Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A God of infinite beauty may still exercise eros as a generative outpouring toward creation, not as desire born of deficiency.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Any outpouring 'toward' something suggests directedness absent without prior motivation—which in finite cases traces to desire or need, requiring special pleading for God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God is truly infinite and self-sufficient, positing generative eros adds unnecessary agency; impersonal emanation avoids this conceptual burden.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between 'deficiency-based desire' and 'abundant generativity' remains obscure: both describe why an agent acts toward what it lacks or creates.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Overflow models of creation (Neoplatonism, medieval theology) distinguish generative giving from acquisitive desire, making both metaphysically coherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Infinite beings can possess motivational states orthogonal to lack: a artist creates from abundance, not deficiency, yet still acts expressively.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Eros as relational openness needn't imply incompleteness; it can denote the dynamic, outward-directed nature of infinite actuality itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.