Pain is metaphysically bad insofar as it indicates a privation, whereas it can be theologically good insofar as it strengthens the character of the soul.
@@intellectualcatholicism But then natural law theory requires revelation and hence is incomplete. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some background thinking All pain fits into those two categories of privation and character building so then all pain is both good and bad which makes the words 'good' and 'bad' meaningless. Or the theory is incoherent. In Godel's terminology incomplete or inconsistent. That is there exist goods we are either unable to determine to be good or we determine to be both good and bad. This might be an exception for humans whereby taking your triangle analogy it's like 'less triangularity' is actually a good thing (e.g. the suffering and death in the passion of Christ, the self-emptying of the kenotic doctrine). But then this violates the core belief of essentialism, which is good = closer to a thing's essence. Unless we make reference to God, the 'completeness of being', as the true referent for a human being, not human nature. Then we can look to Christ, the God-human, for comparison of what is perfection and hence determine what is good.
@@neuronneuron3645 It's not a strict contradiction, because I'm not saying that pain is good and evil in the same senses both times. So, maybe I should be more precise. Pain is not good. It is metaphysically bad. But, what follows from pain might be good - not the pain itself. Pain is metaphysically bad, and the metaphysics I'm discussing is the fundamental core of what constitutes natural law theory. In this sense, everyone can access the natural law, as it is based on the basic construction of the cosmos.
Can u do a debate on life after death, the existence of the soul and miracles/religious experience this would be REALLY helpful for my exams in may please ! These vids are really helpful
This is such a refreshing debate. Very friendly and very intellectually rigorous. Great debate!
This channel is great. I've felt philosophically dull ever since the Classical Theism Forum has died out--this channel is a God-send.
Contemplata et contemplare aliis tradere, you’re living it out! Your videos on natural law have been enriching.
How can we say pain is bad on a natural law framework but then say pain is good in revealed theology (the redemptive value of suffering)?
Pain is metaphysically bad insofar as it indicates a privation, whereas it can be theologically good insofar as it strengthens the character of the soul.
@@intellectualcatholicism
But then natural law theory requires revelation and hence is incomplete.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some background thinking
All pain fits into those two categories of privation and character building so then all pain is both good and bad which makes the words 'good' and 'bad' meaningless. Or the theory is incoherent. In Godel's terminology incomplete or inconsistent. That is there exist goods we are either unable to determine to be good or we determine to be both good and bad.
This might be an exception for humans whereby taking your triangle analogy it's like 'less triangularity' is actually a good thing (e.g. the suffering and death in the passion of Christ, the self-emptying of the kenotic doctrine). But then this violates the core belief of essentialism, which is good = closer to a thing's essence.
Unless we make reference to God, the 'completeness of being', as the true referent for a human being, not human nature. Then we can look to Christ, the God-human, for comparison of what is perfection and hence determine what is good.
@@neuronneuron3645 It's not a strict contradiction, because I'm not saying that pain is good and evil in the same senses both times.
So, maybe I should be more precise. Pain is not good. It is metaphysically bad. But, what follows from pain might be good - not the pain itself.
Pain is metaphysically bad, and the metaphysics I'm discussing is the fundamental core of what constitutes natural law theory. In this sense, everyone can access the natural law, as it is based on the basic construction of the cosmos.
Just started the video. What completeness of being? Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is well known.
Can u do a debate on life after death, the existence of the soul and miracles/religious experience this would be REALLY helpful for my exams in may please ! These vids are really helpful
I'd recommend checking out Christian Idealism and InspiringPhilosophy on UA-cam for that
Is this "natural law" idea the one propagated by Mark Passio or some other one?