# Modern theology and substance metaphysics?



## RamistThomist (Nov 29, 2015)

Or, what is substance metaphysics?

I was reviewing some notes from McCormack's (ed) _Karl Barth and American Evangelicalism_. Horton rebuts McCormack’s reading of Barth’s objection to “substance” and “essence.” McCormack thinks substantialism implies a “something” behind the entity. When applied to God, this raises the question: so which God is the real God for us? Horton says, by contrast, that a substance is simply thing that can be predicated of (128n72). I think both are correct. Is this an accurate reading of substance metaphysics?


----------



## Justified (Nov 29, 2015)

I like Horton's definition more. McCormack's definition might seem to imply a realist view of universals, but I may be incorrectly understanding his position. McCormack's objection to substance metaphysics also fails if one affirms the absolute simplicity of God; then there is clearly nothing standing behind God.

Sorry, I didn't really answer your question. Also, as an aside: isn't a non-substantial ontology sort of an oxymoron?


----------



## Philip (Nov 30, 2015)

McCormack is right to notice a tendency of some in substance metaphysics to reify substances. However, that stems from a misunderstanding of the essence/existence distinction and how in God it doesn't exist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2015)

Justified said:


> I like Horton's definition more. McCormack's definition might seem to imply a realist view of universals, but I may be incorrectly understanding his position. McCormack's objection to substance metaphysics also fails if one affirms the absolute simplicity of God; then there is clearly nothing standing behind God.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't really answer your question. Also, as an aside: isn't a non-substantial ontology sort of an oxymoron?



McCormack says he isn't doing away with metaphysics, only classical metaphysics (Aristotle)


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 1, 2015)

McCormack's further discussion in _Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology_

~Classical Metaphysics: tendency to see the world of spirit by means of an analogy with the natural world. God as ding-an-sich was merely another object alongside objects. He is not a metaphyiscal essence alongside other essences (224).

~Barth wanted to avoid saying god was an “object.”

~Did the modern era really move from substance to Subject?


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> ~Did the modern era really move from substance to Subject?



No, it moves from objectivity to subjectivism. God is unknowable in se. We know Him as He has revealed Himself, and this is perfectly adapted to our creaturely limitations, including our common notions of object, substance, being, etc. The dialectical theologians cannot rest in the revelation of God. They seek to faith-leap from revelation to Revealer and plunge themselves into an existential chasm.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 1, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > ~Did the modern era really move from substance to Subject?
> ...



I agree with everything you have said, but I've read a good bit of Hegel and while he does use the categories of essence/substance, they seem eclipsed (or sublimated, to use a Hegelian term) by the category of Subject.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I agree with everything you have said, but I've read a good bit of Hegel and while he does use the categories of essence/substance, they seem eclipsed (or sublimated, to use a Hegelian term) by the category of Subject.



I am not sure how that relates to my statement, nor am I qualified to offer anything "substantial" on Hegel, but I cannot see how Hegel's illusory philosophy can be of any service to one who knows, obeys, and submits to the I AM.


----------



## Philip (Dec 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Classical Metaphysics: tendency to see the world of spirit by means of an analogy with the natural world. God as ding-an-sich was merely another object alongside objects. He is not a metaphyiscal essence alongside other essences (224).



This is simply false. For Thomas, and classical theologians, God is not a being among other beings, but the ground of all being. God's existence _is_ His essence. The _via analogia_ is a necessary correlary to this because if "being" is applied to God univocally, then we are either pantheists (Tillich) or mystical atheists (Wittgenstein), which is the same position, for all intents and purposes. If it is equivocal, then we are left with no epistemic ground to stand on.

There, Thomas concludes, our knowledge of God's being must be analogical because we do know God's being.


----------



## Philip (Dec 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Did the modern era really move from substance to Subject?



That's essentially the Cartesian move, yes. Most of 20th century continental philosophy and theology is basically an acknowledgement of the failure of that move coupled with an inability to acknowledge that traditional metaphysics was right.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Classical Metaphysics: tendency to see the world of spirit by means of an analogy with the natural world. God as ding-an-sich was merely another object alongside objects. He is not a metaphyiscal essence alongside other essences (224).
> ...



That's my understanding of Thomas, too. I wonder which theologians said that God was a being among other beings, thus prompting Heidegger's complaint.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> No, it moves from objectivity to subjectivism



Which is what I asked. You can't have subjectivism and subjectivity without a knowing Subject. And it's hard to imagine modern theology apart from Hegel and Kant. I'm not endorsing these thinkers. Just making an observation.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> That's my understanding of Thomas, too. I wonder which theologians said that God was a being among other beings, thus prompting Heidegger's complaint.



That's the tenor of a lot of 19th century German liberal Protestantism, certainly. And it probably informs some of the less helpful theological ontologies (think Berkeley, Leibniz, or even the early Jonathan Edwards). Heidegger is hardly original here, but his attribution of the "onto-theological error" to scholastic metaphysics is willful ignorance on his part. He wrote his dissertation on Duns Scotus and ought to have known better. The only mitigating circumstance would be that he assumes "being" is always used univocally in Thomas.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > No, it moves from objectivity to subjectivism
> ...



The knowing subject is the person knowing. This entails that everything known by the person is object. Even self-knowledge requires the attribution of a "self" that is an object of knowledge. Such is the state of our creaturely existence. Subjectivism requires one to either transcend himself or to deceive himself that he has an occult power to look into the essence of things. Every one is bound by what he is whether he likes to admit it or not.

I am not sure what you are "observing," but when I see Hegel and Kant I see two men who were chasing their tails. "Thinkers" is all the praise the world has to bestow on such.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



Post- and Neo-Kantian said the knowing subject constructs reality (however else they want to gloss that). That had a direct connection to their building of metaphysical systems.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Post- and Neo-Kantian said the knowing subject constructs reality (however else they want to gloss that). That had a direct connection to their building of metaphysical systems.



That said, Heidegger's (and modern theology's) rejection of classical metaphysics comes directly out of his rejection of the subject and instead replacing it with Dasein (or Da-seyn in the Contributions).


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Post- and Neo-Kantian said the knowing subject constructs reality (however else they want to gloss that). That had a direct connection to their building of metaphysical systems.



And look at their wonderful computer systems -- garbage in and garbage out. If you begin with a tabula rasa you are bound to an impersonal relativistic system which has no grounding for moral thought.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Post- and Neo-Kantian said the knowing subject constructs reality (however else they want to gloss that). That had a direct connection to their building of metaphysical systems.
> ...



I'm not saying they are good guys. I've actually run across demons from reading Hegel (well, neo-Hegelian Marxists). I think they are faulty. Still, we are called to witness in the modern world and to the degree that the modern world holds to these systems, to that degree I will be familiar with them.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I think they are faulty.



Please think about putting that front and centre of your "witness" instead of leaving it for an after-thought.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > I think they are faulty.
> ...



How do you know it is not front and center? First of all, this post wasn't originally about Kant-Hegel, per se. They did figure into it, and when they did, I acknowledged problems. Since Puritanboard isn't the same thing as an academic essay nor a _Confessions_, I didn't feel the need to begin each post with "Trigger Warning: Hegel is bad."


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> How do you know it is not front and center?



I read your posts.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> If you begin with a tabula rasa you are bound to an impersonal relativistic system which has no grounding for moral thought.



This is manifestly false, as Thomas Aquinas's epistemology assumes a _tabula rasa_ and whatever might be said of the _Summa_ it can hardly be accused of being an "impersonal relativistic system" with no grounds for ethics.

But then again, that's because his epistemology is grounded in ontology and teleology, not the other way round, which is the real problem with Kant and Hegel.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know it is not front and center?
> ...



<insert Hegel is bad>

And from a few posts you can tell about my evangelistic practices in real life? I don't go on anti-Hegel screeds on PB because...well...why? I actually have a lot of significant anti-Hegel material, some of which I would even post here, but I can no longer post book reviews so that material is for another outlet.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> <insert Hegel is bad>



And _Carthago delenda est_.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

Philip said:


> This is manifestly false, as Thomas Aquinas's epistemology assumes a _tabula rasa_ and whatever might be said of the _Summa_ it can hardly be accused of being an "impersonal relativistic system" with no grounds for ethics.



Medieval ethics borrowed from Augustine which counter-balanced Aristotelian anti-creation theories. Modern philosophy lacks these counter-balances. It is well documented in Dabney's Sensualistic Philosophy.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> And from a few posts you can tell about my evangelistic practices in real life?



I was referring to what you write on this board. This thread is a clear example of your tendency to introduce "thinkers" and their "thoughts" without any reference to their "faults." It would be a shame if you do not feel you could engage in real life "witness" on this board where real life people interact with real life thoughts.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > And from a few posts you can tell about my evangelistic practices in real life?
> ...



Or because I move to a conclusion at the _end _of the line of discussion. 



> It would be a shame if you do not feel you could engage in real life "witness" on this board where real life people interact with real life thoughts.



I move that the moderators delete philosophy and apologetics sub-forums, since they aren't involved with real life. I suppose I could comment on the real life threads, whatever that even means, but since people engaged in pastoral ministry have chosen to do so, I don't see the point in adding my two cents.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> > It would be a shame if you do not feel you could engage in real life "witness" on this board where real life people interact with real life thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> I move that the moderators delete philosophy and apologetics sub-forums, since they aren't involved with real life. I suppose I could comment on the real life threads, whatever that even means, but since people engaged in pastoral ministry have chosen to do so, I don't see the point in adding my two cents.



I was including philosophy in my reference to this board. You juxtaposed "real life" with your posts on this board. I was pointing out there is real life on this board. All I am saying is that you might want to give some thought to your witness for the truth on this board, whatever forum you choose to post in, and especially give some thought to how your introduction of certain "thinkers" may or may not influence the views of others. The tendency to quote "thinkers" without making critical evaluations is setting forth a "witness" to others, and it gives an uncertain sound.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> Medieval ethics borrowed from Augustine which counter-balanced Aristotelian anti-creation theories.



It would be more accurate to say that it was consistently Augustinian. That said, Thomas Aquinas really is a kind of common-sense empiricist in epistemology, which he can do because he lays a groundwork in ontology.



MW said:


> I was referring to what you write on this board. This thread is a clear example of your tendency to introduce "thinkers" and their "thoughts" without any reference to their "faults." It would be a shame if you do not feel you could engage in real life witness on this board where real life people interact with real life thoughts.



And reaction without serious engagement only leaves the real life audience impoverished. If one is to critique, one must first understand, engage, and explain. One must display the intellectual virtue of charity, even to thinkers who do not deserve it. Only then can one adequately respond to their philosophy.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

Philip said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Medieval ethics borrowed from Augustine which counter-balanced Aristotelian anti-creation theories.
> ...



We are speaking of tabula rasa, which is not Augustinian; so your claim to consistency is proven false there.



Philip said:


> And reaction without serious engagement only leaves the real life audience impoverished. If one is to critique, one must first understand, engage, and explain. One must display the intellectual virtue of charity, even to thinkers who do not deserve it. Only then can one adequately respond to their philosophy.



In the interests of intellectual virtue, to have Hegel and Kant introduced as counter-points to my statements, without any "reason" or "moral judgment" attached to their introduction, is not philosophical.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2015)

MW said:


> We are speaking of tabula rasa, which is not Augustinian; so your claim to consistency is proven false there.



I was referring to metaethics, not to epistemology. Of course Thomas's epistemology differs from Augustine's, but that doesn't make him any less consistently Augustinian in ethics.



MW said:


> In the interests of intellectual virtue, to have Hegel and Kant introduced as counter-points to my statements, without any "reason" or "moral judgment" attached to their introduction, is not philosophical.



They were counterpoints to an assertion you were making about the development of modern western thought.



ReformedReidian said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



As I understand it, Jacob was merely commenting on your reading of the "turn to the subject" in German philosophy and how Hegel attempts to subsume previous metaphysics into his schema. Bringing up Hegel in this context is quite relevant and a summary judgment wouldn't contribute to the discussion.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

Philip said:


> I was referring to metaethics, not to epistemology. Of course Thomas's epistemology differs from Augustine's, but that doesn't make him any less consistently Augustinian in ethics.



You were offering what you considered to be a "more correct" statement to the one I made, and the one I made was concerned with the tabula rasa, so your clarification that you were not dealing with epistemology merely makes your "more correct" statement redundant.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2015)

Philip said:


> As I understand it, Jacob was merely commenting on your reading of the "turn to the subject" in German philosophy and how Hegel attempts to subsume previous metaphysics into his schema. Bringing up Hegel in this context is quite relevant and a summary judgment wouldn't contribute to the discussion.



I suppose if philosophical indifference is to be accounted intellectual virtue then anything is relevant.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2015)

MW said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > As I understand it, Jacob was merely commenting on your reading of the "turn to the subject" in German philosophy and how Hegel attempts to subsume previous metaphysics into his schema. Bringing up Hegel in this context is quite relevant and a summary judgment wouldn't contribute to the discussion.
> ...



<insert warning hegel is bad>

Who said philosophical indifference? You are reading motives and states into us after we have denied that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2015)

To critique modern theology and modern philosophy, one must first understand it. Further, every premise of the argument cannot be "Hegel is bad," otherwise it ceases to be a logical argument.

It's like writing a book on WWII. Every sentence in the book can't simply be "Hitler is bad." Just because the author doesn't say that every other paragraph doesn't mean one thing or another. Sometimes you have to establish context.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> It's like writing a book on WWII. Every sentence in the book can't simply be "Hitler is bad." Just because the author doesn't say that every other paragraph doesn't mean one thing or another. Sometimes you have to establish context.



More to the point, I have met very few Hegelians. I have met very few who are even sympathetic toward Hegel, even in the secular world. In philosophical circles, he is mostly considered an historical curiosity who one must know because of his influence, not because anyone today espouses his philosophy, in a similar manner to Leibniz or Berkeley.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2015)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > It's like writing a book on WWII. Every sentence in the book can't simply be "Hitler is bad." Just because the author doesn't say that every other paragraph doesn't mean one thing or another. Sometimes you have to establish context.
> ...



I think Zizek is the only Hegelian I can think of, and praise God I haven't met him!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Or because I move to a conclusion at the _end _of the line of discussion.


It seems that, more often than not, you have formed a conclusion beforehand such your posts seem to be but a tactic intended to steer the discussion towards your forthcoming revealed conclusion.

I get that you like to read all sorts of esoteric materials and then comment effusively about the material. What I often wonder is what exactly is your ultimate goal in traveling these off-road paths. Sooner or later our efforts and studies, if we are to be good stewards of the time we have been granted, should bear fruit in the furtherance of the Kingdom. From all your posts on topics far and wide in the realm of philosophical discourse seasoned with occasional theology, what are you building atop this foundation you have laid? Let us know where you are headed and perhaps you will be pleased to discover that there will be those willing to help you get there.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Or because I move to a conclusion at the _end _of the line of discussion.
> ...



To some extent everyone has a tentative conclusion in mind before they post. In any case, that wasn't true here. I was unclear on some points of substance metaphysics, which Philip graciously corrected me. I then saw points of convergence between rejections of substance metaphysics and Hegel. I then began to pursue and flesh out those connections. I thought--wild idea--that it would help people who have to read through the difficult literature on this point.

Because I didn't say everything I believe at every moment of the post (something about the finite not containing the infinite--limitations of being human and such), people began to read false positions into my position.


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Because I didn't say everything I believe at every moment of the post (something about the finite not containing the infinite--limitations of being human and such), people began to read false positions into my position.



I haven't read any position into your position, let alone a false one. I addressed your method and simply asked for up-front clarity on the fact you found certain philosophies, which you introduced into the discussion, to be faulty. Seeing the trouble it causes to offer you a little constructive criticism, I will leave you to yourself in future, and everyone can remain in a cloud of unknowing as to what might be your intention in raising one disparate thought after another; and Philip can utilise his powers of philosophical discernment to act as your interpreter and apologist.


----------

