4 ms·
>Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't. Yep, that's right. >are they countable? Spinoza doesn't spec
by knightoffaith 2y ago
>Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't.
Yep, that's right.
>are they countable?
Spinoza doesn't specify.
But yep, in principle other attributes could be perceived---they are perceived, for example, by God for Spinoza.
- 082349872349872 2y ago> Yep, that's right. That's another reason to introduce the maximal and minimal: those def'ns would still go through even with an Aquinas-style god. (and they yield an irreligious 1=3 trinitarian argument: if C takes a god to its maximal creation, and G takes a creation to its minimal god, then CG and GC are not necessarily the identity, but we do necessarily have C = CGC and G = GCG)
- 082349872349872 2y agonoting in passing; a possible influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#One
- knightoffaith 2y agoDefinitely, Neoplatonism was a big influence on Abrahamic philosophical thought. Though the real locus classicus for God is Aristotle's Metaphysics, specifically his description of the unmoved mover. There are some not-so-minor differences between Aristotle's theology and Abrahamic theology, but God insofar as he is the ground of all being is a concept that most clearly originated in Aristotle's work.