Alexander Pruss



Today was an enlightening day. I met Alexander Pruss, someone I highly admire and respect, and to be honest, am a little intimidated by. I took notes on my phone from his lecture, and I'll copy it here, but do scroll down for my interaction with him during Q&A. 

  • All love has appreciation, good will, and striving for union
  • If I don't appreciate the other, I set myself up superior 
  • If I don't appreciate the other, but desire union, then I am degrading them
  • If I pursue the others good, but don't have appreciation, I am a fan and not a lover 
  • If I don't pursue the other's good, but desire union, I am a creep 
  • If I don't want union, but have appreciation, then do you really appreciate? Do you really love yourself? (oh, I'm not worthy...) 
  • If I don't want union but seek the others good, you demean those who receive your charity 
  • Desiring goods for others doesn't entail providing those goods themselves. Ex: parents who desire sexual goods for their children
  • Romantic love strives towards sexual union 
  • What makes intercourse consummate erotic love? Intercourse is the most thorough way for two people to voluntarily and equally unite. Without equality of persons, there is a kind of lie and disintegration
I asked him the question I raised in a previous post, which is, what happens to love when one lover dies? Pruss responded by saying that we had to keep the form of love in mind, and that since death makes you incorporeal, and romantic loves desires another corporeally, then such love is not possible. I followed up by saying that incorporeality is only momentary and we will have resurrected bodies. He hummed and he hawwed and said that was a difficulty, which was interesting for me to hear. Obviously a very humble guy. He did mention, and I thought this was really interesting, that the Orthodox Christians have something of a process for widows who want to get married again. They have a suspicion about it, and they make the parties go through something of a penance, or prayer. I will look into this. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more