Update and Restart

For any readers of my blog, an obvious thing to note is that I have not made any new posts in a while. In fact, its been a little over a year and half since I last uploaded a post. This is due to the fact that there have been numerous significant changes in my personal life which have made me, unfortunately, neglect my blog, but also has inhibited me from engaging in philosophy and theology more generally. One the biggest changes has been that I've discerned out of the Jesuits and am now engaged to a wonderful woman, which is why the blog has a new name. When I am actually married, the blog's name will change again for one final time to "The Married Thomist." 

Nevertheless, over the past ten months or so, I have reignited my interest in these subjects and plan on restarting my blog. I've also expanded my interests beyond just analytic philosophy and I hope to engage other forms of philosophy and theology as a result. I'm not sure how frequently I will post new articles to the blog, but I will try to be as regular as possible. There should be some new posts soon, and hopefully they'll have better titles than my previous posts.

For anyone who reads this, God Bless you.

Comments

  1. JacobJune 23, 2024 at 12:44 PM

    Congratulations on the engagement! The blog title makes more sense now, I thought it just meant a kind of philosophical engagement lol

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In Defense of the Proof of God in De Ente et Essentia: A Response to Existential Inertia

         I wrote this article a couple of years ago in the hopes of having it published in an undergrad journal,  but I was unable to do so. I am now uploading this to the blog because I do not have plans on publishing it, and if I decide to try and publish it again, I will edit and expand the current version since this paper does not engage all of Joe's work on existential inertia, but I think it's a good starting point for my  engagement of his work. I hope whoever  reads this finds it helpful.   Introduction In an early work called De Ente et Essentia , St. Thomas Aquinas makes an argument for the existence of God, whom Aquinas takes to be pure existence itself. Critical to his argument is the notion that substances do not have existence in themselves, but rather are granted existence from another, namely God, who has existence in itself and is, therefore, pure existence itself. Since this is the case, if substances do actually have existe...
Read more

A Brief Explication of the De Ente Proof

St. Thomas Aquinas is probably most well known for his “Five Ways”, Quinquae Viae, found in the Summa Theologiae (ST I, q. 2, a. 3). However, these arguments are frequently misunderstood because they are often presented totally removed from their relation to the rest of Aquinas’s corpus, which makes them appear much weaker than they actually are. For example, Aquinas’s First Way is often displayed as being nothing more than a reiteration of Aristotle's argument for an unmoved mover in Book 8 of the physics, however this fails to capture the novelty of the First Way, and the other Five Ways in general (Physics 251a8-251b10). The actual power of these arguments comes from Aquinas’s metaphysics of esse as presented in the De ente et essentia . This power is mostly clearly observable in chapter 4 of the De ente et essentia because this is where Aquinas provides his argument for God’s existence as first cause while explicitly utilizing his metaphysics of esse . In order to fully ...
Read more

A Response to Two Objections to the Pruss-Koons PSR

Joe Schmid of Majesty of Reason released a three-thousand subscriber special Q&A video on his channel a few months ago, and one of the questions he was asked revolved around a possible way that a naturalist could avoid skepticism while also not being committed to the Pruss-Koons PSR. For those who don’t know, the Pruss-Koons PSR states that all natural facts, where natural means bounded or limited, have explanations; Pruss and Koons have a phenomenal paper where they provide powerful reason for thinking that a denial of their PSR entails global skepticism (see here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-020-01482-3 ). In the Q&A, Joe goes over two possible ways a naturalist could avoid this skepticism whilst remaining not committed to the Pruss-Koons PSR (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0QRtp07TbQ&t=9906s - the relevant section is at 2:43:35). In the paper, and in Koons’ discussion with Oppy, they argue that if one denies their PSR they have no reason...
Read more