When Augustine says ‘Who would dare to believe or assert that it was not in God’s power to ensure that neither Angel nor man would fall?’ this just seems to me like very poor metaphysics. Why did such a profound philosopher lapse already into voluntarism?
For the mystery of evil is the mystery of a defiance of omnipotence itself. Because that is eventually shown to be as impossible as it really is one has to believe in apocatastasis as the Bible teaches. Eriugena had to correct Augustine here.
Augustine’s profound sense of the absolute power of God and his proximity to everything without need of mediation just because if his transcendence eventually and sadly made him forget that God’s will and power is not a maximum degree of merely ontic, finite force.
It is manifest as love which apparently anything might resist and yet nothing really does. There’s a lot in Augustine that should have led him to see this (eg his Platonic insistence that God can be fully and suddenly manifest even as mystery) but somehow he didn’t or forgot it.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with john milbank

john milbank Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @johnmilbank3

26 Nov
Despite his dissent from Agamben’s apparent endorsement of conspiracy theories, Zizek here also warns us against Bill Gates etc in general and by implication against how they will exploit Covid. He is right. There is a rational and tempered reason to fear ‘the great re-set’.
Zizek would seem to agree with Agamben that humanitarian aid is inherently dubious because it presumes and upholds ‘sheerly natural’ (‘barely living’) human beings whose removal from civic belonging is largely contrived by humanitarian benefactors in their main economic roles.
They are both right.
Read 6 tweets
26 Nov
Thesis: the two most decisive things in modernity are distorted Augustine: 1. Political Economy is genealogically Jansenist. 2. Legitimation by coordinated individual rights is genealogically Malebranchian. The hidden hand instead of ethics. Occasionalism instead of relationality
Therefore one could say that the main God of modernity was not a deistic God, nor a no-God, but a heterodox Christian ‘God of the gaps’. Secularisation has left us either just with the gaps or with sinister immanent substitutes for an idolised deity.
Recent research would seem to suggest a certain French revolutionary oscillation between Jansenist ideas of the total emergent providential consensus of individual wills that could favour direct democracy and Malebranchian ones of representatives laying down reliable general laws
Read 10 tweets
26 Nov
Much about contemporary populism seems Schmittian to me: politics before economy, democracy as direct, involving total identity of ruler and ruled, referenda and purgation of internal enemies (Jews, Muslims, Roma, Poles etc).
This looks like early Schmitt but actually later ‘global and imperial’ Schmitt is smuggled in by his American and Chinese admirers.
Catholics need to realise that Schmitt was a horrendously modern thinker. Like the Catholic ‘traditionalists’ he worshipped the idol of national sovereignty but unlike them rejected the role of ‘aristocracy’ by denying the need for representatives in modern democracy.
Read 5 tweets
26 Nov
Oxford Movement not an English eccentricity. There were parallel Romantic movements towards a greater Catholic stress amongst Protestants in the Netherlands and Scandinavia and France at least. Often all these people had a better grasp of the Catholic core than some contemp RC’s.
Someone should write a book about this.
And in Scotland also.
Read 4 tweets
26 Nov
Marx was not a socialist but a ‘communist individualist’. ‘his goal is not equity of exchange but the effectiveness of individual and collective freedom’. (Lacroix and Planchere)
Whereas one goal of socialism, as with Aristotle or Aquinas is indeed equity of exchange.
Neither Marx nor the French Revolution foregrounded justice. It was the socialist Proudhon who began to do so. De Lubac and the Lyons Jesuits realised this.
Read 9 tweets
24 Nov
Macintyre’s critique of ‘emotivism’ is excessive. Misses the point that ends are discerned in part via feeling for Plato and perhaps even for Aristotle. Linked to his residual Marxism. Phronesis assumes ends given by ‘narratives’ of epochs. They shift via negative dialectics.
Thus if one tried to rescue Macintyre from Marx and Hegel one would also have to eject his lingering neo-scholastic rationalism which fails to see the crucial place of purged and elevated feeling. He may even be unfair to G.E. Moore’s Platonism however truncated this was.
It’s also curious for a Scottish thinker if the heart of that tradition was sympathy/common-sense and reason as refined feeling. The relation to Hume might also have to be looked at again. Are we so sure Hume does not see a communion of shared moral feeling as a genuine telos?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!