I loved Thomas Wards answer when asked what the “real distinction” is: “I’m not sure.” If it doesn’t entail separability which we see in concrete things, then somehow it’s separable at the level of intellection but not at the level of (how we think of) quantitative dimensions. For by quantitative dimensions I conceptualize separability (such as coffee and mug). But intellectually I can conceive of two separate concepts as inseparably one. (Such as triangularity and trilateralarity) If anyone is interested in reading a deep metaphysician, I recommend Maximus the Confessors Opusculas. He was the one who John of Damascus learned his metaphysics from, and I believe to be the most underrated metaphysician in the Catholic Church. His Opusculas are chalked full of distinctions between Hypostasis-Nature, Potency-Act, Mover-moved, Essence-Energy etc. Pat, I like that you suggested to Thomas that formal distinction (for Thomists) can be couched in a real distinction. I think Aquinas would agree. For some reason nobody online mentions that Aquinas, in his De Potentia, calls the real relations of the Persons of the Godhead “formally distinct.” Now unfortunately Thomas doesn’t define what he means by “formally distinct,” however, it’s clear from the corpus of his work that it’s synonymous with “real distinction.” For in his Trinitarian theology he always refers to the Persons as “really distinct.” Great guest. Seemed humble and wasn’t afraid to admit that our language doesn’t seem to reflect these distinctions fully.

@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro

Жыл бұрын

Do you know where can I can get the book you mention about st. Maximus?

@MountAthosandAquinas

Жыл бұрын

@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro It’s extremely difficult to find. Currently the only English version is by a controversial Orthodox theologian. It’s titled “theological and polemical works” by Joseph Farrel. It’s a great translation but the notes are very anti-Catholic. Only comes in PDF.

@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro

Жыл бұрын

@@MountAthosandAquinas Thank you, I will try to find it

@CatholicismRules

Жыл бұрын

@@MountAthosandAquinas Hey, I've recently been reading Maximus the Confessor. Do you have any thoughts on the Popular Patristic Series books? I found _On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ_ good, and I'm about to start Blowers' _Jesus Christ and the Transfiguration of the World._

@MountAthosandAquinas

Жыл бұрын

@@CatholicismRules hey Jack, I’ll be honest that nearly all my reading of Saint Maximus the Confessor is directly from his works. It’s very rare I go to secondary sources. I do, however, intend to read on the cosmic mystery. It’s probably the only work of his I haven’t yet read in English. With that being said, you might find some of the videos I’ve made on Maximus to be of some use. In my channel I tend to focus a lot on Maximus metaphysics and Thomas Aquinas. Or, if you have a specific question I’d be happy to weigh in. -Irenaeus

Comment for traction. This was a great part of the larger discussion

Off topic question, any good intro book on Palamas

@jrojh1323

Жыл бұрын

John Meyendorff's 'A Study of Gregory Palamas' is a classic introduction, worth a read

Patt, what are your thoughts on Paul Damiani? Also - when can we expect another episode with my favourite ex-powerlifter philosoph Jim Madden?

Anyone know where I can find this Allan Wolter article on the distinction of reason in Aquinas?

@TheJesusNerd40

8 ай бұрын

Wolter, Allan. “The Formal Distinction.” Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 3 (1965): 45-60.

Where can I find Aquinas mentioning distinction of reason ex parti rei

@TheJesusNerd40

8 ай бұрын

Wolter, Allan. “The Formal Distinction.” Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 3 (1965): 45-60.

Wolter, Allan. “The Formal Distinction.” Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 3 (1965): 45-60.

If only there was a middle distinction between the two cough cough (virtual) Suarez