A few notes from Gerson's interaction with Carson

 

1. Perhaps THE fundamental difference between Platonism and Christianity is the personhood of the first principle of all, i.e., there is no possibility of interaction with the first principle for Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus. There is no poss. of interaction because the first principle doesn’t need anything/is self-sufficient/doesn’t have any desires. 
2. The best attempt to reconcile personhood and the Platonic understanding of the first principle of all is Dionysius, or at least something “along the lines of Dionysius.” 
3. To show that Christianity is superior to Platonism, the Christian philosopher or theologian must show that the integrative unity of the human person requires interpersonal interaction with the first principle of all. LG “does not know how you can show that.” LG says showing this would indicate a “defect” in Platonism, but not amount to the destruction of the system. 
4. The systems of Aquinas, Dionysius, and Maximus are not “all that persuasive.” They attempt to merge the scriptural and the philosophical, but it is simply a “shifting back and forth between two very different paradigms.” He suggests they don’t successfully merge the two.
5. LG suggests that attempts to unite Platonism with a conception of a personal God (hence one that is not self-sufficient) are not “fruitful”
6. Saying the first principle of all is personal, is contradictory, i.e., it undermines the necessary characteristics of being a first principle of all. Specifically, it undermines simplicity and self-sufficiency.
7. Something only engages in personal interaction if it is not self-sufficient. 
8. If the first principle of all is personal, then it has a nature. If it has a nature, then it is both an existent and a nature. Then we can ask why it has this nature. We must appeal to something more fundamental. Ultimately, the appeal will end up with something completely simple.