So it seems your attempt to reach him was unsuccessful.I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me. — frank
Conclusion.An interesting statement. — AmadeusD
Is it?This is ridiculous. — Count Timothy von Icarus
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
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
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
I'm looking forward to your doing so, then.I can articulate it just fine — Count Timothy von Icarus
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
Trouble is, the custodians would not call it art.I'd still be inclined to call that art — Moliere
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
What could that mean, if not that it must participate in some game in which we call it art?It does have to be recognizably art in some sense — Moliere
Not really. It seems you think it consistent, but using a way of talking about consistency that is itself Thomist.But wasn't your original argument that Thomism was internally self-undermining? — Count Timothy von Icarus
may be as helpful as Summa Theologica....yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person. — frank
I've suggested silentism as the most reasonable response to such issues - admitting that we don't know the answer.I am all ears. — Bob Ross
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.the first is intended to be 'art', — javi2541997
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.Rothko's red rectangle is a noun — LuckyR
Maybe they're right? Social stability is a life-and-death issue. Having a logical story isn't — frank
I literally responded with a philosophical account of why God had to sacrifice Himself, devoid of faith — Bob Ross
A painting is a picture whose predominant medium is paint. — Janus
I've not been claiming that all paintings are pictures, as though there were some context-independent fact of the matter, but that all paintings can count as pictures — Janus
Can't say as I'd noticed.I have remained silent on the issue for a number of years. — Punshhh
I don't disagree. Although asking someone to "dance the flamingo" need not be an intentional malapropism, and yet still be understood as a request to dance.I don't think it's mutually exclusive. — Michael
In the extreme case, yep.As you will recall, Davidson focuses on a situation where you don't know the language Jenny is speaking. You don't recognize any of the words. All you get is behavior and the assumption that she believes the same things you do. — frank
Extended empirical observation of Jenny's behaviour within the community in which she participates. Watching her pet the cat, buy cat food, chastise someone for not chasing the cat off the mat. A Bayesian analysis of behavioural patterns, perhaps, although we don't usually need to go so far in order to recognise patterns in the behaviour of others.So how did you gather that Jenny uses "the cat" to talk about Jack? What behavior did you observe that caused you to conclude this? — frank