So glad that you are participating in our conversations here at Per caritatem. I am happy to interact with you and believe that philosophy in dialogue is mutually edifying (or at least can be if done in the right spirit).

Best wishes,
Cynthia

Though I’m not terribly familiar with the works of Arendt, that may very well have been what she meant. In any case, I agree with you, it is plausible and agrees with my own experience and others in history. Perhaps this example of Scotus and Spinoza points to the whole debate over the relationship between the natural/supernatural, and philosophy/theology. It also raises the question; would Scotus have been the brilliant philosopher/theologian he was if it were not for his faith? Would Spinoza have had better insight if he had not rejected his Faith or at least not rejected the Sumum Bonum?

Still I think there is some truth in Spinoza’s skepticism(even though drawn from from the wrong premises). People often have a difficult time changing their minds and hearts. And if Spinoza cut himself off from Christian life and thought(or any type of sane objective thought); I think he would have seen less examples of change in human life. I’m not saying this molded necessarily molded his thought but he did associate himself with atheists and other radical thinkers. Hence no cause, source, or reason = the single substance gobbly-guke.

Anyhow thank you for sharing your thoughts, reflections, and teachings on philosophy and theology. Since school I’ve neglected philosophy in favor of the arts and a study of a few specific fields of theology, but I’m back with a vengeance. Since you are planning on becoming a professor, I’ll consider you like a teacher. My mind needs a bit of taming so I can enhance my understanding of other subjects. I’ll be posting more so feel free to correct me.

Nicholas