[lbo-talk] Re: nailing the holy ghost

[Jeffrey Fisher]

i do see what you mean. i blew right by that, thinking about thomas's
hypothetical reaction to leibniz or spinoza. i guess it would surprise
me if thomas would be so . . . irrational about it. for him, god is
both rational and good, so it's not a question of god needing a
theodicy so much as there being a reason for what god does, whether we
can understand it or not. of course, our job (um, so to speak) is to
understand it as best we can and let go of the rest.

but, unless i'm mistaken, and i may well be, thomas would have read
job in the traditional way: job stayed "patient", never cursed god,
and was rewarded at the end for remaining faithful. this is a rational
view of god's activity, and more or less the wisdom tradition's view
of justice, which is precisely what i would argue job was written to
undermine.

i can't believe that i would claim to understand thomas better than
maritain, but i also can't see thomas (or maritain, really) reading
job the way i do. you're clearly right, however, about maritain's
point in that passage -- indeed, god not only doesn't need but doesn't
want a theodicy. i'm alternately intrigued and left cold by maritain.
i may have to go back to him afresh.

j

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:54:04 -0600, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:33:06 -0600, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > that's not the way i read job, although perhaps i read job
> > incorrectly. it's not a question of theodicy,
> 
> Take another look at the passage from Maritain. That's what he is
> saying. I sort of construed Maritain as giving the Thomistic (or
> neo-Thomistic) equivalent of Jeffrey's "he's f****ing god, after all.
> why the
> > > f*** does he *need* tact?" I.e., why does he need a theodicy?
> 
> Carrol
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>