this is all a little bold lol

yeah, but does this lessen their significance overall? don't all terms for God have at least something to them?

this is similar to the question of why god would create evil/sin if god is good

aristotle!

like the form of the Good

very Augustinian, addressed similar problem

back to austin's first comment in the beginning, echoes Maimonides

it would be pretty BA if we called scripture/theology sacred science from now on just sayin

I'm thinking of the Final Judgment

I know he's discussing scripture, but all that he is saying here could also reasonably apply to the Passion

sounds pretty lame

in medieval lit we just read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and there was a similar almost obsessive concern with names. might be outlandish, but i wonder if this is a common medieval theme, especially in terms of projecting godlike figures to others ?

this is probably a dumb question, but why can they say it? shouldn't it be absolutely never said? i know they probably receive some sort of divine permission, but this still seems a little unacceptable in terms of what was just laid out

Joseph's brothers!

underlying layer/substance

wait - didn't he say that sometimes readers capable of this level could read a parable unintended to spark in this sense, but still see within its figurative meaning?

each aspect of the first kind of parable has a figurative meaning, and is then a subject

interesting that the author that created it may not even understand. like they stumbled upon the right answer, or that they laid out the means for the right answer to present itself

like plato's cave - can't explain the light to the people inside!

anybody ever go to cracker barrel and play that game with the pegs and it said if you leave 4 or more you're plain "ig-no-ra-moose"

a literal meaning means the reader misses out on some pretty powerful stuff. sounds kinda like augustine

decoding the text before thinking of a higher meaning -- more practical / rational like he aims to do

okay, interesting that he suggests humanity is capable of such a thing. this is pretty new

i.e. what makes humans superior to other creatures

omg like seal metaphor of PD!!!! wow

i assume philosophers come from this division of people according to Avicenna

like reason, spirit, and appetite being three parts of the soul in Socrates in a sense

naturally accompanying / associated

i like this, it doesn't feel like quite as much as an eradication of the significance behind nonexistence as we sometimes have seen before

they exist because they must exist

plus, we can't even begin to define them. they are definitely common notions, but do we even understand the meaning behind them? can we explain why?

work ur way up

hot take

this already seems more convincing than Pseudo-Dionsysius to me

true knowledge is admitting that you don't know anything (you know nothing) and never will! familiar

interesting WC

sounds like "begotten, not made" defense against Arianism

this choice in wording is interesting - is it really secret or is it just unavailable? do we truly know of it?

the circle images are powerfully fitting throughout this passage; they definitely emphasize his point of interconnection

this echoes the hierarchy of the holy Ps. Dionysus emphasized earlier

this gives me war flashbacks to last semester

in disagreement

This reminds me of asceticism / the beginning of monasticism - moving past earthly "activities of our minds" through giving them up and participating as little as possible in matters down here, in order to be closer to reaching this trascendent level "up there".

This + the previous paragraph remind me of the conversation regarding whether or not writing out God's full name (in different forms) should be avoided due to its extreme holiness, i.e. some Jewish passages sometimes refer to God as G-d