Correction to CLT

Correction: It is possibly misleading to say that the CLT (= Constitutional Latin Trinitarianism) position affirms that (1)-(3) are predications. It might be better to go with what Brower and Rea have called "sameness without identity". Instead of 'God', I'll use "the divine essence". So, recasted in this way we get:

(1*) The Father is the same as but not identical with the Divine Essence.
(2*) The Son is the same as but not identical with the Divine Essence.
(3*) The Holy Spirit is the same as but not identical with the Divine Essence.

In this way, when we ask, "what does the Father communicate to the Son?" We can say the Father communicates something that is not identical to the Father. The Father communicates the divine essence to the Son. Hence, the Father doesn't generate another Father, but the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son. If the Father communicates what is identical to the Father, to the Son, then the Son would be identical to the Father. Hence, the Son would be the Father. But that's not right. There's only one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit.

Leuven: Later Medieval Cognitive Theories

I am off to Leuven, Belgium next week for a conference on Later Medieval Cognitive Theories. I will be giving a paper on Henry of Ghent's (seeming) account of a person's being aware of her first-order thoughts, and that she's the subject of these first-order thoughts. It is a complicated mess, textually. In any case, I've done my best to make sense of various and sundry claims. The conference paper comes from material from a chapter of my D.Phil. thesis on the Father's intellectual generation of the Son/Word.

The more I learn about later medieval phil. of mind - the more I am surprised at the diversity of views. Our scholastic friends were kind of like jazz musicians-- give me a riff, and I'll show you a 101 ways to play off of it.

Constitutional Latin Trinitarianism

In my recent post over at Trinities.org I mentioned what I take to be a stream of Latin trinitarian theology that doesn't satisfy what some have labeled "Latin Trinitarianism" [= LT]. Brian Leftow takes Aquinas to be a good representative of LT, and I think he is right. On LT the following are identity statements.

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.

And of course, for those who interpret (1)-(3) as identity statements they must find a way to block the transitivity of identity such that e.g., 'The Father is the Son' turns out false.

Translations and the Wildlands of the SQO

To translate Henry of Ghent is like translating Augustine. Or, to translate Henry of Ghent is to translate Augustine. As some medievalists know, Henry was much more of a modern author than other scholastics in the sense that he typically cites chapter and verse and gives full quotations (or interestingly edited versions) of the cited text.

Here is what Roland Teske said about translating Article 1 of Henry's SQO. [Henry of Ghent’s Summa of Ordinary Questions: Article One: On the Possibility of Human Knowledge, St. Augustine’s Press, South Bend, IN, 2008, xxii]:

Henry’s Latin is difficult, and the Latin of the authors he cites is often far more difficult and cryptic. Another problem stems from the many Latin words that Henry used in referring to knowledge and knowing, such as scientia, apprehensio, notitia, cognitio, and their verbal forms. For example, at times Henry uses scientia in the sense of Aristotelian science or the knowledge of demonstrated conclusions. At other times the term seems to have a more general connotation.

Introductions

I have been studying the theological writings of Henry of Ghent for a few years, and with the New Year I have thought it fitting to begin a blog devoted to all things pertaining to the Solemn Doctor.

My intentions for this blog is firstly to make the theological and philosophical teachings of Henry of Ghent available to a wider audience. It would be fair to say that mostly academics who study medieval theology or medieval philosophy have read Henry's texts. There are several English translations of small representative passages by folks like Roland Teske and Jos Decorte. As representative examples these translations are indeed to be appreciated; nonetheless in order for a willing person to come to understand Henry's cathedral of philosophical and theological teachings, much much more work needs to be done on several fronts (e.g., the production of critical editions, translations, rigorous explanation and analysis of Henry's teachings). Secondly, I aim to post things such as translations of and commentaries on passages from Henry's writings (e.g., on what it means to be a 'person', what 'mutual love' is, and various interesting and delicate issues in his Trinitarian theology.)

One of the most well-known medieval theologians is St. Thomas Aquinas. There are various reasons for Thomas's popularity. Thomas's teachings are fascinating in and of themselves. Thomas was a Dominican and was made the doctor of that religious order - this entailed that many students were institutionally required to study Aquinas's writings and encouraged to agree with them. Furthermore, there are many English translations of Aquinas's writings. A person who does not know Latin could read massive amounts of Thomas's writings and so this person could be informed about many topics that Thomas wrote on. Not so for Henry of Ghent. Who was Henry of Ghent? (For a full biography, see Pasquale Porro's article at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)