So many things have been said about God, that if Popper's 'third world'
contains all of the propositions with "God ..." as subject, including that God
can attain p & ~p, the thing doesn't seem to bother McEvoy. As he notes,
w3 might well contain:
i. McEvoy was being sarcastic.
and
ii. McEvoy was not being sarcastic.
Like Whitman, Popper's Third World "contain multitudes". Geary likes the
complete quotation and treasures his student's repartee: "multitudes of
what?"
(Indeed, the word 'multitude' usually triggers the wrong implicature when
out of context).
In a message dated 2/4/2016 7:08:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes:
God it seems to me blows the hell out of philosophy.
Oddly, I read that to read "Meinong it seems to me blows the hell out of
philosophy."
On the other hand, others might read it as:
Quine it seems to me blows the hell out of philosophy.
Both Meinong and Quine were philosophers. God wasn't.
According to Plotinus's negative way ('via negativa') we can only say what
God is _not_. God is not a philosopher.
Anyway, this to clarify that the collocation:
"Meinongian jungle"
does NOT occur in Grice's "Vacuous Names". He speaks of a "Meinongian
viewpoint" and adds that "Q" (his system, thus named after Quine) "creates no
ontological jungle."
The implicature seems to be, however, "Meinongian jungle."
Back to God.
McEvoy:
"Does Speranza know whether this all-powerful God/god can do an act they
cannot undo?".
The use of 'whether' is a parody on Ryle. For Ryle there are two uses of
'know': know-that and know-how. Know-whether is McEvoy's item in a triad that
Ryle overlooked.
The question,
"Does Speranza know whether almighty God can do an act almighty God cannot
undo?"
seems to presuppose (or 'implicate', as Geary prefers):
i. Almighty God should, by definition, be able to do an act he cannot undo.
This seems to block God's omnipotence. For there would be something God
cannot undo. That is, if we answer the question in the negative.
"It's all different if we answer the question in the affirmative," Geary
allows, "_contra_ Plotinus."
The idea comes naturally from the Bible.
In 1 Timothy 1:17 we read:
To the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
forever and ever. 1 Timothy 1:17
The hymn has a Welsh tune, "St. Denio" by John Roberts.
Note the abuse of negativity, Plotinian at heart:
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,
Nor wanting, nor wasting, Thou rulest in might;
Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring above
Thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
To all, life Thou givest, to both great and small;
In all life Thou livest, the true life of all;
We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree,
And wither and perish—but naught changeth Thee.
Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,
Thine angels adore Thee, all veiling their sight;
Of all Thy rich graces this grace, Lord, impart
Take the veil from our faces, the vile from our heart.
All laud we would render; O help us to see
’Tis only the splendor of light hideth Thee,
And so let Thy glory, almighty, impart,
Through Christ in His story, Thy Christ to the heart.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
