There's an interesting discussion of that question over at Right Reason. The post's author, Alexander Pruss, is certainly right to imply that love in the relevant sense, i.e. agape, cannot be merely a disposition. But neither do I think it right to say that agape entails no disposition to love, if indeed that's what is being said. I'd say that agape is fundamentally a kind of action which, when performed regularly, entails a non-necessitating habitus or disposition to act similarly.
Why is the Past So Tense?
-
(This one from 2020 is a keeper. I've radically reworked in light of what
Gemini has revealed to me about myself, which is to say, the 12 Axioms that
can...
48 minutes ago












