This article discusses the concept of suffering in the Old Testament. It first looks at passages in the Pentateuch that describe life before the fall, which paints a picture of human existence before suffering. It then examines what the Pentateuch and Proverbs teach about avoiding suffering through living a life of faithful obedience. Next, it examines suffering in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, which tackle head-on the issue of the suffering of the righteous. It then moves to the New (...) Testament to examine how suffering differs on this side of the cross and how modern-day Christians must live in light of the reality of suffering. The article concludes with few proposals for how to apply the biblical theology of suffering. (shrink)

How can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be distinct and yet identical? Prompted by the doctrine of the divine Trinity, this question sparked centuries of lively debate. In the current context of renewed interest in Trinitarian theology, Russell L. Friedman provides the first survey of the scholastic discussion of the Trinity in the 100-year period stretching from Thomas Aquinas' earliest works to William Ockham's death. Tracing two central issues - the attempt to explain how the three (...) persons are distinct from each other but identical as God, and the application to the Trinity of a 'psychological model', on which the Son is a mental word or concept, and the Holy Spirit is love - this volume offers a broad overview of Trinitarian thought in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, along with focused studies of the Trinitarian ideas of many of the period's most important theologians. (shrink)

The author discusses what he feels to be a significant way of testing beliefs, Namely, The process in which people judge attitudes and the beliefs supporting those attitudes favourably or unfavourably in the light of the social situations which they take to be the outcome of the attitudes, And of the potentialities for the future which they take to be foreshadowed by those situations. (staff).

Introduction STEN EBBESEN In the second half of the 20th century scholarly research uncovered a wealth of interesting medieval discussions about issues ...

-/- I noted two directions in which the scientific worker is seeking to advance. He is trying to give a more complete account of the actual detail of what is happening, and he is seeking wider and wider generalizations. As an observer, he must note what he observes, and, it would seem, omit nothing. But in seeking generalizations he must select, from among the features he observes, only those which he takes to be of general significance. Thence arises at least (...) the appearance of a conflict in his activities. If he is too intent on the details of what he observes, his generalizations suffer; but if he leaves aside details too readily, his generalizations suffer equally. There is danger both in omitting and in not omitting. (shrink)

Is prime matter the same as its potency, its readiness to take on the entire gamut of corporeal substantial forms? This question, arising from a passage in Averroes, lies at the core of later medieval hylomorphism and was hotly debated. The present article looks at three answers to the question by figures from the first half of the fourteenth century: Gerald Ot who takes a Scotistic approach to the issue, John of Jandun and Peter Auriol taking an Averroan tack, and (...) John Buridan with a nominalistic outlook. The discussion reveals a diversity of positions on the nature of potency and its relation to actuality, and in the case of Buridan an unusual view at the heart of his matter theory: the direct inherence of accidental forms in prime matter. (shrink)

This book presents an overview of the later medieval trinitarian theology of the rival Franciscan and Dominican intellectual traditions, and includes detailed studies of thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, John Duns Scotus, ...

The papers given at this symposium have been directed to two problems: the needs of the physical sciences which the social sciences should fulfill, andthe capacity of contemporary social science to satisfy these needs.Consideration of the first problem divided itself into two parts: the needs involved in the process of answering questions in the physical sciences, and the needs involving application of information gained by questions in physical science. The role of social science with respect to is generally recognized, but (...) the role with respect to is not. Many, in science and philosophy, still hold to the notion of a non-evaluative, non-normative, purely objective, or what-have-you physical science. Professor Littauer, however, raised a critical problem in this regard: on what basis is the decision made to accept or reject a scientific hypothesis? We are in a position today to assert that such decisions do involve an evaluative judgment. Recent developments in mathematical statistics, as represented in Wald's On the Principles of Statistical Inference, indicate that the selection of the best statistical testing procedure involves at least a knowledge of the social consequences for the various mistakes one might make in using any specific testing procedure. The introduction of the “weight function” into the method for selecting among alternative hypotheses points in a striking way to one door through which knowledge and evaluation of possible social phenomena enters physical science. The social scientist is badly needed here. It is true that today this aspect of experimental method is seldom self-consciously faced. Where it is, the evaluations are generally intuitive and are not based on sound sociological knowledge. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the continued development of experimental methods in all sciences depends on our reducing the question of what constitutes a “best” test to experimental terms. (shrink)

There is no period in the history of philosophy so difficult to understand as that period beginning upon Kant's death and extending up into the present. Attributing this difficulty to the proximity and contingence of the period to our own is not a satisfactory excuse, though we would be willing to admit we lack some of the clarity that “time passed” gives. If we give up the challenge of making a meaningful interpretation of this history because we lack perspective, we (...) are surrendering a period whose lessons might prove immeasurably valuable to us. What is more important than such negative motivation for making a meaningful study of the philosophy of the last 100 years is the positive demand that we begin to develop techniques for understanding the present and immediate past, in order that we can more effectively face and contribute to the present and future. (shrink)