Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lukas Merrell's avatar

I am really thankful for this article. I have learned a lot from it.

I wondered if you could clarify Aquinas in ST 1.13.11. You are suggesting he is doing a metaphysical move by naming God HE WHO IS and, therefore, he is expressing that being is the ultimate metaphysical principle instead of Goodness.

But I read Aquinas as doing epistemology when discussing the name of God. Isn’t he saying that the way we receive God is through his goodness since it is by definition relational. And therefore, there must be something “further in” about God that is harder to know since it is incomunicable—i.e. his being.

Or am I misunderstanding him here?

B. John Doyle's avatar

Thanks for posting this Dr. Boersma. I would be grateful to know of a discussion forum either for this paper or the topic. I am interested to know about the extent of an intersection with process philosophy (which I find scientifically compelling), and the possibility of preserving some form of univocity that preserves a special place for God, e.g., as being qua being. Apologies if these questions are out of place here.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?