Language as a Proof for God's Existence

The Ethics of Authenticity

Inescapable Horizons by Mark C. Henrie

ἀνθρώπους

New, but not improved... A Response to Public Orthodoxy, on the Creed by Fr. John Whiteford

John Fotopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, in their recent article "Women and the Creed: Who For Us Humans and for Our Salvation," (published by "Public Orthodoxy") have expressed their unhappiness that the Greek Archdiocese has decided to use a translation of the Creed that is in line with pretty much every other translation that English speaking Orthodox Christians have been using for as long as we have had Orthodox Christians speaking English. They are offended by the use of the word "man".

2016 DSPT Aquinas Lecture

Life, Language and Christ: A Thomistic Approach -- A lecture by Olivier-Thomas Venard, OP

Livestream

"God become one of us." =? "God became a man" vs. "God became man."

Is it be problematic (or even heretical) to say, "God become one of us"? Does it necessary imply that God became a human person? At the very least it seems equivalent to "God became a human individual" or "God became a individual human."

A New Direction for Thomism

With respect to theology - "ressourcement" Thomism may be a necessary step, but what's next after that?

What if...
Aquinas had been fluent in Greek and had access to Aristotle and the Greek Fathers in Greek? How would his theological synthesis have turned
out differently? Would his hardened Greek critics be more receptive to his work? How would Aquinas have responded to Saint Maximos the Confessor or Gregory of Palamas?

A living Thomism engaged with both the Latin and Greek theological traditions.

Are Western theological languages too tied to Latin? Could 'native' words be adapted to Greek nuances, or would we
have to use transliterated words for the vocabulary instead?

Do most of our lay academic theologians possess an adequate grasp of Greek and the Greek Fathers? Most are not even familiar with the Latin theological tradition, in Latin or in English. Theologians in religious orders may be more qualified to undertake this work, but even then, how many of them have a proper grasp of Latin and Greek? How much Greek do Dominicans study, for example?

Angry Words By Tom Bartlett
Will one researcher's discovery deep in the Amazon destroy the foundation of modern linguistics?

The tyranny of possession

I'm not a grammarian or logician, so this is probably in need of correction.

In English, and in other languages, one can predicate one thing of another through "to be" but also "to have." "My hair is black" vs. "I have black hair" -- how different is the meaning of these two sentences. But is thinking in terms of possession potentially dangerous because it may be coupled with an erroneous understanding of dominion or ownership?

I have a body. --> I own my body. --> I can do with it as I please.

One can make the first statement about physical reality without having a wrong attitude of self-ownership. But isn't it the case that our moral attitudes can distort our understanding of physical reality, and not just of the ethical life?

What is it to have something? To be able to use or control it, but also to have the first claim (not necessarily an exclusive claim) to its use? To be able to use or dispose of it at will? It is mine, and not yours. To define it in terms of "ownership" does not clarify, since our understanding ownership follows having and is not prior to it?

"To have" may be in different ways, but the problem is to understand it only with reference to absolute sovereignty?

This is related to an ethics grounded upon the good. It can make a significant difference between conceiving of the good as something to be done as opposed to something that is possessed. Striving to possess something as opposed to acting well (or virtuously) -- having God vs. living or being in union with God. Thinking in terms of habitus may foster too much of a subjective conception of happiness that exacerbates self-love?

Happiness Surveys and the Good of Ethics

We have often received reports through the MSM of the results of surveys trying to find the world's happiest country, and so on.

The most recent item I've seen that makes use of such surveys is Jim Bannon's "The Pursuit of Happiness" (EB), which uses the results of astudy comparing the 50 states, which attempted to link objective criteria with respondents' subjective life-satisfaction scores.

How does one determine unhappiness, or dissatisfaction? The failure to attain the goods that one wants or expects? How is this quantified in a survey? Some surveys may find a correlation with simplicity in lifestyle--others may not, especially when the top 5 happiest countries are industrialized. The definition of happiness is left up to the individual -- though external markers are sought to justify their impression. As far as I have seen, these surveys do not rely upon a notion of happiness universally applicable to all, a standard by which societies (and their ways of life) everywhere can be judged.

But on to my main point: it seems natural to us to think of goods as things that we possess. If we have the good or goods, then we are happy. Is this a problem of language? Does the word "good" lend itself to thinking in terms of abstractions and habits, things that we have? That is, because the word "good" is an [abstract] noun, are we inclined to seek a res that is a substance, rather than an accident. Do we find this problematic conception in other languages, or is it limited only to English? (Merriam-Webster, etymology)
Or is it more the psychology of fallen nature -- we spend much time thinking about what we wish to acquire in order to satisfy inordinate desires? Then, when we come across the word in a writings dealing with ethics, we first think of things before anything else. (Did utilitarianism/consequentialism play any role in promoting this understanding?)

Which of the Greek or Latin Fathers talked about goods as being things that are possessed? I can't remember St. Augustine's treatment. I do remember Boethius talking about the goods that are constitutive of happiness. He seems to share that conception of  the relationship of "good" to happiness with many moderns. From The Consolation of Philosophy: Aristotle does enumerate "goods" (things to be possessed) which are identified by various people as being happiness in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, but this is a dialectical discussion(?) aimed at showing that these opinions are incorrect.

What needs to be recovered is an understanding of good(s) of happiness primarily as an activity, and not as something that we have/possess, either "internal" to us (e.g. virtue or office/power/ability) or external to us (e.g. family). These latter goods are instruments or occasions for activity or the exercise of virtue.

If they are to be really meaningful, these surveys should not be a "sociological" study of what people want and desire and are missing, but a study of how people live. But that would probably require too much of an academic survey.

*Boethius's account, or any traditional Catholic theology for that matter, does seem to be right with respect to  naming God as our first ("highest") good. But this requires a nuanced explanation.

Does everyday use of analogy debase a language?

Common expressions that you'll hear in the United States include, "My bad," and "You're good." It's rather easy to decipher the meaning of these expressions and it is usually clear that the speaker is not speaking of a moral quality or attribute, but something else. Certainly these expressions show that the use of analogy is quite common in our language, even if we do not know that we are doing it unless we are prompted to reflection. Still, is this a sign that our language is in decline? Instead of saying, "My bad," or, "You're good," should we not retain more traditional expressions like, "My mistake, " and "You are fine."

James Chastek, Language as disproportionate to our concepts.