I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Wasn't the Jew Moses Maimonides the first to champion the via negativa, even before St. Thomas Aquinas?
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good point to keep in mind. A big reason for this misconception is that the average person isn't going to learn about this until they get into the more advanced theology classes (or is otherwise well-suited for autodidactic study of God). I've even seen some top, tenured theologians get this one wrong!
ReplyDeleteSilas, we are agreeing on a point of theology!
ReplyDeleteI guess I picked the wrong week to stop popping pills.
Alan, versions of the via negativa show up in Taoism around 500 BC, and in Zen by what... the 400s CE? Plotinus had a version of it in pagan philosophy around the 200s CE. Some of the Greek fathers were introducing it into Christianity a little after that.
ReplyDeleteSo Maimonides and Aquinas were latecomers to this game!