Modern theology and substance metaphysics?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
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?
 
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 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.
 
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)
 
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?
 
~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.
 
~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.

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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
I think they are faulty.

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

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."
 
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.
 
How do you know it is not front and center?

I read your posts.

<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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top