Question for a Catholic philosopher out there: I read the following at Robert Sungenis's website. I am hoping someone could give me titles of books or essays in which Dr. Hildebrand discusses the topics mentioned. From Catholic Apologetics International's Q&A, question 78:
Question 78- Re: Question 31
JMJ
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
I read your response to question 31 with great interest. I will quote the second paragraph:
"Scripture is clear that God has an emotive dimension. The issue is whether we can take these passages at face value. I believe we can, because there is nothing evil about emotion. It works with the intellect and will, and we all believe God has intellect and will."
Have you read any of Deitrich von Hildebrand's works regarding the distinction between intellect, will AND affective responses, i.e., that affective "emotional" responses like love are not simply a composition of intellect and will?
If Dr. von Hildebrand's thesis, which dealt with the human person in this regard, can be extended to Theology, it would provide helpful input to this discussion, I think. For, it seems that love, hate, joy and many other such realities which Dr. von Hildebrand analysizes from the human side, are somehow analogous to what Scripture says of God in this regard.
Comments? Suggestions for further reading?
God bless,
Jonathan
AMDG
R. Sungenis: Jonathan, yes, I am quite familiar with von Hildebrand's work in this regard, and it certainly does support what I'm saying.
Emotion is one of the areas the von Hildebrand developed from a more phenomenological approach to emotion than Aquinas' metaphysics.
Metaphysics doesn't have a separate category for emotion, thus they deny it in God, and if it ever comes up in discussion, it is noted as a human affect without any real value.
This is the same way Thomas treated sex, merely as a biological process for procreation but with little, if any, unitive value or as an expression of love. Von Hildebrand approach emotion, as much of phenomenology does with other things, as a phenomenon in itself, not as simply a symptom or appendage of a larger metaphysical category.
Thanks for your input.
