The concept of God continuously willing the universe's existence can serve as a bridge between these guys. Both agree that the universe depends on God's active will for its existence, though they conceptualize this dependency differently. Aquinas sees it as God's unchanging will sustaining the universe, while Whitehead views it as God's processual engagement with the world. Tomatoe-tomatoe. The idea that God continuously wills the universe can be reconciled by viewing Aquinas’s unchanging will in light of Whitehead's processual nature. God's eternal act of will encompasses both the changelessness of God (in His perfect and complete actuality) and the dynamic involvement of Whitehead's God in the becoming of the world.
1 month ago
Anonymous
This is a concept of god based on empty theorising, it’s worthless. Actual experience shows us polytheism is correct.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Polytheists are morons, practically all idol worshippers too, literally worshipping something they made with their own hands, bowing to them and whatnot. It's pathetic.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Idols are tools to aid communication dumbass. Are you speaking to your phone when you call someone else? No, you're speaking to the person.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You may know this already and I may be being condescending, but if you want a handy neat term to refer to this idea (of God’s will continuously upholding the universe), it’s called occasionalism in theology, probably most famously held by Al-Ghazali. (Interestingly, there is held to be a fair amount of influence by some of the most well-known Islamic philosophers like Averroes (Ibn Rushd) on Aquinas, but Aquinas of course “cleansed” it of the Islamic trappings and applied it to Catholic theology, of course).
I also wonder if comparisons could be made between the changeless aspect of God/the active processual aspect of God between something like the Palamist distinction between the essence and energies of God (in Eastern Orthodox mysticism). It also is reminiscent of the distinction between Nirguna Brahman (Unqualified Brahman) and Saguna Brahman (Brahman with Qualities) in some formulations of Vedanta. Besides the identical meaning split between Parashiva and Parashakti (also put as Paramashiva and Paramashakti) in Kashmir Shaivism and other closely linked Tantric schools of Shaivism or Shaktism.
Lutherans and some other sects of Protestants study/read Aquinas too, you know.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Ok, so what? All christians are pseuds who try to use philosophy to shore up their theology and then go into dishonest mental gymnastics as soon as they realise their theology is bullshit
It’s process philosophy. It doesn’t start with a stable foundation but a series of consequences. You cannot atomize reality or compartmentalize it. There is no essence or truthiness. You can only observe it and make notes of the observations as they pertain to the holistic movement of process. You homosexualisraelite.
A waste of time. Heidegger completed metaphysics
Aquinas did it first.
Aquinas is pleb shit for zoomers on their tradcath larp
The concept of God continuously willing the universe's existence can serve as a bridge between these guys. Both agree that the universe depends on God's active will for its existence, though they conceptualize this dependency differently. Aquinas sees it as God's unchanging will sustaining the universe, while Whitehead views it as God's processual engagement with the world. Tomatoe-tomatoe. The idea that God continuously wills the universe can be reconciled by viewing Aquinas’s unchanging will in light of Whitehead's processual nature. God's eternal act of will encompasses both the changelessness of God (in His perfect and complete actuality) and the dynamic involvement of Whitehead's God in the becoming of the world.
This is a concept of god based on empty theorising, it’s worthless. Actual experience shows us polytheism is correct.
Polytheists are morons, practically all idol worshippers too, literally worshipping something they made with their own hands, bowing to them and whatnot. It's pathetic.
Idols are tools to aid communication dumbass. Are you speaking to your phone when you call someone else? No, you're speaking to the person.
You may know this already and I may be being condescending, but if you want a handy neat term to refer to this idea (of God’s will continuously upholding the universe), it’s called occasionalism in theology, probably most famously held by Al-Ghazali. (Interestingly, there is held to be a fair amount of influence by some of the most well-known Islamic philosophers like Averroes (Ibn Rushd) on Aquinas, but Aquinas of course “cleansed” it of the Islamic trappings and applied it to Catholic theology, of course).
I also wonder if comparisons could be made between the changeless aspect of God/the active processual aspect of God between something like the Palamist distinction between the essence and energies of God (in Eastern Orthodox mysticism). It also is reminiscent of the distinction between Nirguna Brahman (Unqualified Brahman) and Saguna Brahman (Brahman with Qualities) in some formulations of Vedanta. Besides the identical meaning split between Parashiva and Parashakti (also put as Paramashiva and Paramashakti) in Kashmir Shaivism and other closely linked Tantric schools of Shaivism or Shaktism.
Lutherans and some other sects of Protestants study/read Aquinas too, you know.
Ok, so what? All christians are pseuds who try to use philosophy to shore up their theology and then go into dishonest mental gymnastics as soon as they realise their theology is bullshit
That would be Nietzsche. Heidegger showed us the way forward into post-metaphysics.
both were refuted by Parmenides
They wrote the books at about the same time I think
What section are you on?
I just got the book a couple of days ago. Currently on "Categories of Existence".
Thanks.
Moreso what did (you) escape from to get here?
Will this help?
No one in the Whitehead thread has read Whitehead. You shall not expect the answer
I thought IQfy is the intellectual board, so I came here for advice.
I've read Whitehead but am r*tarded.
It’s process philosophy. It doesn’t start with a stable foundation but a series of consequences. You cannot atomize reality or compartmentalize it. There is no essence or truthiness. You can only observe it and make notes of the observations as they pertain to the holistic movement of process. You homosexualisraelite.
yes it's very good, read this and then Adventures of Ideas
Make Book Covers Cool Again