I don't ordinarily get too hung up on production values, but it's still incumbent upon anyone who desires their videos to be watched to maintain minimum standards. I hope for their sake the folks at Newman Center see this and take it under consideration for their future endeavors.

It's a college church, recording a zoom call. it's not that serious.

I'm sorry, I'm not Peter Kreeft. I'm only Italian, a Peter Kreeft's fan! In a memorable critical study, the great theologian of the last century, Father Cornelio Fabro, highlighted the idealist root of Karl Rahner's theology, disguised under a false interpretation of the metaphysical gnoseology of St. Thomas. Surprisingly, Fabro's study was not significantly supported within the Church. Rahner makes St. Thomas say exactly the opposite of what he actually teaches on this very delicate topic of knowledge, stating that Thomas "rejects the vulgar conception of the cognitive act as a bump against something, an intentional reaching outwards". He quotes without understanding it and in a truncated way an assertion by Thomas, who, speaking of the knowledge of the angel, quotes Plato for whom knowing takes place "through contact with the intelligible thing, and makes Thomas say that knowing does not take place in this way. In this way, the problem of knowing can be given two opposite solutions, one realist and one idealist. The realist realizes that he knows reality, and to explain this fact he develops the doctrine of the idea as a means of knowing and representing reality. Knowledge is true if the idea is adequate to reality. In idealism, the reverse occurs. Since for the idealist knowledge does not start from reality as for the realist, but starts from the idea of self-awareness, he finds himself having to explain how the intellect can pass from the idea to reality. He solves the problem by arguing that knowledge is true if reality is adequate to the idea, so he identifies the ideal with the real. But then does he create reality? The idealist will tell the realist that he too, and indeed better than him, grasps the real by the very fact that the real is ideal and the ideal is real, while the realist with his distinction between idea and reality would not be able to realize the identity of the subject with the necessary object of knowing. The realist replies that in knowing, there is only an intentional or representative identity between subject and object. To speak of an ontological identity is nonsense. It is not the stone that is in the soul, but the image of the stone.

@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp ok

But there is fear in logic.

I believe it’s Anthony Esolen. A brilliant writer and translator.

@@jeffsmith1798 Thanks!

What did you expect?