Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:25:05.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The mereology of Latin Trinitarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2018

DANIEL MOLTO
DANIEL MOLTO*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK School of Arts and Communication, Leeds Trinity University, Horsforth, Leeds, LS18 5HD, UK
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I propose a new Latin account of the Trinity, according to which each of the persons of the Trinity is an improper part of the Godhead.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 54 , Special Issue 3: Metaphysics of the Trinity: New Directions , September 2018 , pp. 395 - 418
Creative Commons
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennett, Karen (2013) ‘Having a part twice over’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91, 83–103.Google Scholar
Catholic Church (2012) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edn (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana).Google Scholar
Cotnoir, A. J. (2013) ‘Strange parts: the metaphysics of non-classical mereologies’, Philosophy Compass, 8, 834–845.Google Scholar
Cotnoir, A. J. & Bacon, Andrew (2012) ‘Non-wellfounded mereology’, Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 187–204.Google Scholar
French, Steven & Krause, Décio (2006) Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
French, Steven & Krause, Décio (2010) ‘Remarks on the theory of quasi-sets’, Studia Logica, 95, 101–124.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1962) Reference and Generality (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Krause, Décio (1992) ‘On a quasi-set theory’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33, 402–11.Google Scholar
Leftow, Brian (1999) ‘Anti-Social Trinitarianism’, in Davis, Stephen T., Kendall, Daniel, & O'Collins, Gerald (eds) The Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 203–249.Google Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2004) ‘A Latin Trinity’, Faith and Philosophy, 21, 304–333.Google Scholar
Leonard, H. S. & Goodman, Nelson (1940) ‘The calculus of individuals and its uses’, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 45–55.Google Scholar
Lésniewski, Stanisław (1992a) ‘Foundations of the general theory of sets. I’, in Surma, S. J. (ed.) S. Lésniewski, Collected Works I (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 129–173.Google Scholar
Lésniewski, Stanisław (1992b) ‘On the foundations of mathematics’, in Surma, S. J. (ed.) S. Lésniewski, Collected Works I (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992), 174–382.Google Scholar
McCall, Thomas & Rea, Michael (2009) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas (1955) ‘Axioms for the part relation’, Philosophical Studies, 6, 8–11.Google Scholar
Simons, Peter (2000) Parts: A Study in Ontology, 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Sullivan, James (1907). ‘The Athanasian Creed’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company). Retrieved 7 March 2018 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htmGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1998) ‘The statue and the clay’, Noûs, 32, 149–173.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (1988) ‘And Yet there are not three gods, but one god’, in Morris, T. (ed.) Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press), 241–278.Google Scholar
Varzi, A. C. (2008) ‘The extensionality of parthood and composition’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 108–133.Google Scholar