Dr. B, this is purely an information-seeking question. I ask because I am working on doxa and episteme in Plato and contemporaries, and this is a very controversial subject among specialists - in the crowd of whom I am nearer to the bottom than the top, lol.

What is the Latin of 'judgment,' in the sense that you use that term when you say that the mind forms a judgment that something exists?

Does judgment differ from "belief" when the latter is used in sentences like, "The jury formed the belief that the defendant did steal the money"?

Some specialists hold that doxa is aptly translated as 'judgment' in Plato, which gets at the notion of truth-claim. Others say that this is wrong and that it should be rendered, 'belief.' In German, doxa is often translated as Meinung, 'opinion,' and the verb doxazein as vorstellen, to represent. A mental representation and a judgment/truth claim are not the same things. A recent forthcoming article argues that doxa is "cognition of what seems."

So I'm wondering how the Thomistic tradition deals with what in its own Greek antecedents had been the notion of doxa.

As you well know, his name is Legion, for he is many (most of whom appear to be infesting tech devices).

I already have pointed out to friends many times that my cell phone is the devil.

After dealing with Disqus, how can you not believe in the Devil?

I knew it! I will have my vengeance Zuckerberg in this life or the next! :D

Don't see any upvote so far.
There is a conspiracy going on. And Disqus is in the centre of it.

Analytics they are a dime a dozen. :D. PS I hope Disqus register's my upvote. Let me know if it does.

ZUCKERBERG!!! KAHN!!!!

:D

Couldn't resist quoting this from Peter van Inwagen, in an article on being vs existence:

"I have also left out of my count certain theories of being and existence which cannot be translated into language acceptable to philosophers likely to be reading this paper [[my bolding]]. (In my view, various ancient and mediaeval theories have this feature; it is certainly a feature of the theories of Heidegger and Sartre.)"

Bwa ha ha!

Off the top of my head he could be objecting to Feser's linguistic choices? If I may. speculate "God 'just is existence itself'" might be misinterpreted to mean Feser is arguing some sort of Pantheism(which is absurd given Feser's Traditionalist leanings). Feser has said in his other writings and blog post that God is His Own Existence. Which follows from the fact there is no real distinction in the Godhead between What God is (i.e. essence) and That God is(i.e. His Being).

Brian Davies gets similar jazz when he says "God is not morally good". Ott and Aquinas Himself say "God is morally Good" as other Catholic and Protestant critics point out to him indignantly (some of whom are Classic Theists themselves). OTOH as Davies retorts to his critics if you read how they explain those sentences "God is morally Good" it is clear neither see God an a moral being unequivocally comparable to a virtuous rational creature. Indeed neither see God as something that has obligations to His creatures only himself. Aquinas explicitly says God is a law unto Himself.

It sound more like a dispute over proper terms rather than philosophy. I'll take a look when I get around to it. Unless his critic is a Scotus? Then all bets are off........;-). Whatshisname from The Smithy Blog and Feser can then go at it. I am not involved.

Feser keeps saying God “just is existence itself” without specifying that God is “his existence itself. The difference is not trivial.”