Hi Dr. Hurd, I interacted with Thomas and mercy in my dissertation so this post is of interest to me--thank you! I have some questions and I would like to post an interaction. Can you help me with further clarification of this paragraph: "We must underline this wholly, and differentiate from e.g., Thomas’s negative judgment which removes only part (the genus) of the concept knowledge (scientia), while still retaining the other part (the specific difference)--which thus results in God having knowledge properly and formally, i.e., as regards the species of knowledge. Propositionally, we say that God is sciens not simpliciter, but only secundum quid, namely according to its species; and likewise that he is not sciens secundum quid, viz., according to its genus." I think this is a key to the article and I am not following the Latin as well as I should. (???)
Please call me Ryan, not to mention I don't have a doctorate :)
This is a central point which presses on a source of confusion and error today, especially stemming (in many ways) from the early modern period. You want to read, as a start, Thomas's SCG I c 89, in the first half of which Thomas removes the genus of passions, and the second half he removes one by one their specific differences.
Remember that Thomas holds, as do most thinkers (but not Scotus!), that one defines a passion by taking its genus from the underlying power, and then its specific difference from its unique object about which the passion turns. So: joy and sadness, hope and fear are all one according to their genus, which is the bodily principle; but they are differentated accordidng to operating, in turn, about good and evil, present/inherent and future: joy is for present good, sadness for present evil; hope for future good, fear for future evil.
Accordingly, when it comes to doctrine of God, we usurp the names of our passions into divinis according to whether or not God has the genus, and then also the specific difference, of such passion. In the case of two of our passions, although not as passions, we retain their specific difference (SCG I c 90, also cf c 91). But in the case of all other passions, we "zero them out entirely," i.e., we remove them not only according to their genus, but also according to their specific difference.
Some predicates we remove in part and retain in part: we therefore affirm them secundum quid, =according to something; and negate them secundum quid, =according to something else; rather than affirmting them simplicter, =without qualification, or negating them simpliciter, =without qualification. The paradigm for this is scientia or knowledge, as in e.g., De ver q 2 a 1 resp.
This is helpful. I plan to read what you suggest above and then interact between our conversation here and my dissertation sections on Thomas/mercy (soon) in a post so I can receive your feedback. I will let you know when I have it up. Also, I ran across info on a lecture you presented on Anselm and impassibility in 2024--would you be inclined to share a summary post on it in the future? The "invulnerability" of God strikes the heart of my work on the integration of the conciliar/Nicene doctrine of the Trinity with Christian counseling. https://davenantinstitute.org/invulnerability-of-god
I'll have to think about it. Thanks for your note of appreciation, however; if you like it, do share my substack with others!, as doing so is extremely helpful for me.
Hi Dr. Hurd, I interacted with Thomas and mercy in my dissertation so this post is of interest to me--thank you! I have some questions and I would like to post an interaction. Can you help me with further clarification of this paragraph: "We must underline this wholly, and differentiate from e.g., Thomas’s negative judgment which removes only part (the genus) of the concept knowledge (scientia), while still retaining the other part (the specific difference)--which thus results in God having knowledge properly and formally, i.e., as regards the species of knowledge. Propositionally, we say that God is sciens not simpliciter, but only secundum quid, namely according to its species; and likewise that he is not sciens secundum quid, viz., according to its genus." I think this is a key to the article and I am not following the Latin as well as I should. (???)
Please call me Ryan, not to mention I don't have a doctorate :)
This is a central point which presses on a source of confusion and error today, especially stemming (in many ways) from the early modern period. You want to read, as a start, Thomas's SCG I c 89, in the first half of which Thomas removes the genus of passions, and the second half he removes one by one their specific differences.
Remember that Thomas holds, as do most thinkers (but not Scotus!), that one defines a passion by taking its genus from the underlying power, and then its specific difference from its unique object about which the passion turns. So: joy and sadness, hope and fear are all one according to their genus, which is the bodily principle; but they are differentated accordidng to operating, in turn, about good and evil, present/inherent and future: joy is for present good, sadness for present evil; hope for future good, fear for future evil.
Accordingly, when it comes to doctrine of God, we usurp the names of our passions into divinis according to whether or not God has the genus, and then also the specific difference, of such passion. In the case of two of our passions, although not as passions, we retain their specific difference (SCG I c 90, also cf c 91). But in the case of all other passions, we "zero them out entirely," i.e., we remove them not only according to their genus, but also according to their specific difference.
Some predicates we remove in part and retain in part: we therefore affirm them secundum quid, =according to something; and negate them secundum quid, =according to something else; rather than affirmting them simplicter, =without qualification, or negating them simpliciter, =without qualification. The paradigm for this is scientia or knowledge, as in e.g., De ver q 2 a 1 resp.
This is helpful. I plan to read what you suggest above and then interact between our conversation here and my dissertation sections on Thomas/mercy (soon) in a post so I can receive your feedback. I will let you know when I have it up. Also, I ran across info on a lecture you presented on Anselm and impassibility in 2024--would you be inclined to share a summary post on it in the future? The "invulnerability" of God strikes the heart of my work on the integration of the conciliar/Nicene doctrine of the Trinity with Christian counseling. https://davenantinstitute.org/invulnerability-of-god
I'll have to think about it. Thanks for your note of appreciation, however; if you like it, do share my substack with others!, as doing so is extremely helpful for me.
The talk is available on youtube: https://youtu.be/AkbKyfjnvm0?si=0SeQrg8KkiYrVZ5V
Thank you!