@LukeHill I'm not a professional philosopher who may have a formal definition of this 3rd kind of volition. I'm just quoting Eleonore.
If you like, watch her explaining "cease resisting" in this video about How Salvation Works (min 4:00-5:00) which she then uses the analogy of a kid getting a vaccine (min 5:00-6:12) and explains the analogy in terms of "second order act of will that wills that wills the good", a state of volition that enables God to "inject" grace / vaccine which then enable you to accept love (min 6:12-6:48).
To get the full context, start at the beginning where she explains what @curiousdannii mentioned several days ago: what we are saved FROM.
@GratefulDisciple fair, neither am I! I just am thinking rationally in more “virtue ethics” ideals. Since I hold that things have “proper function” (that is, what a device or thing was made for), there aren’t actions that neither fulfill nor go against proper function. Either an action fulfills proper function, or it does not.
@GratefulDisciple if you get the time, I would listen to the new pints with Aquinas episode w/ Cameron bertuzzi of capturing Christianity and Dr. Scott Hahn (who is fantastic). It’s really good.
@LukeHill Yes, "virtue ethics" is definitely the way to go, rather than "deontological ethics". Teleology is also another big reason I go with Aquinas. But I'm not sure I follow your logic connecting "proper function" and action. "proper function" to me seems to do with the teleology of an organ (like eye is for seeing). But action is connected more with the will, to make the decision on doing an action that involves an eye. So the Eleonore quote is about will, not action.
BTW I have been watching a lot of episodes from the Coming Home Network. Very good interviews with people from various religious background, upbringing, walks of life, interests, temperament, relationship, etc. I came to know more of different facets of America. Such diversity.
@GratefulDisciple yea, so I would say that In the case of the eye, the eye can fulfill its function in one of two ways, that which is pleasing to God and that which is not. I can’t think of an action that neither pleases God nor doesn’t please him.
So an eye could be used for lust or it could be used for the admiration of beauty, but I can’t think of an in between.
> Actually, that’s not the PwA episode I was referring to. I was referring to “the conversion of Dr. Scott Hahn” and I did make a slight variation to his argument because I converted it to a syllogism.
OK, I deleted my answer for now until I listened to the other episode. You may want to link it in your Question so they can hear it in the original context.
@LukeHill Thank you for sharing this to me. This is actually very helpful as I'm in the same boat as Cameron. Dr. Scott Hahn is very well suited for this episode because as a trained Presbyterian pastor, he knew his Bible very well. I learn a few new ways of seeing how the Bible has support for Papacy through the lens of the Kingdom of David and the Heavenly temple. Quite a persuasive defense.
One that is quite powerful (to me) is how he interprets Matt 16:19 to mean "what you bind on earth shall have been bound on heaven" implying that what the Pope does is to make real what the Holy Spirit already decided. This coheres very nicely with the whole church as sacrament, as Bishop Barron said.
Dr. Scott Hahn also defended convincingly 4-5 various objections to Papacy.
@GratefulDisciple of course! I actually think its very curious what Cameron is doing with probability theorems to determine his position. That's a lot more focused and determined than most people's attitude towards worldview.
@GratefulDisciple Fair
@GratefulDisciple Yes, I think it also clears up the common misconception that the Pope and magisterium just "decide" what is doctrine and what isn't. They are merely speaking that which is already truth.
@GratefulDisciple He's great. I love his voice but I get lost when he talks for a long time. I'm more used to "sound bites" as Cameron said.
The Upper Room
The Upper Room