Well as long as Mr. Fortier is not mostly sort of disagreeing with the teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm okay with that. The popular opinion on something, even the popular opinion on the teaching of the Church, is not in fact what the Church teaches.
Ken, I imagine, does not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church - otherwise he would probably still be in it. However, he does not expound on that very much, rather, he does bring out things he disagrees on, and refers readers to check out exactly what the official teachings are - sending them to Catholic sources. If you don't think that is fair, well, all's fair in love and war, as the saying goes.
On of the reasons I say "mostly sort of" is that I THINK it's right to say that Plato's immortal soul has no personality, and doesn't think of itself as Joe or Sally or Barack. Plato SEEMS to be in the "cosmic soup" school, or close to it, while the popular opinion seems to be that Little Suzi is now one of God's angels, returning to whence she came. (Cf the very weird movie "The Bluebird of Happiness")
Very sharp. I follow you here...
But in that connection, why do you say, While it admits that man himself is a soul, ...
Hmmm...because of the teaching of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is quite explicit in saying that. How's that for keeping it short and to the point?
Are we stating from the position that the Catholic Church is defending, surlily, some suspect position and only grudgingly conceding Mr. Fortier's points when all other options are closed to it? That's not a game I especially want to play.
Not at all. Just stating what I read. I believe they are being very honest in saying that both the Hebrew "nephesh" and the Greek "psuche" refer to the whole man. And in their follow-up, which is a philosophical stance, I don't believe that Ken, nor I, accept that stance as something we must believe in. It is in the realm of supposition and presumption that other "options", as you say, are put forth.
FYI, Both Ken and I attended College and enrolled in philosophy classes. In Ken's case, he also enrolled in Logic classes at the same time - which he admitted to me caused him problems in accepting much of what philosophy entailed. He rejects philosophy as forming his beliefs, preferring the pure word as found in the Scriptures.
I think the difference about immortality is on the question of intrinsic vs God-given immortality. The proposition, "God can not bestow immortality on the human soul," is not one I'd like to defend. The proposition that God HAS not bestowed immortality on the human soul is controversial, and while it runs against the general thrust of Mr. Fortier's word study, there are hints ("I shall not die but live," comes to mind) that it may not be a slam-dunk either way.
Intrisic vs God-given immortality? Hmmm...I would "off-hand" reject the "intrisic" idea as being purely Platonic. On the other "on-hand" side, hold tight that only God can bestow immortality to man. I would say that the real question is stated by your second sentence; You say it is controversial; I say that God has, in what He chose to reveal to us in the Scriptures, not yet gifted any man, other than Jesus, with immortality. If you would like to discuss it on that thought, I would be willing to accommodate you. What you "hint" at is a good start.
(Just for giggles, my "Schema" is that my soul, that is "I" died when I was grafted into Christ, and now I live with Christ's life, for it is written, "Now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.")
Actually (not giggling), I "mostly sort of" agree with you here.
Moving along ... One of the things that brought me up short in my Fortier-like line of thought was that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to agree with it. For me, if Arians firmly maintain something I've been thinking, I'm going to go over it again ... and carefully, making a list, checking it twice.
Let me make a point here. It will not do to condemn a doctrine because it is sometines held in conjunction with false doctrines. The fact that some sect, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, have grasped a truth is certainly no reason for anyone to discard that truth. Neither does one become one of their followers because he agrees with them on a particular truth they may hold, or why else not accuse all who hold to the Virgin Birth of following Roman Catholicism?
At the end of Book III chap 5 Aristotle sounds (but I think it's misleading) really gnostic when he says mind "set free from current conditions" alone is "immortal and eternal".
Here I'd suggest that it's important to understand the difference between "eternal" and "From everlasting to everlasting".
I agree, and that is a worthy topic for discussion.
***As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things.***
I'd say it is in the nature of reasonable discourse that things are assumed, and further that the minute THIS conversation leaves being a mere descriptive account of the use of the words nephesh, psyche, etc. in Scripture and gets prescriptive ("We should think of soul in this or that way") we are hauling in assumptions, one of the most debatable of which is that the words are used with technical philosophical or theological rigor in Scripture.
I think that this is where we would have to agree to disagree. If I were to say that "I think we should translate this Greek or Hebrew term by this English word", would you say I was making an "assumption"? Or would you agree that my choice of words may or may not be correct in your way of thinking? If the latter, I would then ask you the important question of WHY? Would you say that is philosophical thinking, or just seeking the best word to use?
Similarly, while I am not going to look to Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, or the disciples of Siddhartha for the ultimate truth about the Ultimate Truth, I think they all have useful things to say about the relationships among certain thoughts and opinions, and about the challenges of grasping and articulating the things that matter with the mind and tongue.
Good for you! Same here!
So I won't take any of these guys as guides for the whole journey, but I will still consult them from time to time, just as ded reckoning can tell me, with perilous imprecision, more or less where I am, but only consulting heaven will tell me reliably where I am.
Well said.
Okay. yeah. that was long.
Yeah, wasn't it. Same as my response. Long but enjoyable. It's been a long time since I've taken part in such a conversation. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I thank you very much.
First on the Witnesses and that thing. I absolutely agree that if a certain candidate says both that I cling bitterly to my Bible and the sky is blue, I can deny the bitterness and affirm the blueness. But if that same candidate says the sky is blue and surrounds that with 99 more propositions all of which are grossly false, I'm inclined to go check the sky again, just in case something happened. So that's all the usefulness I get out of the Witnesses. Check everything twice, or more, hold fast to that which is good.
Hmmm...I would "off-hand" reject the "intrinsic" idea as being purely Platonic.
The line between creator and creature is fuzzy in Plato, and so wide that only a miracle can cross it in Xty. Which is why we bow at the "et incarnatus" in the Creed. Glory be to God, He gave us the miracle we needed!
On the other side, I say things like, God doesn't foresee; He sees; He didn't see Adam fall and the foresee the Cross. Rather He sees the fall and sees the cross (and the consummation.)
Now I have some, to me artificial, arguments, one from Peter, the other from Aristotle which show to my satisfaction why this is a necessary idea.
And where it gets especially dicey is in our thinking about the Asssumption of the BVM (as if that weren't dicey enough, huh?) in that we say that she "currently" enjoys what all the blessed "will" enjoy. And the best I can do to make room for that in my alleged thinking is to say that "eternity" "comprehends" all of time.
In other words, I recognize I am on shaky ground here.
I could go on. For example, you may know that in our thinking Purgatory, which is VERY temporal, is no more after the consummation.
But spare me, unless you're really interested.
I am really committed, barring a memo from the Vatican, to my account of my having died. Let me try to lay it out briefly:
In the day that we ate the forbidden fruit we surely died. But the dying had to work its way out from the central breach of relationship with Life Himself and to this day it takes our poor bodies several decades to figure it out. Okay so far?
IHS brought the death of all humanity to completion. (And also to transformation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.)
In that act or event or series of acts or events which we can call "coming to IHS" or his coming to us individually (and leaving aside all the issues about baptism) we are joined with His completed death, and, in the Spirit, His resurrected life is now ours.
Not only does it take our bodies a while to behave accordingly, but even our hearts, or our subjective experience of them at least, are slow on the uptake. I dare to say, "It is well with my soul," but if a bad guy burst into my office now, I bet I would, well, have a few sphincter control issues, an adrenaline dump, and all the physical and many of the psychological signs of mortal fear. This is likely despite my being persuaded to dare to hope that my good Lord will see that all comes out as well as can be and better than I can imagine. I am slow on the uptake, though a tad faster when I remember to leave tempo issues to Him.
Now I think we don't have much witness to the state of humans between their death and the consummation, and what witness we have is, at best, unclear. Do the martyrs sleep under the altar now? What are the Apostles actually doing "right now"? I'm blest if I can tell.
But, in another way, I don't much care one way or another. As long as the "blue-bird of Happiness" or related Platonic, Hindu, neo-Platonic blah blah notions of the soul as a little spark of the divine trapped in my gross body -- as long as they are just stomped on and only thought of again in order to construct counter-arguments, I am happy either to sleep for a spell, which would perhaps involve so awareness at the end of a passage of time, or to pass, directly or in stages, to the Joy of my Lord.
What I will insist upon (until He shows me different) is that it is HIS life in HIS Spirit which lives, not me, not my life.
How's that?
(BTW, what college? I went to St. John's Annapolis and to The Episcopal seminary in Alexandria VA.)(I am NOT a good student. I am, however, enthusiastic.)
I think every translation makes a tertium quid. I'd even suggest that translations of the Bible into English have altered English, affecting diction and rhythms.
"To choose the best word" is no small thing in any event. Hebrews 11:1, to take an extreme example, is tough. Finding the best English word for hypostasis?
Would you say that is philosophical thinking, or just seeking the best word to use?
I guess I can't see picking the best word as unphilosophical.
But thanks for the question. I'll chew on it.