i don't like that his objection to the fact that sacred knowledge is less certain than other sciences is simply based upon the idea that human intelligence is weak and we are just unable to understand the areas that make sacred knowledge so certain

would philosophical sciences then be considered this first type of science?

this seems to be a key argument of his where he again establishes the distinction between reason and revelation with reason relating explicitly to philosophy and revelation relating to knowledge of God

distinguishing the difference between knowledge of God (divine) and philosophical science (based upon human reason)

this is an interesting objection because it is claiming that you cannot seek knowledge that is above you and your reason and since philosophy is all other knowledge then philosophy is all we need

reminds me of Plato's forms but he goes about it in a different way

if God's name is derived from actions then is he more defined by the carrying out of his will and what he sets in motion rather than just the idea or presence of a higher being?

repetition of this phrase I feel as though emphasizes the feelings towards God and the relationship one ought to have with Him

metaphor for understanding parables

parables are how one can understand prophets and understanding prophets=key to understanding god

nature of he subject to be fleeting and so it only appears in 'snipets' such as riddles that one must interpret

don't necessarily have to go into great depth on a subject bc it is ok to leave some things up for interpretation

is this part of his definition of happiness?

explaining the relationship between senses, intellect, and knowledge further

seems to mirror life in that people either become greedy and seek what they believe is best for them during life or they become concerned with living a good life devoted to the teachings of god

does this section imply that really only god can be perfect? although there are certain means by which one could potentially reach this level, they seem to be virtually unattainable

humans are humans due to their ability to rationalize and gain knowledge

emphasizes the idea that the spirit is in control and the body is merely a vessel for it to use

does this mean that the body and the spirit were two separate entities and that he joined them together himself or when they were made were they intended for each other?

This builds the definition of existence but does it imply that existence alone doesn't define something? Instead it can still have characteristics that attribute it to something else?

Does this mean that the cause of existence or nonexistence can be dependent on different things?

signs allow the soul and the mind to understand deeper meanings

God=first principle=truth

are these divisions just different levels of possible benefit one could receive?

is subject considered more vital than principle then, in terms of investigation?

substance does not need to have matter in order to be sensible

first philosophy=absolute wisdom does this mean that philosophy is wisdom or that you gain wisdom from philosophy?

divided based upon whether or not they are related to our own actions and states

following God and God's work is freedom

Is God himself peace and harmony or does he order the universe to have these things?

same indicates he is unique but similar indicates he is not like any other being and can therefore only be compared to himself

Is this power simply God at work or is it what God is? Is this what orders the universe?

the order of the universe represents god and shows us his image even if we cannot grasp it or fully understand what it means

everything must be in line with the Universal Cause

definitions of good, existence, and life seem to be what is already known of them but also including things that we cannot understand, mainly what is "beyond them"

god is what unites the universe --> part of what it means to be divine

the divine is outside of rationality (again reemphasized) but it can cause many rational thoughts and decisions among humans

specific way in which the divine can be defined or categorized (different from definition of trinity)

seems to be defining and specifically referring to the trinity

reminds me of Boethius --> god is the eternal good

god encompasses all things and so can be referred to in anyway but at the same time he is too great and ambiguous to receive a specific name

central problem in dealing with the divine since he is so outside of human nature and requires so much reverence

god controls our fates and decides where and when we go

divine nature is outside of human rationality

god should be worshipped in a divine way/deserves more than human things