OmegaPoint 🇻🇦

a Catholic Mechanical Engineer and a Huge Lover of Philosophy ( Scholasticism and Kantianism ). Beate Ioannes Duns Scotus, ora pro nobis 🙏

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

“Being as such has one formal concept, which in the intellect does not represent any of the inferiors of being, or those together, to which formal concept in our intellect there also corresponds one objective concept, prescinded from the concepts of its inferiors.

[𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘴 @_bonaventurian]

"This most beautiful flower of the root of Jesse (Isa. 11:1), which had blossomed in the Incarnation and withered in the Passion, thus blossomed again in the Resurrection so as to become the beauty of all."

- St. Bonaventure (LV, 35)

Happy Easter everyone, Christ has Risen!

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

@_bonaventurian Awesome!! Congratulations!!

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

Among our family… oh, how beautiful the memories were, how beautiful our gatherings when we came together.
But how painful it is that our gathering has become a farewell. How many beloved ones leave us, shocking our hearts…

When she goes, she leaves behind nothing but wounds, and with every day that passes without her, the wound grows deeper and never heals.

She was just beside us… and then she was gone. We didn’t even get the chance to say goodbye. She left without a final greeting, and in the end, we could only walk her to her grave.

We carried her coffin with tears, hoping that each tear could bring her back.
And what can a person say when he buries his own beloved with his own hands? He plants pain, and harvests only patience. And what good is a long life if it’s filled with loss? To his eyes, the whole world becomes nothing but a grave.

It has been more than a month since i have lost my aunt who was like my second mother. May God rest her soul in peace.

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

“You arose, O my Saviour, with great might, and tore asunder the sting of Hades for me. You gave me Your Flesh and Blood that I might live because of them, and made me to hear Your voice, saying, “He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him. For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who feeds on Me will live because of Me”.

- from the fraction to The Son

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

“If you want to know how Christ condemned sin, look at His works:
See how He condemned pride by humility, how He condemned hatred by love, how He condemned impurity by purity, how He condemned anger by patience, how He condemned lies, hypocrisy, and deceit by truth, sincerity, and courage, how He condemned the lust for wealth and luxury by poverty. Then look how He condemned cruelty, oppression, treachery, and corruption by endurance, forgiveness, and mercy.”

- Matthew The Poor

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

My philosophical evolution in 7 steps:

1- ibn arabi’s mysticism
2- Sadrianism
3- platonism
4-kantianism
5- presuppositionalism
6- thomism
7- Scotism

[Simon Schäfer @SimonSchfe45703]

My philosophical evolution in 7 steps, and yours?:
1. German Idealism
2. Kierkegaard/ Karl Jaspers/ Wittgenstein
3. Swinburne
4. Aristotelian Scholasticism
5. Anselm/ Plantinga
6. Platonism
7. Just normal analytic philosophy (though still incorporating a lot from 4.-6.)

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

@SimonSchfe45703 You need Scotism

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

@goobyscotus2000 @GnomeBasedman It’s an argument from fittingness

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

“ The mistake we make is that we want to see Him in the midst of the daily events that fill our mental and emotional emptiness. But in fact the Lord is present now beyond all these things, beyond time and events, which He controls according to His own wise plan. The alert and simple soul notices the touch of His hand writing the story of its salvation through the years and the succession of events. Our successes and our failures work together in a positive way guided by the Almighty for our salvation. Temporal losses are not spiritual losses, and trouble, sadness, pain, and sickness are the language of divine providence, its secret code, which when deciphered in the Spirit spells resurrection, joy,
and eternal glory.”

- Fr Matthew The Poor

[Onku @OnkuOh]

"The Second Group of Scotists, represented by Corduba among the older scholars and Mastrius among the more recent, sought to address this issue further or, at least, to explain the infallibility of the divine decree and predestination more clearly. They posited that such a decree, metaphysically linked to the future event, existed without any dependence on the precedence or subsequence of the creature’s free action. However, to ensure that this did not diminish the strength of created freedom in any way, they simultaneously explained and clarified that, since the first free action would, by the strongest necessity, be most intimately embedded within the essence of the second free action, with which it would operate through the same act, there must be considered between the two such a harmonious sympathy in determining that their co-determination would occur at the same moment (concomitantly), without any precedence or subsequence of one determination to the other." - The Author's name is not recorded by me

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

“Lord, let not my sins burn me when I touch Your life-giving Mysteries,
but purify me from every defilement, every evil, and every sin,
that I may be worthy to partake of these Mysteries without condemnation.

For Your Body is fire which burns the unworthy, but we believe that it purifies souls, bodies, and spirits.”

- From The Fraction to The Son - Liturgy of St. Basil

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

My favorite part from the fraction to The Son

“ O wounds of Christ, pierce me with the spear of divine love.
O death of Christ, intoxicate me with love for Him who died for me.
O blood of Christ, cleanse me from every sin. “

[Onku @OnkuOh]

"XIV. The best remedy for arriving at an accurate Philosophy is: لا تنظر إلى من قال بل انظر إلى ما قال(Non respice ad eum, qui dixit, sed respice ad id, qrod dixit. — Do not look at who said it, but look at what was said.)"

[Scholastic Pooda @ScholasticsFan]

Roman Catholic Theologian Crescentius Krisper, O.F.M.
"For a twofold justice can be considered in us: one by which we are formally justified and pass from being sinners to being just; another by which we make satisfaction to God for guilt and for the punishments due to him."

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

“you said something mean about me therefore I’ll try to air dirty laundry to make people think badly of you” lol

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

@BrandonCorley99 It was my mistake i should have added in second act lol

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

I appreciate the clarification. It’s good that you made explicit what you mean, because it shows exactly where the difference actually lies, but what you have just restated that actual inherence is the “intrinsic mode” of an accident’s existence, essential not quoad quidditatem but quoad actum essendi still ends up confusing a modal act with a formal constituent, which is what the Scotists spent so much effort distinguishing. neither actual inherence nor aptitudinal inherence belongs to the essence of accident. What constitutes an accident is what they call its radical foundation, a positive, absolute formality from which both aptitude and actual inherence flow. the inclination or order of a thing to inhere presupposes that the thing already exists as constituted in itself. The aptitude is not the essence; it comes after it. That’s why we call this foundation “radical inherence,” by analogy to the “radical subsistence” of substance.

Substance is constituted by perseitas, a positive root of existing in itself. Accident is constituted by a radix inhaerentiae, a positive root of existing in another. If you make inherence itself even an “essential order to inherence” part of the essence, you have turned the accident into something essentially relative, and no respect or relation can be the essence of an absolute thing. The accident, even as accident, is an absolute ens, not a pure relation. Its order to a subject is posterior to its foundation. Scotus is explicit about this “Accidens habet entitatem absolutam quae praecedit ordinem ad subiectum.”

When you call actual inherence the “intrinsic mode” of its existence, you’ve already conceded that it’s a mode, not a constituent. And a mode, by definition, presupposes the essence that it modifies it doesn’t constitute it. a mode doesn’t change the formal reason of which it is a mode. It only determines the way that reason is realized. So if inherence is a mode, it can’t be essential even quoad actum essendi; it presupposes the formal foundation from which it flows.

That’s why the “risibility” analogy doesn’t really help your case. Risibility in man isn’t his formal constituent; it’s a property flowing from rationality. It follows necessarily, but it’s not what makes man to be man. It’s exactly the same with accident, aptitudinal inherence is to accident what risibility is to man a proprium that necessarily follows, not what defines the essence. A man who never laughs doesn’t stop being a man likewise, an accident whose inherence is suspended by divine power doesn’t stop being an accident.

And that’s really the heart of it. The Scotists distinguish three levels. Essence the radical foundation, which is absolute and positive. Property the aptitude to inhere, which naturally flows from that foundation. Mode the act of inherence, which perfects it in the natural order. The essence is first, the property follows, and the mode actualizes. God can suspend the mode while preserving the essence, because the mode is natural, not essential. He conserves the being, not the way of being. That’s what makes the existence of accidents without a subject metaphysically possible.

[Brandon Corley @BrandonCorley99]

I feel somewhat obligated to chime in at least because part of the OG argument was taken from my own words. And also because I think that the statement of the question has been lost. I don't care too much for a back and forth, especially with my friend, but I do just want to sent the record straight on what is being said and then I'll let you guys take it from here.

Unfortunately, the Reformed argument here is often misrepresented by the Papists as if we are claiming that the essence of an accident is actual inherence. That was the point I was trying to make regarding Thomas's misunderstanding of what would come to be the Reformed argument, but I suppose I did not do so in a clear enough way. I have seen this misunderstanding in multiple Roman authors. But we do not say the essence is actual inherence (for essence prescinds from existence, as Thomas argues), rather we say the essence includes an essential order-to-inherence such that, when actualized, the accident exists only by actual inherence as its essential mode of being in act. In other words, and this cannot be emphasized enough, we are claiming that actual inherence is the intrinsic mode of an accident's existence. And an intrinsic mode cannot be separated from a being any more than risibility can be separated from man. When the Reformed speak of actual inherence as "belonging to the essence of an accident" they mean it is essential not quoad quidditatem (as if in the definition of the quiddity), but quoad actum essendi, i.e., as that intrinsic mode without which its actual existence cannot be realized.

To emphasize this point one last time (as this is too often ignored), we’re talking about the *essential/intrinsic mode of an accident’s existence*. Our claim is not that we think actual inherence to be the essence of an accident (as though we think it to be its quiddity or formal constituent). Rather, we’re dealing with how the essence of an accident, when actualized, exists in act. Its actualized essential mode of existence has to be correspondingly actual. And for it to be otherwise would be like saying you can have an actually existing man without him actually existing risible, but it suffices that he potentially exists risible.

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

I think i wasn’t clear enough that’s because the aptitude for inherence follows from the root just like how risibility follows from rationality, but both can be suspended or separated in second act ( actual inherence/ actual risbility ), but not naturally only metaphysically.

Sorry i forgot to add this detail.

Risibility, and the aptitude to inhere aren’t of the essence of man / accident but they are separable metaphysically in second act.

[Gideon Lazar - The Byzantine Scotist @ByzCat]

New substack on the analogy of being in Scotism.

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

@BrandonCorley99 That’s a misunderstanding of scotist psychology in general, for the Scotists intellect / will aren’t accidents / properties of the soul. They are of the essence of the soul and are only formally distinct from it, so they are inseparable.

[OmegaPoint 🇻🇦 @Omegapoint99]

yes even something like risibility could be suspended by divine power, but only because it is a proprium that follows from an essence, not an essential constituent of that essence.

“no relation can be of the essence of an absolute thing.”

Just as risibility presupposes rationality in man but is not of man’s essence, so aptitudinal inherence presupposes the accident’s radical foundation but is not its essence.

So it’s about what is naturally inseparable and what is metaphysically separable by divine power.

Properties are naturally inseparable but metaphysically separable.