« Comments on President Trump's SOTU #3 | Main | Death as the Muse of Morality Limits our Immorality »

Tuesday, February 08, 2022


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks for the clarity of the post, Bill. It is so clear that I can forward this to a few of my correspondents who have been looking for just that view into just that problem.

Gotta say, this sentence is a fitting conclusion:
"The philosopher, however, hovers at the boundary of the Unsayable, marking it without overstepping it, incapable qua philosopher of effing the Ineffable, but able -- and this is his office -- to point to it while refuting both denials of it and bad theories about it."

Thanks for the comment, Dave. Before reading your comment, I corrected a typo, then changed 'Unsayable' to 'Sayable.'

The philosopher stands this side of the Sayable and can at most 'point' beyond the boundary into the Unsayable.

What I didn't mention above is the analogia entis which supposedly allows for a kind of literal God-talk that avoids both univocity and equivocity. But I havee never quite understood how this is supposed to work.

Maybe your aporetic triad is in need for some second thoughts about the ontological difference between pure being (as actus purus devoid of any passive potency) and existence...
(But we must be cautious of a long standing confusion between esse and existere.)


I don't think you understood my post at all. Tantum esse est actus purus. No doubt. But how is that relevant to what I argued?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008



July 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad