I fear if I ask this question on Puritanboard I will be banned, so I will ask it here.
If persons = relations, as Thomas says, then does the converse hold:
(P1) Relations = Persons
This raises the next question:
(P2) Is now the relation between the person yet another person?
If you keep repeating this you have the infinite hypostases of Gnosticism.
If persons = relations, as Thomas says, then does the converse hold:
(P1) Relations = Persons
This raises the next question:
(P2) Is now the relation between the person yet another person?
If you keep repeating this you have the infinite hypostases of Gnosticism.
I suppose one answer could be something I've been considering:
ReplyDeleteThe Relation is a Person, but is a spirit. This I mean in the contours that the relation between persons (I-Thou) or in a corporate environment take on a 'esprit-de-corps' (maybe I'm being a little wooden with the phrase). Thus there wouldn't be an infinite hyposteses because it is confined to the relation.
But this can easily raise a lot of bad options: is the Holy Spirit not a Person and only possess personality? Are Angels and Demons mere synthetic arisings from relations? Can the Holy Spirit truly blow where He will? Where does the analogical difference come into play?
These are rough thoughts, but they too would be equally condemned on Puritanboard. Mentioning an inspiration from Zizek might be tantamount to claiming the Devil as my guide.
cal
ps. I like the link to Gnostic Magic. Good touch
I'm not sure that converse is logically entailed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that converse is logically entailed.
ReplyDeleteI, too, have never been convinced that the converse is logically entailed. Granted, I think better definitions of "person" are available, but I don't think Thomas's is necessarily wrong.
ReplyDelete