The Fall and Hypertime

Hudson, Hud

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712695.001.0001

Cited by 69 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In claiming that Anselm endorses the conjunction of Extended Location, Immateriality, and Simplicity regarding the divine nature in particular, I take issue with the interpretation of his account of omnipresence offered by Hudson (2009Hudson ( , 2014 and Wierenga (1997). Hudson claims that both Anselm and Aquinas "develop accounts of omnipresence and its characteristic 'being present at' relation that are parasitic on our understanding of the straightforward, non-mysterious occupation relation with which we are all familiar" (202).…”

Section: Anselmmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Be that as it may, there are several contemporary philosophers and theologians who defend a variant of an FO model of omnipresence including Hud Hudson (2009Hudson ( , 2014, Alexander Pruss (2013), Robert Oakes (2006), and Luco J. Van Den Brom (1993).…”

Section: Omnipresence: a Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the above taxonomy in hand, I now want to turn to examine an FO model of omnipresence recently advanced by both Hud Hudson (2009Hudson ( , 2014 and Alexander Pruss (2013), what Hudson refers to as "ubiquitous entension." I'll begin by unpacking some of the requisite metaphysics undergirding their view and then flag an untoward theological implication of their account stemming from predominant analyses of the concept of 'material object.…”

Section: Omnipresence As Ubiquitous Entensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Entending objects are not 'spread out' or distributed across space such that they are partly located or present at distinct, non-overlapping places; rather, for each of the places where they are located, they are wholly located at both the places themselves as well as at each of the proper parts of those places. 13 Both Hud Hudson (2009Hudson ( , 2014 and Alexander Pruss (2013) have found in the relation of entension renewed prospects for shedding light on the divine attribute of om-nipresence. 14 They both suggest that divine omnipresence is plausibly construed in terms of ubiquitous entension: that God is wholly and entirely located at the maximally inclusive place, presumably the whole of spacetime itself, and is wholly located at each of that places proper subplaces (every proper subplace of spacetime).…”

Section: Omnipresence As Ubiquitous Entensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I then examine the recent model proposed by Hud Hudson (2009Hudson ( , 2014 and Alexander Pruss (2013)-ubiquitous entension-and flag a worry with their account that stems from predominant analyses of the concept of 'material object'. I then attempt to show that ubiquitous entension has a rich Latin medieval precedent in the work of Augusine and Anselm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Omnipresence and the Location of the Immaterial

Inman¹

2017

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I first offer a broad taxonomy of models of divine omnipresence in the Christian tradition, both past and present. I then examine the recent model proposed by Hud Hudson (2009Hudson ( , 2014 and Alexander Pruss (2013)-ubiquitous entension-and flag a worry with their account that stems from predominant analyses of the concept of 'material object'. I then attempt to show that ubiquitous entension has a rich Latin medieval precedent in the work of Augusine and Anselm. I argue that the model of omnipresence explicated by Augustine and Anselm has the resources to avoid the noted worry by offering an alternative account of the divide between the immaterial and the material. I conclude by considering a few alternative analyses of 'material object' that make conceptual room for a contemporary Christian theist to follow suite in thinking that at least some immaterial entities are literally spatially located when relating to the denizens of spacetime.At the heart of many a theistic metaphysic is the view that an exhaustive inventory of reality consists of both material and immaterial entities, and that these two domains interact in some way or other. There is, however, surprisingly little discussion at the intersection of contemporary metaphysics and philosophical theology concerning the precise nature and relationship between the material and the immaterial and its bearing on Christian theology.This was not always the case. Medieval philosophical reflection was replete with discussion on the nature of the relationship between God, angels, and the human soul and the material domain. In fact, according to Robert Pasnau (2011a), the medieval scholastics were largely in agreement that immaterial entities, though lacking in material content are, strictly speaking, spatially located or present in some sense or other when relating to material reality. The question that preoccupied medieval philosophical theologians, then, was not whether such entities were spatially located or present in their dealings with material beings, but rather, how they were located as such. This, of course, assumes an understanding of the material-immaterial divide that is largely foreign to the contemporary context. Yet it is one that is both philosophically interesting, theologically fruitful, and by my lights worthy of serious consideration once again. * For a representative writing sample please consult the introduction, §2, and §4.

show abstract

Section: Anselmmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Omnipresence: a Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Omnipresence As Ubiquitous Entensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Omnipresence As Ubiquitous Entensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations