A Thomistic Account of Truth | Prof. Timothy Pawl
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
"Truth is not something to be wary of. All truth, any truth, if it is, in fact, truth, will be in conformity with your cherished views…provided they are true.
Aquinas writes: 'Every truth by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost as bestowing the natural light, and moving us to understand and speak the truth (Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Question 109, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1).'" -Prof. Timothy Pawl
----------
This lecture was given on March 3, 2022 at the College of William and Mary.
The handout for this lecture can be found here: tinyurl.com/4dbe7m5r.
About the speaker:
Timothy J. Pawl is Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and holds a Ph.D. from Saint Louis University in philosophy, with specialization in the philosophy of religion, metaphysics, Thomistic philosophy, analytic theology, and moral psychology. His books include In Defense of Conciliar Christology (Oxford, 2016), In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology (Oxford, 2019), and The Incarnation (Cambridge, 2020). In addition, he has published more than thirty-five academic articles in his areas of expertise, and given almost 100 academic or popular-level talks or interviews about his work, including a series of interviews for the PBS show Closer to Truth. He is the husband of another philosopher, Faith Glavey Pawl, and the proud father of one son and four daughters.
----------
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
Excelent talk, as always! I am grateful for the great free content that you keep uploading, it truly adds value to my life.
Our pleasure! Thanks for tuning in, and may the Lord bless you!
17:16 The definition of the true and the false
36:22 bookmark
Cant wait to watch each new chapter?
I have a feeling that You haven't tackled nearly enough the relation between statements/words and their meanings/thoughts. On the one hand the definition od truth as a conformity between reality and the intellect obviously involves both components: the objective and the subjective ... but than You say that truth depends ONLY on reality and not what somene thinks. Ok if the second part is supposed to be understood only as a refutation of relativism, than all would be well... but no. Aquinas insists that truth is a transcendental - a metaphysical concept. And that is the part I don't understand. How can truth be a transcendental (independent of the intellect) and at the same time be a "conformity" TO the intellect and IN the intellect??? The analogy to the two-way relation of father-son seems inadequate, or at least I don't understand how it explains anything...
Because the problem is somewhat practical. We experience it frequently in most discussions about anything more complicated than basic phenomena: it seems obvious for example that a statement like "the sun rises in the morning" - is more true or false depending on how a person uttering this statement actually imagines the phenomena (a heliocentrist vs geocentrist for example). And not to mention things like "context" ... Of course modern psychology further complicates things, because for example we now know that we not only express thoughts in a language but to some extent we think IN a language. So if language is somewhat arbitrary and the meaning of the words in a language is also somewhat arbitrary... than maybe this whole "subjective" aspect of the idea of truth should be addressed more thoroughly? :)
Hi Simon, I am also on a similar quest. I haven't listen the podcast yet, but will get the time this week.
I would like to comment on your exemple of the sun rising. I think the statement is indeed true, wether the person accept it or not. This is where for me I understand to be an objectif truth independant from the subjectif. For exemple if someone was living undergroud all his life and has never seen the sun, it would be very hard to explain what is it, and prove it to be true. You may say but look, my skin is more brown that you! The guy may require more evidence.
In a other hand, it may be true now but not overtime. One day our system may end and then the statement will be false. So I guess you could say: "the sun rise every morning and will continue for an unknown time period".
What do you think? I am also puzzle, as a newly converted Catholic, I just encountered the doctrine of truth being a person, Jesus. What does that mean then? Is it that there is multiple truth (that we will never know to be true at 100%, therefore we need to choose based on reason and faith), and God's truth is the good one?
@@ravaeric6458 I didn't think of it as being on a quest, but I must admit it sounds nice :D
Although I wasn't making a case for relativism. Reality is obviously what it is independant of what someone thinks. My concern was about the meaning of words and statements - and how the meaning is subjective. If someone says "I believe that the sun rises in the morning" - but you realise that he imagines literally that a ball of fire (smaller than Earth) moves upward from below the horizon of a stationary flat Earth - is that statement still TRUE? Can you say to him: "Yes, I agree with that"?
And about the Truth being a Person - Jesus ... well I guess that's a mystery deeper than any metaphysical system can handle :D
Although who knows? Maybe Aquinas was on to something there with his concept of truth as a "transcendental". That's why I'm also interested how to reconcile it with the plain and reasonable "veritas est adequatio rei et intellectum". I also like my Catholic faith reasonable and coherent :)