7 Comments
User's avatar
Olivia Roberts's avatar

Maybe an interesting connection with Christian theology here: Trinitarians in fact do hold that the persons of the Trinity share a single (numerically identical) will, and so cannot possibly disagree.

Woarna's avatar

I'd be interested to know how Trinitarians make sense of the idea of being distinct persons while sharing a single will, I basically just take it as a given that not having distinct wills means you aren't distinct beings though I guess the trinitarian won't disagree w/ that since they still want to say there's only one God? Idk I find the trinity stuff kind of opaque tbh lol

Olivia Roberts's avatar

“Person” in most Trinitarian theology doesn’t mean a center of consciousness and will like it does in some modern analytic philosophy. It means an individual substance* of a rational nature. So, while on some accounts of personhood, two distinct persons cannot share the same will, there’s no such conceptual entailment on the usual Christian theological use of it, they can.

As for how they’re distinct, usually it’s something to do with their relations to each other. That’s the only distinguishing factor between them. The entirety of the (essential) distinction between the Father and the Son is just that the Father begets the Son but not vice versa. And “begets” is often meant to be pretty filler-ish here, it’s just some non-creative explanatory relationship, though some writers try to say more about it.

*”Substance” here in the sense of an individual property bearing thing, not of an essence.

Victor Alexa's avatar

I think Swinburne holds that their wills are not numerically identical, but rather they are always in agreement because they value harmony between their wills, even when the difference in their preferences is arbitrary.

Olivia Roberts's avatar

Yes, but Swinburne’s views on the Trinity are very nonstandard (unorthodox, even). That is precisely one of the areas in which he is so.