Ne vous inqui&233 tez de rien mais en toute chose faites conna&238 tre vos besoins &224 Dieu par des pri&232 res et des supplications, Copie de 56 Tout homme est faible et a besoin de la puissance de Dieu 0. La reconnaissance est aux antipodes de l’inqui&233 tude. C’est le meilleur rem&232 de contre la jalousie, et cela saura certainement attirer l’attention de votre P&232 re.
1 Corinthiens 1:24 mais puissance de Dieu et sagesse de Dieu pour ceux qui sont appels, tant Juifs que Grecs. She contrasts Aristotle’s account of act as first principle with that of Plotinus who, following Plato, makes the first principle of all dunamis tōn pantōn, where dunamis must be understood as power, not potency.Car la prdication de la croix est une folie pour ceux qui prissent mais pour nous qui sommes sauvs, elle est une puissance de Dieu. In that case, the effect of the unmoved mover as first principle of all can only be as an ideal that is imitated by beings that can imitate it. Her conclusion is that the act that is the life of the unmoved mover is pure or complete actualization, which means that it has no further actualizations. In that book, the author examines Aristotelian metaphysics as an ontology of act-potency ( energeia-dunamis). Dunamis et energeia chez Aristote et chez Plotin (Paris, Vrin, 2006).
Her aim is to show how the all-powerful or omnipotent God of Christianity arises out of the Aristotelian pure act and how Christian philosophers worked out the idea of the all-powerful as an agent (p. 13). She covers a vast amount of material, including Augustine, Peter Damian and Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. 2In the book considered here, Aubry continues her examination of how the Platonic-Aristotelian background is developed within the Christian theology of the Middle Ages.
The theology of a God who is omnipotent faces the problem of evil, although this is clearly also a problem for a theology of “puissance de tout.” As Aubry acutely observes, the problem of the compatibility of omnipotence with other attributes of the divine—especially goodness—is independent of the problems of theodicy, even if the latter is ultimately derived from the former (p. 16). Aubry contrasts “puissance de tout” ( dunamis pantōn) with “toute-puissance,” where the former is constrained at least by the good and the latter is not. Above all, assuming that God is omnipotent in some sense, he then has an unlimited will, for any limitation on that will would imply a limitation on omnipotence.
Pourtant, les annonces publicitaires dans les librairies, &224 la t&233 l&233 vision et &224 la radio abondent en La puissance de l'Evangile de Dieu/ Maurepas (fr sylvain) Clipson.ru. La force de la faiblesse La puissance de Dieu l&224 o&249 l’on s’y attend le moins I l n’existe pas, dans ce monde, beaucoup de choses susceptibles de changer radicalement votre vie. Ce qui se joue ici, c'est la reprsentation de Dieu mesur l'aune de nos. But this fact opens the way to a myriad of theological and philosophical issues.Premier attribut divin du Credo, la toute-puissance oblige bien parler de Dieu et savoir de quel Dieu il s'agit. The Pantokrator is constrained by the good, even if this constraint is not viewed negatively the omnipotent God is constrained by nothing. The concept of an omnipotent God is further distinguished from that of the Pantokrator, the God of potentia ordinata rather than potentia absoluta (p. 27).
La Puissance De Dieu Free Person Should
According to Abelard, God can only do what he in fact does. According to Damian, God’s omnipotence exceeds even a putative limitation by the principle of non-contradiction, which Damian reduces to a contingent law of nature (p. 113). That is, the logical possibility that a free person should do good, does not mean that he has the power to do so (p. 80).4The second chapter explores the dialectical opposition of Peter Damian and Peter Abelard regarding divine omnipotence. Third, against Pelagius, Augustine argues that human freedom does not obviate the need for divine grace.
It is possible ( de re) that God should save someone, but it is not possible that God should save someone who deserves to be damned (p. 137). Crucially, Abelard inserts into the account of omnipotence the distinction between necessity de dicto or de sensu and necessity de re. For Abelard, the actual world is not just the best possible world, but the only possible world (p. 133). In this view, God is omnipotent in the way that the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus is omnipotent: constrained by necessity.
This claim is based on the distinction between “puissance absolue” ( potentia absoluta) and “puissance ordinée” ( potentia conditionalis, later ordinata). Thus, God is able to do more than or other than what in fact he does. The central tenet of this opposition is Lombard’s unwillingness to identify divine will and divine omnipotence (p. 145). For God, whatever is possible is necessary, owing to God’s omnipotence for humans, the possible means being open to contraries, such as the one who is damned eventually repenting (p. 139).5The third chapter considers Peter Lombard and his opposition to Abelard and defense of Augustine.
This theological debate culminates in the condemnation of 1277, which endorses essentially the Augustinian position by identifying God’s omnipotence with his autonomy. The remainder of this chapter (p. 150-174) surveys the ways in which the above distinction is incorporated into theological reflection over the next hundred years or so. The only things impossible for God are those which are incompatible with his nature. He rejects Abelard’s quod noluit minime possit by Augustine’s potuit sed noluit (p. 151).
So, showing that the first principle of all is ipsum esse frees Aquinas from the limitation that Aristotle imposes on the first by making it energeia. Thus, act is receptive of and a limitation on esse (p. 178-179). The fourth chapter traces the Thomistic innovation of actus essendi, according to which Aristotelian act ( energeia) is no longer ultimate, but is itself in potency to esse.
So, against Aristotle, act becomes identified with power. The Scholastic bonum est diffusivum sui formulates this postulate, whether or not it is paired with Thomistic existentialism. That the first has this “power” is exactly why Plato identifies the first as “the Good” which is essentially “overflowing”. Thus, Aquinas draws on the Platonic tradition, according to which the first principle of all is “virtually all things” ( dunamis pantōn) (p. 183).
Most important, Scotus transfers the notion of contingency from the realm of secondary causes to God. Crucially, this means that there can be no real relation between God and creatures, since all real relations require that the relata be substances or composites of act and potency.7The chapter on Duns Scotus sets the problem of omnipotence within the refined Scotistic distinction of necessity and contingency (p. 231). And God’s omnipotence is identified with his nature understood as pure actus essendi and is unlimited in any way, since actus non limitatur nisi per potentiam (p. 206). Thus, Aquinas sets his renovated Aristotelian metaphysics within the context of the Platonic spiritual cycle of “stability” ( monē) , “procession” ( proodos) and “reversion” ( epistrophē).
The actualization of either one is contingent, meaning that God does not act necessarily, even though God is a necessary being. But for an eternal God, these contraries become contradictories, because God can will them eternally as possibilities. For us, contingencies are contraries that may or may not be realized diachronically they cannot be actualized simultaneously. That is, it is no longer located in finite being, in particular, in the capacity for alternative courses of action, but in the divine will (p. 234-235). As Aubry nicely explains, the Scotistic account of synchronic contingency is essentially theological.
Scotus thus collapses the distinction between potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata for God acts according to his own will only (p. 270).8There is a brief but provocative conclusion in which Aubry asks what is the contemporary effect of medieval accounts of omnipotence (p. 273). That is, in God will is not prior to intellect or to the good (p. 254-263). This is voluntarism with respect to creatures who are entirely the recipients of God’s effective will, but it is not voluntarism within the divine nature. What in fact occurs is a result of God’s absolute, and absolutely inscrutable will. God can will a rock to be and not to be in eternity (p. 249).
Her all-too-brief reflections on the relation of theology and philosophy to politics raise some interesting questions not the least of which is whether the politics of post-Westphalia Europe can be realistically counted as an effect of Scholastic metaphysics.9This book, like its predecessor, is filled with arresting insights and lucid expositions of highly complex material.
0 kommentar(er)
