«Natural Law & Sexual Ethics» @ Princeton, by Prof. Ed Feser
#34
The arguments were also that it would be impossible to see the final cause of sexuality. The existence and perceptibility of final causes would be open to question. I asked if the final cause of the eyes would really be uncertain. The professor answered that for example the final cause of the mouth would be speaking but that means that a trappist monk would be a sinner because he does not use his mouth to speak.  :eyeroll:
It is not easy to argue against suchs arguments.

The situation in germany is sad. The most conservative professor I know is an adherent of de Lubac, Ratzinger or Newman (I wouldnot say that Ratzinger or Newman are bad theologians but they are not conservative ). There are no thomists and often near to no knowledge about scholastic philosophy and theology. Thomas is only read in a modernist misinterpretation. A domenican for example told me that according to Aquinas we could not know the existence of god without the lumen fidei. Even something like the principle of noncontradiction would not be absolutely certain.
Metaphysics "after Kant" is considered as impossible.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: «Natural Law & Sexual Ethics» @ Princeton, by Prof. Ed Feser - by Guingamp - 07-09-2015, 01:13 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)