St. Thomas has a consistent response to Cross’s dilemma, but it is hard to make out some of the relevant details of the account. The Thomistic account of immortality requires two claims: 1.) the same soul persists through death 2.) the same person does not persist through death. I waver between seeing the tension between the claims as fatal, as no big deal, and as opening up promising avenues for anthropology that are not yet explored.
Pages
Blogroll
- Agent Intellect
- Alexander Pruss
- Assimilatio Dei
- BERQ. ON LOGIC
- BERQUIST ON PHILOSOPHY
- BERQUST PHYSICS
- Documenta Catholica Omnia
- Don Colacho
- Edward Feser
- Fr. Alain Contat
- Joseph Bolin
- Latin Scholasticism Texts at Googlebooks (Scroll down to comments)
- Leah Libresco
- Lee Faber and Michael
- Mark Shea
- Matthew Peterson
- Maverick Philosopher
- Mike Flynn
- New Empiricism
- Robert Godwin
- Siris
- THE LIBRARY
- The Only Translation of Contat’s Logica
- The Whirlpool's Rim
- Thomist News
- Victor Reppert
- Vital Remnants
- WHAT IS FORCE?
Recent Comments
love the girls on A Catholic’s view on con… K. Mapson on Deism and creation Evan on Horace on the disappointment o… thenyssan on A Catholic’s view on con… love the girls on A Catholic’s view on con… Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Thirteen by Beccary.
DavidM said,
December 13, 2012 at 11:22 am
Interesting. Do you have a citation handy in support of (2)?
James Chastek said,
December 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Response to objection 5. And in other like places.
Benjamin Espen said,
December 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm
A friend of mine, John J. Reilly, used to make a distinction between a person, a human, and a homo sapiens. He said they are not just different things but different kinds of things. Human is an essence, homo sapiens is a kind of monkey, and a person is a phenomenon. I always thought this insight was broadly Thomistic, and this post encourages this belief.