Retribution is necessary for justice because the offended’s dignity has to be restored — Bob Ross

So all that was about restoring god's dignity?

Ok.

More seriously, can you see how to one who does not accept the tenants of faith, that post at least looks like self-justifying, ad hoc confirmation bias?

I would not think that constraining philosophical beliefs to a specific framework and set of assumptions would make it not philosophy. — MrLiminal

it's not the beliefs, it's the method. Not what is being affirmed, but why it is being affirmed.

Hence:

the final end of justice is bringing everything under the proper respect of the order of creation. — Bob Ross

Religion was the original philosophy — MrLiminal

Is it open to a theologian to conclude that there is no god and remain a theologian?

A philosopher may do so and remain a philosopher.

It partly comes from primitive intuitions about inheritance. — frank

As if blame were genetic. The story of original sin appears morally indefensible. Theology is that defence.

Theology is not philosophy.

Theology starts with a conclusion, and seeks to explain how it fits in with how things are. It seeks to make a given doctrine consistent.

Philosophy starts with how things are and looks for a consistent explanation.

Theology can't say "That's inconsistent", and so eventually has to rely instead on mystery.

...because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly — MrLiminal

Wouldn't a god that can interact with imperfect beings, and lead them to the light, be better than a god who cannot interact with imperfect beings?

But the higher point is the methodological one made above, that theology consists in justifying a given series of doctrines, not in their critique.

It starts with the conclusion and works through to the explanation, unable to reach an alternate conclusion.

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned. — frank

The idea that children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents is also... problematic.

Doubtless there are theological explanations.

And here again we face a problem with the method of theology, which aims to explain what is already taken as granted. It is not open to the theologian to conclude that God is wrong to visit the sins of Adam on his children. Theology as the institutionalisation of confirmation bias.

Of course, some theological approaches might avoid this accusation. But I do not see them hereabouts.

...its default sycophantic tilt — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can agree on a dislike for the tone, to be sure. It was your suggestion to make use of it, and again you seem to renege when faced with the consequence.

So I asked it about Frank's post, and it sugested the following re-write of Frank's post:

The Catholic Church teaches that God, in His infinite love, entered into our world — not to appease His own anger, but to rescue humanity from the alienation brought about by sin. This rescue took the form of Jesus Christ freely undergoing death — not as a victim of divine rage, but as an act of perfect self-giving love.
Still, it remains mysterious: God reconciles the world to Himself by suffering at the hands of those He came to save. Justice is not satisfied by punishment, but by a love so radical it absorbs violence and answers it with forgiveness. — ChatGPT

It then asks :

Why is such suffering needed at all for God to forgive or heal? — ChatGPT

Now that is a good question. Here's an issue worth considering. Chat is of course only inferring, from a huge DB of word strings, the appropriate next words in a string of words that starts with Frank's OP, and this is what it comes up with. The question follows from Frank's OP.

Is your answer the same as ChatGPT's? That is it a "mystery"?

Or is your reply only the tu quoque of your parody on atheism?

Is it possible to have a productive conversation concerning the consistency of God?

Well, for my part, there appear to be issues of consistency that have been raised here that you and Tim have not yet addressed. Mind you, I haven't finished reading the additions form overnight yet. But yes, the conversation has not been productive.

It might be helpful to continue to distinguish the Thomist view you are using for rhetorical purposes, from your own.

The premise here is that the aim of justice is punishment. Why should we accept that?

He said:

I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me. — frank

So it seems your attempt to reach him was unsuccessful.

Frank would not be the first name to come to mind hereabouts, as being "intellectually vicious".

I gather form your other comments that Thomism was more a rhetorical strategy than a statement fo your actual view? Now for Thomism, Jesus is god. I think I see why Frank may have not understood your point.

An interesting statement. — AmadeusD

Conclusion.

If "A picture captures a moment in a narrative", and some paintings do not capture moments in a narrative, then not all paintings are pictures.

Yep.

It looks like avoidance.

This is ridiculous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is it?

You asked what ChatGPT thought. It said:

This is not merely irreverent. It's a crystallization of several profound theological problems — or aporia — that critics, skeptics, and even believers have long wrestled with. — ChatGPT

and proceeds to unpack a series of issues, ending with

The Catholic Church isn’t unaware of these criticisms. In fact, many modern theologians have tried to move away from juridical, retributive models. The Church emphasizes:

● God is not angry and vengeful. “Wrath” describes the alienation caused by sin, not God’s disposition.
● Jesus is not punished by God. He shares in human suffering, in solidarity, and opens a path back to God by showing perfect love.
● The Cross reveals love, not wrath. It’s not a price paid, but a revelation of God’s nature.
● In this view, atonement isn’t God changing His mind — it’s God changing ours.

The question now is: Does Christianity survive this tension? Or does it deepen the mystery in a way that still speaks to human guilt, suffering, and hope? — ChatGPT

It might be helpful to at least recognise the difficulty had by a non-Catholic, in coming to terms with what is not as simple a doctrine as it might seem for Catholics.

The full Chat is at:
https://chatgpt.com/share/687f097f-f0a0-800f-900a-c8f130cc2bb9

(Here I am attempting to use ChatGPT to fill in the account it seems to me you have been unable to present)

The Davidsonian point that we all agree about most things is true when it comes to everyday stuff. Not so much when it comes to aesthetics. — Janus

Not so sure. But a discussion worth having.

What might a Davidsonian aesthetic look like?

Oh, ok. You were just saying that the meaning of words is not fixed.

...now you are making my case for me. — Janus

It might help if you were to explain what your case is...

Here's mine:

...something being art is dependent on how we chose to talk about it. — Banno

How does yours differ?

I can articulate it just fine — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm looking forward to your doing so, then.

Oh, . it's just such a tidy koan.

Without an interpretation, how could the question have an answer?

Buggered if I know.

See, perhaps, Encoding the Dreaming - A theoretical framework for the analysis ofrepresentational processes in Australian Aboriginal art

The argument there is for ongoing interpretation.

What might Davidson make of this?

Platonism not needed; it is just the idea of a black square that is being represented, an idea which can be re-presented in countless ways, just as the form of a tree or a human face can be re-presented in countless ways. — Janus

You say Platonism is not needed, then launch immediately into an explication of platonism.

I'd still be inclined to call that art — Moliere

Trouble is, the custodians would not call it art.

Art is an aesthetic judgement, an object detachable from it's surrounds, to be moved, sold or exhibited, whilst this is created as an obligation to the land, inseparable from it's location, the very connection between people and land.

Hot possibility became constrained by gauge symmetry. — apokrisis

Ok.

I'd say it may be said to be one possible representation of a black square, a picture of a black square, and that it also may be said to be just a black square because squares are abstract objects. — Janus

Well, if you must. The idea that a black square only represents a black square looks a tad too platonic for my taste... it smells of perfect forms and such nonsense.

It does have to be recognizably art in some sense — Moliere

What could that mean, if not that it must participate in some game in which we call it art?

There is a community who claim continuity with the Murujuga artists...

Guess so.

Oh, perhaps Tim's engine will spin by itself. It's how it makes contact with the world that might make the difference.

I don't see it gaining much traction for you and I.

Tim can't articulate your criticism in his terms, it seems.

But wasn't your original argument that Thomism was internally self-undermining? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not really. It seems you think it consistent, but using a way of talking about consistency that is itself Thomist.

Someone who thinks there is a difference between justice and mercy will not need an explanation of how they are different in the face of the simplicity of god, if they do not accept the simplicity of god.

And so, around and around, the various cogs spin without meshing.

The artist's intention to create "a piece of art" will not suffice - They might be rubbish at their supposed profession.

Being a piece of art is taking a certain place in a complicated game played with words, deeds and money.

The Murujuga rock carvings might be up to fifty thousand years old - far older than any art found in Europe.


There's no way we can enter into the intent of the artists; too long ago, too far removed from us, now...?

No frame, no museum.

It's ok, they are going to build gas export facilities over the top of them, so they won't annoy the anthropologists and art historians.

We're engaged in forming an "ontology", no? That amounts to sorting out what we are talking about. It seems useful to be able to distinguish a thing from a representation of that thing - to differentiate between picture and thing pictured. It is useful to be able to point out that Black Square does not represent anything, but is a black square, and is a painting.



That appears to be what Kazimir Malevich had in mind... his intent.

But it seems we agree.

The Op is satire.

Frank asked "How does a person [moderator redacted] make sense of this?"

You provide an answer in the sophistry of Thomism, which is quite unlikely to appease Frank.

(I hope the mod redacting was not one of those participating in the discussion.)

All of which just takes the Thomistic metaphysic as granted.

An absurdity can seem internally consistent.

This:

...yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person. — frank

may be as helpful as Summa Theologica.

Ok. In your first post you said a paining was a picture. Now you say that a picture need not be a picture of something, and so avoid the difficulty posed by abstract art. that seems an odd usage, but is perhaps consistent.

I's just say that a picture is usually a representation of something, that a picture pictures something other than itself. And that art need not represent anything other than itself - as is the case for the red rectangle and so on. And that hence not all paintings are pictures.

I think this is a better approach than yours, which appears to me to collapse painting and pictures, and so lose some explanatory power.

Do you really think that there was a chance of @frank accepting Thomism as an answer to his questions? Wouldn't he simple see it as a more verbose expression of the very same confusions? And indeed, with good reason.

I am all ears. — Bob Ross

I've suggested silentism as the most reasonable response to such issues - admitting that we don't know the answer.

Thomism relies on divine simplicity. It understands god as pure and as simple. So mercy and justice are for god the very same. This is how Thomism responds to the Euthyphro; the good and god's will are the very same.

But if we cannot make meaningful distinctions between such notions as justice and mercy, then we cannot use them to explain the nature of god.

Weirdly, Thomism undermines itself, showing that theology is impossible.

If course, Thomism has responses to these criticisms. But equally, more theology simply serves to undermine theology further.

And you're happy to accept the Thomist metaphysics on which this account sits? A mediaeval logic? Nothing since then appeals more?

the first is intended to be 'art', — javi2541997

Interesting. So is art "intended"? If that were so, then the intent of the chap with the roller is what decides if the wall is art or not... We would need to ask him his intent.

Rothko's red rectangle is a noun — LuckyR

Plainly, it isn't. A noun is a word. The red rectangle is not a word. You might argue coherently that "Rothko's red rectangle" (quotative) is a noun-phrase.

And this?

Is Rothko’s red rectangle a picture of a red rectangle? Or is it just… a red rectangle?

Too far off topic.