Physicist
Robert Oerter has added some further installments to his
series of posts on my book The
Last Superstition, including a reply to some of my criticisms of his
criticisms of the book. I will respond
to his latest remarks in a forthcoming post, but before doing so it seemed to
me that it would be useful to make some general remarks about certain
misunderstandings that have not only cropped up in my exchange with Oerter and
in the combox discussions it has generated, but which frequently arise in
disputes about natural theology (and, for that matter, in disputes about
natural law ethics and about the immateriality and immortality of the
soul). In particular, they tend to arise
in disputes about what we might call classical
natural theology -- natural theology grounded in philosophical premises
deriving from the Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, and/or Scholastic
traditions.
"One of the best contemporary writers on philosophy" National Review
"A terrific writer" Damian Thompson, Daily Telegraph
"Feser... has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable" Sir Anthony Kenny, Times Literary Supplement
Selected for the First Things list of the 50 Best Blogs of 2010 (November 19, 2010)
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Cinematic representation
What makes
it the case that a picture of Grandma represents Grandma? That it looks
like her, you might say. But that
can’t be the right answer, or at least not the whole answer. The picture might look like any of several people; still, it represents only Grandma. Or
it might not look much like her at
all -- consider a bad drawing, or even a photograph taken at an odd angle or in
unusual lighting or while the subject is wearing a very unusual expression -- yet
still represent her. Indeed, that resemblance of any sort is neither sufficient nor
necessary for representation is about as settled a philosophical thesis as
there is. (The reasons are many. An object might resemble all sorts of things
without representing them. Resemblance
is a symmetrical relationship, but representation is not: If a certain picture
resembles Grandma, Grandma also resembles the picture; but while the picture
might represent Grandma, Grandma does not represent the picture. There are many things we can represent in
thought or language -- the absence of something, a certain point in time,
conditional statements, disjunctions, conjunctions, etc. -- without these
representations resembling their objects, either pictorially or in any other
way. And so forth. Chapter 1 of Tim Crane’s The
Mechanical Mind provides a useful discussion of the issue.)
Monday, May 21, 2012
John Paul the Great Academy
John Paul the Great Academy in Lafayette,
Louisiana is a fine Catholic college preparatory institution promoting the
classical curriculum, the Thomistic intellectual tradition, and fidelity to the
teaching of the Church. Unfortunately,
the Academy is suddenly facing the prospect of closure and is urgently in need
of the prayers and financial assistance of those sympathetic to its mission. Take a look at the school’s website to find
out more about the Academy, and please consider making a
contribution.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Oerter contra the principle of causality
The
Scholastic principle of causality states
that any potential, if actualized, must be actualized by something already
actual. (It is also sometimes formulated
as the thesis that whatever is moved is
moved by another or whatever is
changed is changed by another. But
the more technical way of stating it is less potentially misleading for readers
unacquainted with Scholastic thinking, who are bound to read things into terms
like “motion” or “change” that Scholastic writers do not intend.)
In an
earlier post I responded to an objection to the principle raised by
physicist Robert Oerter, who has, at his blog, been writing up a
series of critical posts on my book The
Last Superstition. Oerter has
now posted two further installments in his series, which develop and defend his
criticism of the principle of causality.
Let’s take a look.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Aquinas on audio
Your print
copy of Aquinas
is dog-eared. You’ve worn out your
Kindle reading the
e-book version. If only you could
give your eyes a rest! And avoid the car accidents you’re
risking by flipping though the book on the way to work! Well, you’re in luck: Aquinas is now available in an audio
version.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Review of Krauss
Something of
a latecomer to the ecumenical Lawrence Krauss-bashing that has been taking
place across the Internet, my review of A
Universe from Nothing appears in the latest (June/July) issue of First Things. You can read it online here. More on this unusually awful book anon.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Oerter on universals and causality
George Mason
University physicist (and author of The
Theory of Almost Everything) Robert
Oerter is writing up a
series of posts on my book The
Last Superstition over at his blog.
Oerter is critical but he engages the book seriously and in good
faith. He’s presented a couple of
objections so far, and they merit a response.
So, here’s a response.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Kripke contra computationalism
That the
brain is a digital computer and the mind the software run on the computer are
theses that seem to many to be confirmed by our best science, or at least by
our best science fiction. But
we recently looked at some arguments from Karl Popper, John Searle, and
others that expose serious (indeed, I would say fatal) difficulties with the
computer model of the mind. Saul Kripke
presents another such argument. It is
not well known. It was hinted at in a
footnote in his famous book Wittgenstein
on Rules and Private Language (WRPL)
and developed in some unpublished lectures.
But Jeff Buechner’s recent article “Not Even Computing Machines Can
Follow Rules: Kripke’s Critique of Functionalism” offers a very useful
exposition of Kripke’s argument. (You
can find Buechner’s article in Alan Berger’s anthology Saul
Kripke.)
New from Editiones scholasticae
I
called attention some time back to Editiones scholasticae, a new
German publishing venture devoted to publishing works in Scholastic philosophy,
including reprints of works which have long been out of print. Three new reprints are set to appear, which
will be available in the United States this August via Transaction Publishers:
J. Elliot
Ross, Ethics:
From the Standpoint of Scholastic Philosophy
Michael W.
Shallo, Lessons
in Scholastic Philosophy
Maurice de
Wulf, An
Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy: Medieval and Modern
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Contemporary Scholasticism
Ontos
Verlag, the international publisher in philosophy and mathematical logic,
is pleased to present the new book series:
EDITED BY
Edward Feser • Edmund Runggaldier
ADVISORY BOARD
Brian Davies, Fordham University, U.S.A.
Christian Kanzian, University of Innsbruck,
Austria
Gyula Klima, Fordham University, U.S.A.
David S. Oderberg, University of
Reading, U.K.
Eleonore Stump, Saint Louis University,
U.S.A.
Contemporary Scholasticism is a new book
series providing a forum for the growing community of philosophers who are
interested in applying insights drawn from the Aristotelian and Scholastic
traditions to current philosophical debates.
The first volume of this new series, Metaphysics:
Aristotelian, Scholastic, Analytic, has now been published. Edited by Lukáš Novák, Daniel D. Novotný, Prokop
Sousedík, and David Svoboda, the volume is the fruit of the conference of the same name
held in Prague in 2010, and contains many of the papers there presented.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Rosenberg roundup
Having now
completed our ten-part series of posts on Alex Rosenberg’s The
Atheist’s Guide to Reality, it seems a roundup of sorts is in
order. As I have said, Rosenberg’s book
is worthy of attention because he sees more clearly than most other contemporary
atheist writers do the true implications of the scientism on which their
position is founded. And interestingly enough,
the implications he says it has are more or less the very implications I argued scientism has in my own book The
Last Superstition. The
difference between us is this: Rosenberg acknowledges that the implications in
question are utterly bizarre, but maintains that they must be accepted because
the case for the scientism that entails them is ironclad. I maintain that Rosenberg’s case for
scientism is completely worthless, and that the implications of scientism are
not merely bizarre but utterly incoherent and constitute a reductio ad absurdum of the premises that lead to them.