Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:14:57.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divine persons as relational qua-objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2018

ROBERT C. KOONS
ROBERT C. KOONS*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX 78712, USA
*
e-mail: koons@austin.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity consistent with a very strong version of the thesis of divine simplicity? Yes, so long as the simple divine nature is a relational nature, a nature that could be characterized in terms of such relations as knowing and loving. This divine nature functions simultaneously as agent, patient, and action: as knower, known and knowledge, and lover, beloved, and love. I will draw on work on qua-objects by Kit Fine and Nicholas Asher and on my own account of relational facts to elucidate this model more fully.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 54 , Special Issue 3: Metaphysics of the Trinity: New Directions , September 2018 , pp. 337 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asher, Nicholas (2006) ‘Things and their aspects’, Philosophical Issues, 16, 1–23.Google Scholar
Brower, Jeffrey (2008) ‘Making sense of divine simplicity’, Faith and Philosophy, 25, 3–20.Google Scholar
Brower, Jeffrey & Rea, Michael (2005) ‘Material constitution and the Trinity’, Faith and Philosophy, 22, 487–505.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit (1982) ‘Acts, events, and things’, in Leinfellner, Werner, Kraemer, Eric, & Schank, Jeffrey (eds) Sprache und Ontologie: Akten des Sechsten Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums (Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky), 97–105.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit (1985) Reasoning with Arbitrary Objects (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Hughes, Christopher (1989) On a Complex Theory of a Simple God: An Investigation in Aquinas’ Philosophical Theology (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Klima, Guya (2013) ‘The medieval problem of universals’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/universals-medieval/>..>Google Scholar
Koons, Robert C. (2017) ‘The ontological and epistemological superiority of hylomorphism’, Synthese, doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1295-6.Google Scholar
Loux, Michael (2006) ‘Aristotle's constituent ontology’, Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 2, 207–250.Google Scholar
Oppy, Graham (2003) ‘The devilish complexities of divine simplicity’, Philo, 6, 10–22.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1980) Does God Have a Nature? (Marquette MI: Marquette University Press).Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander R. (2003) ‘On three problems of divine simplicity’, <http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/On3ProblemsOfDivineSimplicity.html>..>Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander R. (2008) ‘On two problems of divine simplicity’, in Kvanvig, Jon (ed.) Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, I (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 150–167.Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander R. (2009) ‘Brower and Rea's constitution account of the Trinity’, in McCall, Thomas & Rea, Michael (eds) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 314–328.Google Scholar
Vallicella, William (1992) ‘Divine simplicity: a new defense’, Faith and Philosophy, 9, 508–525.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1991) ‘Divine simplicity’, in J. E. Tomberlin (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives, 5, Philosophy of Religion, 531–552.Google Scholar