Benjamin Robert Goodman

I wonder which 27 year old Nazi pedophile they’ve got running this account

You know, I do think that the obsession among certain Thomists with insisting that the souls of animals are annihilated upon death speaks to a profound spiritual sickness.

Christology: Analogy or Identity? (Part II) Chalcedon Revisited and a Philosophical Interlude

The second installment of my philosophical dialogue has now been published. I re-examine the interpretative problem of Chalcedon and then dive into the various senses of the term "identity."

‘Past’ and ‘future’ would be themselves arbitrary distinctions, not relevant to eternity. If my death is present to God and enjoys a ‘now necessity’ because God is present to it, it cannot fail to occur as it does. It would be the same as the past events God cannot change.

God, being present to all things, knows all ‘future’ contingents, but if He knows infallibly what I’ve done in the past (only because I’ve done it) then He can know infallibly in the future what I will do (because I will *have* done it from some future vantage).

Saying that God could not change the past is tricky to me. If God cannot change some act (g) that I have done at some time (t) because it is ‘in the past’, then so too is some act (e) I may commit in the future (at some time (t)) *also in the ‘past’ from God’s vantage*.

Four days until Thanksgiving break.

Rather being self-conscious, the thought X is A & these thought are mine and theirs, and none others; we know all this through our thoughts thinking themselves.

It cannot be so that there is “X is A” & there is the act of us judging that “X is A”, for “X is A” is not some content to which I “apply” the judgment that it’s true. The “true” label isn’t some special third thing alongside me & “X is A”.

In our thinking that X is A, our judgment is us thinking it (X is A) worthy to be judged; I self-consciously think this, that X is A is objective, and this objectivity is self-conscious. There is no “X is A” and “those three thinking X is A”, for to know judgment is to know what judgment judges.

The it seems that the truth X is A is only known as us knowing it as objective—as objectively to be known and so valid. What we think is what we know as we think it. Our thoughts think nothing but themselves.

But can what I think (the truth of X is A) be separable from me thinking it? It seems not. Neither can my friends’ thinking X is A be separated from their thinking it, even though they think it absent time (t) & event (z). Their time & event is wholly other than mine.

To think X is A is to think it apart of anything of my friends who also think X is A, so each of us believe X is A independent of any facts about each of us. By thinking so, I think the judgment to be objective, and my thought the validity itself.

Suppose two more come along, & also judges X is A. They do this without anything that is true of me (regardless of my experience at time (t) & event (z), which informs my character). In judging that X is A, they affirm my judgment & its objectivity & validity, & I affirm theirs.

Suppose I judge X to be A, & I do so in part because of my experience at time (t), when event (z) occurs.

If it is true that X is A, then it will be true regardless of (t) & (z). Whether X is A must be true independent of any fact about myself, including my experience.