In article <ptIZj.58$ZM.4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jani says...
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:xh3Yj.3194$Zy1.1525@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <HS5Xj.2183$za1.1662@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jani says...
>>>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:aY6Wj.246$ll1.47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> In article <m3OVj.357$za1.108@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jani says...
[snip]
>> And where I am trying to go is to show you that _all_ your concerns
>> about 'relativsm' presume the same disastrous hermeneutic mistake,
>> ignoring the second half of the verse. So the correct solution,
>> rather than worry about relativism, is to pay attention to the
>> whole verse.
>But I'm not coming at it from a Christian perspective, Matthew, that's
the
>point.
Then it is _not_ the "Golden Rule" you are describing: it is the
"Fool's Gold Rule" instead.
>I'm looking at whether the Golden Rule is so universal that *all*
>religious cultures would have to subscribe to it, or whether it has to be
>'juggled' to fit in with those cultures.
No, that is not what you are doing. For to do this, you would first
have to know what the Golden Rule is by itself, but this is what you
are _refusing_ to do whenever you insist on analysing it from a
'relativist' perspective.
[snip]
>> If the person in your example is unaware of the [fasting] rule,
>> then he can't be following the Golden Rule, not as Christ stated
>> it.
>Exactly! The GR is not specifically Christian, and whichever version
>of the GR one subscribes to, it requires the same worldview on the
>part of both actor and recipient.
And my point is: if it is not Christ's version, then it is NOT "the
Golden Rule" It is, at best, "the Tinsel Rule", or "the Fool's Gold
Rule";)
>[]
>The difference is that the
>>>> _will_ is by definition rational and natural. 'Wish' is often
>>>> neither. This is why Theophylact says, commenting on this very
>>>> verse:
>>>> what you do not love yourself, do not do to others; in this
>>>> instance, both the law and the prophets agree with what natural law
>>>> dictates to us [http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#07]
>>>> Note the reference to _natural_ law. This is justified by Christ's
>>>> reference to our _natural_ will, in the word 'will'.
>[]
>>>The OP implied that babies are born with a 'natural will', but it
>>>becomes subverted to 'wish' because of human interaction. Is this
>>>what you mean?
>> No. Wish is not a _form_ of the natural will. Rather, will depends on
>> and follows wish, but not in a simply reducible way. For example, we
>> may all wish to be treated like kings, but we cannot _will_ to do it,
>> since it is beyond our power.
>No, I didn't mean that the one follows on from the other; rather that
>the OP was distingui****ng between innate 'will' - something one is
>born with - and 'wish' that is desire created by living in the world.
>> The OP was not saying anything that specific about the will/wish
>> (only something much more vague and sentimental). So I rather doubt
>> that is what the OP meant, too.
>Heh, well, perhaps I'm helping her out, there ;)
That would be a bad idea;)
>> How familiar are you with natural law theory? Have you ever read
>> any Aquinas on Natural Law, or on the human will (e.g. ST I
>> q. 75-79)? Or have you seen the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
>> articles on Free Will? It would be easier to explain if I could
>> count on at least that much common background.
>Eh, that's hard to answer, actually. Yes, I'm familiar with ST, and
>also with *some* of the scholarly debate. But philosophy is not my
>field, and I can't really argue from *within* the Christian paradigm,
>only from my own relativist viewpoint. Assume common background, and
>if I can't keep up, I'll ask.
But you just gave me every reason _not_ to assume "common
background". Especially with your insistence on 'relativism': after
all once you come to _understand_ Aquinas's "adaequatio rei et
intellectus", you cannot _help_ but agree with it;)
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
