糯而简单？

IF 0.5 2区哲学 0 RELIGION

RELIGIOUS STUDIES Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1017/s0034412524000040

Anna Marmodoro

{"title":"糯而简单？","authors":"Anna Marmodoro","doi":"10.1017/s0034412524000040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beall's original understanding of the nature of the divine allows for contradictory statements to be true of God, by assuming that parts of reality, such as the Trinity, are ‘glutty’ (namely, what we can say about them is both true and false). Is the divine is the only glutty part of reality, and if so, why? Furthermore, does the glutty nature of the divine undermine its simplicity? Beall argues that God is not mereologically complex, but on his account God is logically and hence, it appears, metaphysically complex.","PeriodicalId":45888,"journal":{"name":"RELIGIOUS STUDIES","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Glutty and simple?\",\"authors\":\"Anna Marmodoro\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0034412524000040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Beall's original understanding of the nature of the divine allows for contradictory statements to be true of God, by assuming that parts of reality, such as the Trinity, are ‘glutty’ (namely, what we can say about them is both true and false). Is the divine is the only glutty part of reality, and if so, why? Furthermore, does the glutty nature of the divine undermine its simplicity? Beall argues that God is not mereologically complex, but on his account God is logically and hence, it appears, metaphysically complex.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RELIGIOUS STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RELIGIOUS STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1095\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412524000040\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RELIGIOUS STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1095","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412524000040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

比厄尔对神性的最初理解是假定现实的某些部分，如三位一体，是 "粘性 "的（即我们对它们所说的既是真的也是假的），从而允许矛盾的陈述对神来说是真实的。神性是否是现实中唯一具有 "粘性 "的部分？此外，神性的多义性是否会破坏它的简单性？比厄尔认为，上帝在纯粹学上并不复杂，但在他看来，上帝在逻辑学上是复杂的，因此似乎在形而上学上也是复杂的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Glutty and simple?

Beall's original understanding of the nature of the divine allows for contradictory statements to be true of God, by assuming that parts of reality, such as the Trinity, are ‘glutty’ (namely, what we can say about them is both true and false). Is the divine is the only glutty part of reality, and if so, why? Furthermore, does the glutty nature of the divine undermine its simplicity? Beall argues that God is not mereologically complex, but on his account God is logically and hence, it appears, metaphysically complex.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

RELIGIOUS STUDIES RELIGION-

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

33.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Religious Studies is an international journal devoted to the problems of the philosophy of religion as they arise out of classical and contemporary discussions and from varied religious traditions. More than 25 articles are published each year, and the journal also contains an extensive book review section.