La coherencia de la doctrina trinitaria desde la noción de función de Gottlob Frege

En este artículo se pretende mostrar la coherencia de los enunciados sobre el Dios uno y trino en la teología analítica, a partir de su formulación en el llamado credo atanasiano. Se ofrece un panorama crítico sobre la discusión acerca de la inteligibilidad del misterio de la Trinidad en la teología filosófica analítica reciente, así como las diversas soluciones en algunos de sus más destacados representantes: la del trinitarianismo social (William Hasker), la del trinitarianismo latino (Brian Leftow) y la identidad relativa aplicada a la teoría trinitaria (Peter van Inwagen). Para superar las dificultades que tienen estas posiciones, derivadas, sobre todo, de su problemática noción de persona, se presenta una contribución a esta discusión con un novedoso análisis de la Trinidad, basado en la noción de función de Gottlob Frege. Con este análisis se explica por qué no hay contradicción entre los enunciados trinitarios, y así se justifica la consistencia y, en consecuencia, la coherencia de la doctrina trinitaria. Abstract: This article aims to show the coherence of the statements about the one and triune God in analytic theology, starting from their formulation in the so-called Athanasian Creed. It offers a critical overview of the discussion about the intelligibility of the mystery of the Trinity in recent analytic philosophical theology, as well as the various solutions in some of its most prominent representatives: the social trinitarianism (William Hasker), the Latin trinitarianism (Brian Leftow) and the relative identity applied to trinitarian theory (Peter van Inwagen). In order to overcome the difficulties with these positions, derived, above all, from their problematic notion of personhood, a contribution to this discussion is presented with a novel analysis of the Trinity, based on Gottlob Frege's notion of function. This analysis explains why there is no contradiction between trinitarian statements, and thus justifies the consistency and, consequently, the coherence of trinitarian doctrine.

Something Rather Than Nothing

Peter van Inwagen (2001) has given a probabilistic answer to the fundamental question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’: There is something, because the probability of there being nothing is 0. Some philosophers have recently examined van Inwagen's argument and concluded that it does not really work. Three points are central in their criticism: (i) the premise which states that there is only one empty possible world is false, (ii) the premise which states that all possible worlds have the same probability is not plausible and (iii) the argument is not significant for the question it sets out to answer. In this paper, I shall show that (i) even if there are many empty worlds, this does not necessarily invalidate the argument in its general lines, (ii) the examples they offer to support the intuition that possible worlds may have different probabilities fail, and (iii) even if the conclusion of the argument does not really answer the question van Inwagen sets out to answer, it is still not an insignificant response to the question.

The Will to Synthesis: Nietzsche, Carnap and the Continental-Analytic Gap

This essay presupposes that Friedrich Nietzsche and Rudolf Carnap champion contrasting reactions to the fact that, throughout history, persons have been engaged in metaphysical disputes. Nietzsche embraces a libertarian reaction that is in agreement with his anti-democratic aristocratic political views, whereas Carnap endorses an egalitarian reaction aligned with his democratic and socialist political views. After characterizing these reactions, the essay argues for two claims. The first claim is that the stated contrasting reactions are to be considered, not only by the few scholars who are interested both in Nietzsche’s and Carnap’s writings, but by a far larger group that includes those who have addressed the continental-analytic gap; those who are concerned with the development of contemporary philosophy; and/or those who are interested in the writings of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, David Lewis and/or Peter van Inwagen. The second claim is that we have to entertain a synthesis of Nietzsche’s libertarian and Carnap’s egalitarian reaction in order to overcome the continental-analytic gap.

Empirically Skeptical Theism

Inspired by Peter van Inwagen’s “simulacra model” of the resurrection, I investigate whether it could be reasonable to adopt an analogous approach to the problem of evil. Empirically Skeptical Theism, as I call it, is the hypothesis that God shields our lives from irredeemable evils surreptitiously (just as van Inwagen proposes that God shields our bodies from destruction surreptitiously). I argue that EST compares favorably with traditional skeptical theism and with eschatological theodicies, and that EST does not have the negative moral consequences we might suppose.

UMA RESPOSTA INCOMPATIBILISTA AO PROBLEMA DO DETERMINISMO E DA RESPONSABILIDADE MORAL

Tradicionalmente, a atribuição da responsabilidade moral depende de um compromisso com a existência do livre arbítrio, entendido de maneira bastante geral como “poder agir de outro modo”. No entanto, desde a publicação de Alternate Possibilities e Moral Responsibility por Harry G. Frankfurt em 1969, tal tese tem sido questionada e alguns filósofos argumentam que é possível atribuir responsabilidade moral mesmo se o determinismo for verdadeiro. A fim de responder a essa tentativa de conciliar a responsabilidade moral com o determinismo, Peter van Inwagen argumenta que o Princípio da Prevenção Possível - PPP demonstra que a existência da responsabilidade moral depende de um compromisso com uma tese metafísica do livre arbítrio. Assim, este artigo tem dois objetivos: por um lado, expor as posições compatibilistas e incompatibilistas sobre responsabilidade moral e determinismo defendidas por Frankfurt e van Inwagen e, por outro lado, apresentar a razão pela qual o não compromisso com uma noção metafísica de o livre arbítrio cria um problema ético. Assim, o artigo será dividido em quatro partes: na primeira parte, farei uma breve reconstrução do problema do compatibilismo entre livre-arbítrio e determinismo, do qual o problema da compatibilidade entre responsabilidade moral e determinismo é um subproblema; na segunda, apresentarei o argumento de Frankfurt, que deu origem à compatibilidade entre responsabilidade moral e determinismo; na terceira, vou expor o Princípio da Prevenção Possível - PPP formulado por Peter van Inwagen, como uma resposta incompatível à tese de Frankfurt; e, finalmente, justificarei porque o não compromisso com uma tese metafísica do livre-arbítrio tem implicações éticas.