Scott Williams

2 Comments

  1. Scott
    July 11, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

    I am reading all of Richard’s non-book 3s in the Latin critical edition.

    In the next post I translate a CLT suggestive text. I remember others– but I’d need to look them up.

  2. Dale
    July 6, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

    Hey guys – I’m fully back to work now, and back in the saddle with Richard, and with these sorts of argument. I just reviewed the whole series so far.

    Some comments:

    I still think the rocket fails to get off the launch pad. Why couldn’t there be a being which is absolutely perfect, and yet which doesn’t enjoy peer love? I see no contradiction whatever there, nor has Richard given us any reason to think this is impossible. Somewhere along the way, Joseph observed that one who is in a loving relationship with another is, all things being equal, better off than one who is not. I agree – this is just to say that there is value in friendship. There is reason, though, to think that God could be well off even without any such good. But I’ll leave that to a paper I’m working on – I’ll either post it, or serialize it at some point here. As I’m set to finish up Richard’s book III, maybe I’ll post my paper immediately after.

    Someone brought up Aelred of Rievaulx – his book Spiritual Friendship is a classic, a very interesting Christian philosophy of friendship. He does at one point suggest in passing almost that “God is friendship”, but doesn’t at all take that in a ST direction. It’s really sort of a practical book, and I don’t detect any interest in perfect being theology in it. More relevant is his analysis of love, which is in his earlier book, the Mirror of Charity. I’ve ordered that book, and will post on it during my part of the series. One thing he’s clear about is that friendship involves more than love. There are countless people whom we must love, and yet there are few, in his view, with whom we ought to be friends. Loving is basically seeking the good of someone, whereas friendship involves that, along with a wonderful but dangerous self-disclosure, or intimacy. I’ll leave it there for now.

    Scott – Where are you reading Richard’s book II? I know we have the translation of Book I from online, in addition to III in the Zinn translation we’re all looking at. Do you have II in English and/or Latin?

    Finally, Scott – I’m interested in hearing more about your last two paragraphs. What you call his “rhetorical helps” I call his mysterianism – in brief the view that it is reasonable that we lack any understandable doctrine of the Trinity. This is in tension with his being, ala Rea, a constitution theorist. So I guess I’d like to see a definition of Richard’s CLT, as well as the texts which contain that CLT.