided the answer. It's a pattern seen across many threads and against many different posters, and is the reason that he is ignored by so many of the more competent folk hereabouts.

He also borrows a strategy from Tim, to bury the discussion in appeals to specialised theological metaphysics, to insist that those who do not engage in the same texts as he does cannot understand his profundity. At heart this is an appeal to authority, together with a refusal to engage charitably.

Tim of course has a better background in all this than any of us, and so never descends to the plebeian stance of actually presenting an argument. Hand waving and eloquence is sufficient for him to maintain his circumstance.

Fire Ologist presumes that the posts here are trying to learn about Christianity. That's not something I'm much interested in, given it's ubiquity. Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.

So is this just performance art? Public onanism?

What if Banno's point is more Wittgensteinian, or Davidsonian - that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? Then the arc of his assault here is in showing that all Leon and Tim and the others are doing is also a distasteful display of inappropriate behaviour? That in the face of the ineffable and the infinite, any finite discourse must fail?

But he's not cleaver enough to be doing that, now, is he.

Perhaps it's not a good idea to post these musings. But I'll do it anyway. These interminable threads make my point far more eloquently than I ever could.

5.1 in the Stanford General Catalogue of Variations on the Trinity?

You say that we cannot discuss the Creed without bringing in Thomism. — Leontiskos

No, I didn't. The only connection is the one you and Tim make. I'm just asking for a coherent account of the Trinity.

So we are back to where you intentionally and blatantly misrepresent folk who dare to question your ideas.

Same old.

And so the use of analogically argument in order to understand God is fundamentally flawed?

Ok. So deductive logic doesn't work because of the failure of transitivity, and analogical reasoning also fails.

So faith it is. Thomism set aside.

Nice attempt at deflection. Called.

...but they didn't survive. — frank

An interesting euphemism...

...the Nicene Creed predates Thomism by some 900 years — Leontiskos

I understand that, Leon. You missed the point, again. The creed doesn't help us make sense of you and Tim, of itself. We need the Thomism as well.

Yeah, the Creed doesn't help much unless you also take on board the whole Thomistic metaphysics of essence and personhood and so on. But ask what an essence is, and the answer is circular - that which makes a thing what it is, and not something else.

What is "that which makes something what it is" if not identity? It's not a property...

So what we are left with is that Christianity wanted to affirm monotheism, together with the divinity of Christ, and that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person - a problem set by apparently conflicting revelations. The answer was to claim the three persons had the same essence, which might work provided one doesn't pay too much attention to what an essence is. What follows is centuries of increasingly sophisticated theology moving from substance and person, through essence and existence, create enough technical distinctions and qualifications that people lose track of the original logical problem.

This sort of thing perhaps ought upset those of a logical, as opposed to a mystical, disposition. Hence, perhaps, Leon's disquietude.

This isn't an attack, it's setting out dogma, in it's original sense, and instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?"

we are up to the part where you usually tell us that you already gave the answer... — Banno

I already told you... — Leontiskos

There it is...!


I'm off to do some shopping. Cheers.

"Fuck off," — Leontiskos

Cheers.

The elephant is too heavy for your lap.

For those with an interest in background stuff, the diagram, which Leon says is most certainly not a representation the Trinity, can be found in the Wiki article on The Shield of the Trinity, where there is a bit of historical background.

So tell us what your account is!

This is just becoming sad, Leon.

The bit where you attack me instead of addressing the issue. Again.

If your objection has naught to do with the diagram, then give your objection without the diagram. — Leontiskos

From Father = God and Son = God we are usually able to derive Father = Son but instead we find not(Father = Son). Apparently, according to Tim, this is becasue the "is" of doctrine is not the "is of "=". — Banno

:roll:

For Tim, the answer seemed to be both that we had to understand the account analogically, and yet there could be no analogically account of God, he being so transcendentally different to his creatures. That doesn't seem very satisfactory to me.

_________
The actual argument Leon is presenting is not dissimilar to that in the article he presented in his thread:
St. Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding (G. Klima)

His animosity perhaps follows from my dismissal of the argument there.

Klima's finishing point is that those who have not agreed with his argument do so becasue they do not have an adequate understanding of god; and that their understanding is inadequate is shown by their not accepting the argument.

Presumably, that's what Leon is suggesting here; that the proper understanding of "is" in the Dogma of the Trinity is dependent on having spent time reading Catholic doctrine and praying lots.

Again, not that satisfactory.


_________
Leon, we are up to the part where you usually tell us that you already gave the answer, and won't give it again.

Again, I do not want to attack Catholic Dogma. I want a coherent account of the Trinity. But that you see my doing so as an attack speaks loudly to the overarching theme here, that you already have your answer and any rational account given is mere ad hoc rationalisation. Certainly not philosophy.

Folk here can plainly see your misrepresenting me as objecting to a mere diagram. I am pointing to the denial of the transitivity of identity shown in that diagram, and asking for an explanation.

From Father = God and Son = God we are usually able to derive Father = Son but instead we find not(Father = Son). Apparently, according to Tim, this is becasue the "is" of doctrine is not the "is of "=".

So, the obvious question - what "is" is it?

How does it work?

That's the elephant in your lap.

No, dumbass. — Leontiskos

Thanks for that.

Presumably, I can now proceed to present any number of accounts of the Trinity, and for each, you will say "that's not it, Dumbass!"

But you will not put up your own account.

We all may have underestimate the extent to which this is a thread filled with seething trolls, indeed.

Ok, so set out what is Trinitarian dogma, and explain to @Wayfarer, who offered the diagram, why it is inadequate.

Put up.

, the diagram shows clearly the denial of transitivity. It's that denial, not the diagram, that is at issue.

Again, that you see this as an attack is down to you. But this is how you respond, universally, to those who disagree with you. You attack them personally, then misrepresent their arguments, then pretend to have already answered their objections.

If you have an argument as to how it is that the dogma can coherently deny the transitivity of identity, set it out for us.

Otherwise, what use are you?

Now you quote yourself! Not your most noble habit.

If pointing to the consequences of your doctrine is, for you, an attack, that's about you, not me. I'm just pointing out the logical problem of the breach of transitivity.

It was the elephant in the corner, but now you have made it the elephant in your lap.

Quotes are part of your religion; you and Tim use them to bury objections, not to address them. Quotes are not arguments.

If you are in agreement with Tim, then set out for us how "is" is used in the Trinity, such that it is not subject to transitivity.

You have nothing but ad hominem attacks? "You mother wears army boots" and "My Daddy is a policeman"?

Where's your logic, man!?

Operating in this way does no service to Christianity.

I asked for a quote from Peirce wherein he say his semiotics were inspired by Augustine. — Janus

Might be so.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6893ead2b2448191918a398bb89f8439

Unverified - might be confabulation.

Of course the main critique of that approach is that it takes all communication as signage - as referential; and that is the exact reason Wittgenstein used a quote from Augustin to begin his Investigations. So in so much as Peirce borrows from Augustin, they share in a compromised view of language.

Sure, all that.

How does that look from outside that milieu?

That's sort of what Geach is trying to do, to invent a logic that will give a consistent account of intransitivity.

It's legitimate if the goals is accepted - if one already accepts the Trinity, and is looking for a coherent account.

But if one does not already accept the Trinity, there is no reason to think much of the logic.

It's special pleading - making up an exception when your claim was shown to be false. That's what Tim does when he says "is" has a special use when talking about the Trinity.

And then adding more exceptions as the discussion proceeds.

Digging the hole deeper.

A better approach might well be to accept that the Trinity is a mystery, and not to look for coherence. If that's your point, I'll agree.

's usual attack on the messenger rather then the message.

Tedious.

@Wayfarer presented the diagram as an explanation of the Trinity. I'm just pointing out the consequences of that diagram.

Yep.

Further, transitivity is essential to set theory; it's a fundamental result of extensionality.

Set theory is a mystery to some. I don't think 's approach is a great help. If the trinity is a mystery, then leave it as such, without trying to make it fit into this or that logical frame. It just doesn't fit.

Yep. Pretending that it is coherent when it plainly isn't.

when they use "is" it must refer to numerical identity." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd be happy for you to give a different account of "is" that will satisfy the criteria you set, and yet allow a coherent logic. As things stand, you seem to think it fine to just specify that it is not the "is" of identity and leave it at that.

If you are sung a word in some novel way it's up to you to explain that use. And open to others to simply reject that use if it is unexplained or inept.

What you have done is to claim that Christ is God, The Holy Spirit is god, and the Father is God, but that Christ is not the Father, nor the Holy spirit, nor is the Holy spirit the Father; and when the logical consequences of this are pointed out, you say that the "is" here is not the is of identify, "=", but some other "is".

And some how this is not an ad hoc compromise.

So it seems you have gone with adding the premise: "classical theologians are wrong about what they think they are saying, and have been wrong since the Patristic era, because when they use "is" it must refer to numerical identity." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, no.

Anyhow, as John Deely never gets tried of repeating, the sign relation is "irreducibly triadic." It is defined relationally, just as the Trinity is. A sign isn't an assemblage of parts, since each component only is what it is in virtue of its relation to the whole. The sign and the Trinity aren't perfect images of each other, the idea is rather that all of creation reflects the Creator, and thus the triadic similarity shows up even in the deepest structures, yet no finite relations can capture the Trinity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just noticed this. Here Tim claims significant similarity: "...all of creation reflects the Creator, and thus the triadic similarity shows up even in the deepest structures". Then immediately withdraws it: "no finite relations can capture the Trinity"

So what is it that is similar? If there is no relation, how is there a similarity?

It's a mystery, a sophisticated way to say it's not contradictory without actually resolving any contradictions.

It's "one nature, three persons." Consider the analogous case of human nature:

Mark is human. (A is B)
Christ is human. (C is B)
Therefore Mark is Christ. (A is C)

This is obviously false. Leaving out that all predication vis-á-vis God is analogical, you would still need to assume a properly metaphysical premise like:

"More than one person cannot subsist in the same nature."

Traditionally, in "the Holy Spirit is God," "is God" refers to the Divine Nature. I suppose another premise that would work is: "'is God' must refer to univocal, numerical identity." However, this is exactly what is denied. As noted earlier, numerical identity is taken to be posterior to (dependent on) God, the transcendental property of unity, and measure. Numerical identity is a creaturely concept. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's very hard to see what you are trying to do here, or how it might help your case. I had presumed you would be seeking to defend trinitarian dogma, but your example serves more to highlight the problem.

Presuming we read "Mark is human" and "Christ is human" as that Mark and Christ participate in a common nature, then we are not here talking about identity. That is, you have moved from identity to predication. If we were to follow that, you would end up with Christ and The Holy Spirit merely participating in godhood in the way that Mark, Christ and Tim participate in being human. You would have three gods, not one. Your conclusion would be polytheistic.

You seem to think that you can avoid this by claiming "numerical identity is a creaturely concept". But that is exactly the issue; classical logic does not permit us to just drop transitivity without contradiction. Your suggestion amounts to saying that logic does not apply to god - to claiming mysticisms.

That idea, "participates in a common nature", is a presumably Aristotelian or Thomist? It seems to be a way to render a relation as a predication. The idea is that individual substances (like Mark, Christ) "participate in" or "instantiate" universal natures or essences (like humanity). Instead of saying:

Mark stands in the relation of instantiation to human nature

The scholastic tradition reformulates this as predication:

Mark is human

Now traditional trinitarianism requires identity, not participation - it requires that the Holy Spirit literally is God.

Frankly you seem to be using the ambiguity of "is" to make an invalid logical move seem plausible. Either "is God" means identity and contradiction ensues, or it means predication and polytheism.

____
Your comments on analogical reasoning are similarly puzzling. It doesn't address the issue - even if granted, it leaves aside whether analogical reasoning can actually do the logical work required. You would have it that God is so transcendent that normal logical categories don't apply, and yet claim analogical reasoning somehow captures this transcendence. How?. Your aim may be to preserve the Trinity and avoid contradiction, but how you do this remains unexplained. How could "Analogically, the Holy Spirit is God" be represented logically? - and if it can't be, then it is illogical. Ok, so god is not just another creature - he is special; and again, what this amounts to is the claim that logic does not apply to God!

What you have set out does not help Bob derive the Trinity form first principles, nor show me how to understand the special kind of identity in "Christ is god, The holy spirit is god, but Christ is not the holy Spirit".

It just changes the topic.

____
But moreover, adding more and more assumptions and explanations to an already ad hoc account is not helpful. You seem to be simply digging a deeper hole.

@Sam26, do you at some stage consider what it is that survives death?