 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/9/2006 3:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Jeff: But where people do tend to do poorly is in the areas of their natural dispositional weaknesses. For it is in THOSE areas where self-discipline requires the greatest suffering.
VFG: By "natural dispositional weaknesses", I'm gathering that you mean those inclinations or tendencies that misdirect us away from the Good; like alcoholism, drug addiction, or feeling a tendency to lie in a tough situation, for example, right? So these dispositions are not weak themselves, but they cause us to feel weak in our attempts to be good... would you agree?
So the reason I'm highlightling this is that this seems to be an interesting topic to discuss. There are different types of dispositions (as noted in the dissertation, there's the "variable" (or "constitutive"-Doc coined that term) dispositions and the "invariable" (or "definitional") dispositions).
It seems that the "variable" dispositions could be influenced by discipline, and the more discipline (that's designed to counteract a specific negative disposition) is practiced, the weaker the negative disposition becomes, and the stronger the disposition, or tendency, toward practicing the discipline becomes.
------------
Hmm... I think I'll just start a new thread for this... and every now and then write down my ramblings about "dispositions" (since I've never specifically thought about this until a few weeks ago). It's interesting to learn that Hume didn't really think we had "dispositions" because "dispositions" themselves can't be seen, heard, tasted, etc.
So here it is, a new thread. 
I'm also interested in thinking about how the Will (viz, free agency) and Dispositions (variable ones) specifically interact.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/9/2006 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | Moving this from the For Violin thread... this is regarding dispositions being necessary and sufficient for all causation. (The other thread is specifically regarding dispositions in relation to process theology... here it's just up for grabs.)
Hmmm.. now I'm also thinking about if dispositions were sufficient for all causation. Hmm... if we were to posit that we have free will in this whole matter, then it seems that the disposition (or God-mover) would not be sufficent to mediate causation here. Our Will would have to be in agreement with this disposition (or God-mover) in order for causation to take place. If the Will is contrary to the disposition, then that would account for stagnation or movement in the direction of sin.
Hmmm... BOTH would have to be in agreement for possibilities to become actualities. This would escape determinism.
Perhaps I'll try to make this question clearer in my next post... unless I Desire to discuss something else... haha. Bad joke. I'm just reading Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/9/2006 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/11/2006 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Very quickly.
The dispositional reality within sentient creatures is the SEAT of the will. Remember. Doc FLAT OUT says that the "soul" of human beings IS the dispositional reality.
See Pages 163-168, The Dispositional Essence of Humanity and Sin
AND...
Pages 395-396, The Paradoxical Dispositional Essence of Humanity.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2006 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
But doesn't Doc say that man has the ability to choose against his disposition? My understanding of LFW (which I thought Doc clearly affirmed in S&TPOE and other books), is that it is the ability to do otherwise than you do, not that it is simply the ability to do what you want. In fact, when Doc spoke at the EEM Fall Conference in 2002, I distinctly recall him contrasting his view of free will with the compatibilistic Edwardsean view of "free to do what you want, but your wants/desires are determined by God."
LFW is the creaturely ability to SELF-DISPOSE, that is, to be able to shape and solidify some dimensions of it's dispositional reality by the exercise of the dispositional reality. Note the title of that one section I pointed out to Violin: The Paradoxical Dispositional Essence of Humanity. This section deals SPECIFICALLY with that.
Think of it like this. Here's an EXCELLENT example of how dispositions work...
A human being can use it's ability to consume nourishment and perform certain physical activities to either ENHANCE it's body's performance (with respect to muscular strength, flexibility, endurance, etc.) OR to DECREASE it's body's performance. As the human being does one of the other, it's body changes in some ways, but not all ways. (This would be the analogy with the distinction between "definitional dispositions" [unchangeable by the being] and "constitutive" dispositions" [changeable by the being].) They CAN'T become something other than human. However, they are able to change their blood pressure, metabolism, aerobic ability, etc. such that they are able to do even MORE physical activities than before athletically...and consume more various foods more easily. Conversely, they can misuse their human abilities, they can so "let themselves go" that they have high blood pressure, hardly any flexibility at all, and can't even walk up a single flight of stairs without being winded! We really do become the health choices that we make.
It's the SAME WAY with dispositions. Human beings can use their exercise of the dispositional reality (their "spirits" such that they alter and habituate their CONSTITUTIVE ASPECTS of their dispositional reality. By their exercise of freedom, they can either expand or contract their scopes of freedom. Interestingly enough, this idea ties quite well with what we know about the plasticity of the human brain. How our learning processes truly are affects of strengthening (or not strengthening) neural net pathways. It's all the "use-it-or-lose-it" idea. And if you've spent a lifetime NOT using it, it will be quite HARD to for you to get it going when you do.
I hope this helps.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/12/2006 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
The dispositional reality within sentient creatures is the SEAT of the will. Remember. Doc FLAT OUT says that the "soul" of human beings IS the dispositional reality.
Just thinking out loud for a sec. I'll post the quote (Meph, is this what you're referring?).
p. 163 in the dissertation (section III.v.4.2.1): "With Pannenberg, we define the 'soul' of humans in their disposition towards a future actualization--as their essential creative telos, their 'subjective aim.'"
What does "soul" mean here? "Foundational stuff"? The "stuff that ultimately defines who we are"? "Central, unabandonable trait"? The "soul" is decided in light of one's chosen telos?
Previously, Doc writes (bottom p. 162-163) "..it may be said that 'freedom' is the ability of a person to accept this eschatological destiny: freedom is freedom for the fugure as determined by God. as the NT portrays it, true freedom is not the arbitrary ability to do good and evil, but the ability to do good (viz. to accept in faith the divinely decreed end as one's own)."
Ahh... it is this that is the "subjective aim": our decision of whether we accept or reject the goal (ie "proper" destiny) proposed by God. Who we are (& our disposition) is ultimately determined upon what telos we accept. (Am I missing the boat completely?)
BTW, I've decided to write my notes & thoughts about the sections I read in the dissertation in my blog on the TheologyWeb to help myself in mulling over this stuff. I probably should have put what I wrote here on the blog. Meph, feel free to check it out to make sure I'm somewhat on track. (So far, I've read III.v.4.2 & III.v.4.2.1 - wanted to get background info before p. 136) You know I'm sincerely trying to understand this stuff, even though it takes me a while to be convinced. Haha, just ask Alan. 
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|