Friday, August 25, 2017

Hey, kids! Links!


Philosophy Now interviews Raymond Tallis about his major new book on the philosophy of time.  At The Guardian, Tallis on how he writes.

More justice, less crime.  Joseph Bessette on “mass incarceration” as a consequence of mass crime, at the Claremont Review of Books.

Catholic Herald reports that Dominican theologian Fr. Aidan Nichols has proposed that canon law may require the inclusion of “a procedure for calling to order a pope who teaches error.”  Commentary from canon lawyer Ed Peters.

The Guardian on the triumph of F. A. Hayek.
 
Margaret Atwood on Ray Bradbury, in The Paris Review.

At National Review, Elliot Kaufman on the New Atheists versus Islam

Materialist philosophers Daniel Dennett and David Papineau duke it out at The Times Literary Supplement.


Steely Dan’s Donald Fagen on touring with twentysomethings.  Donald is not a fan of The Donald

An interview with philosopher Thomas Ryckman about his book Einstein, a volume in the Routledge Philosophers series.

The man who made the superhero genre what it is: Jack Kirby’s centennial is this year.  Wired comments.  An exhibition at Cal State Northridge.  100 comic book creators honor Kirby in a special volume.  Naturally, DC and Marvel have their own commemorations

Philosopher Dennis Bonnette on metaphysical first principles, at Strange Notions. Also, Bonnette on metaphysical naturalism.

Jay Nordlinger interviews conservative philosopher Roger Scruton at National ReviewReview of The Religious Philosophy of Roger Scruton at the Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies.

More on Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia: Theologian Nicola Bux says that the Church is facing “a full crisis of faith.”  Philosopher Josef Seifert wonders whether Amoris “has the logical consequence of destroying the entire Catholic moral teaching.”  Theologian Alexander Lucie-Smith fears a catastropheCardinal Burke indicates that “formal correction” of the pope is “now necessary.”

The Tablet profiles Yale computer scientist and conservative writer David Gelernter.

Angelo Codevilla reviews Arthur Herman’s new book on General Douglas MacArthur, at the Claremont Review of Books.

In Philosophia Christi, Timothy Hsiao defends the perverted faculty argument.

New books: The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism, by Thomas Joseph White; Aquinas on the Metaphysics of the Hypostatic Union, by Michael Gorman; Thomas and the Thomists, by Romanus Cessario and Cajetan Cuddy; The Immortal in You, by Michael Augros; and The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics by Robert C. Koons and Timothy Pickavance.

3:AM Magazine interviews philosopher Michail Peramatzis on the subject of Aristotelian metaphysics.

At Public Discourse, Anthony McCarthy on artificial wombs.

A tale of two Normans: The Smart Set on Mailer and Podhoretz.

Theologian Christopher Malloy explains why he loves the work of Thomas Aquinas, at Rorate Caeli.

Also at Public Discourse, philosopher David Hershenov on some bad arguments in defense of abortionQuartz on the “disturbing, eugenics-like reality unfolding in Iceland.”


Lapham’s Quarterly on the Third Reich’s nutjob occultism.

At The Regensburg Forum, Catholic philosopher Thomas Pink and Protestant pastor Steven Wedgeworth debate Vatican II and religious liberty.

At Eclectic Orthodoxy, Kimel versus Tuggy on the Trinity.

55 comments:

  1. Well, looks like I've got alot of reading to do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Guardian article lost me at "Hayek was a mediocre economist".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough. Naturally, my linking to something doesn't mean I agree with it!

      With these "links of interest" posts, it's important to keep in mind that there are several ways in which something might be of "interest."

      Delete
    2. @ Nicholas

      That's The Guardian for you. Not only did Hayek win his own Nobel prize, but other prize winners (e.g. North, Buchanan, Smith, Ostrom, etc.) all cited him as being a primary influence on their own work. North called him the greatest social scientist of the 20th century. But of course The Guardian doesn't like any views that could undermine their preferred democratic socialism, so Hayek gets labeled "mediocre." Par for the course.

      Delete
    3. There's no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics.

      Delete
    4. Wut? http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/press.html

      Delete
    5. It was not one of the prizes that Nobel set up in his name.

      Delete
    6. Anon @ 3:19

      It's sort of disingenuous, though, to say there's no Nobel prize when it's clearly on the organization's official website. It's not clear why the fact that Nobel himself didn't initiate it is relevant.

      Delete
    7. I don't see why, just because he descendants want to cash in, Nobel's own wishes should be ignored. If he specifically didn't wish to give the award for economics, it is just disrespectful. To me that is what is disingenuous.

      Delete
    8. Anon:
      The prize in economics has nothing to do with Nobel or his descendants. It is funded by the Swedish Central Bank and is actually the Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
      If you want to split hairs (and our host is a philosopher, after all), I don't think we can say Nobel explicitly didn't want to give a prize for economics. He didn't, but I'd be surprised if there were a clause in his will to the effect that "I forbid the foundation set up in my name to have anything to do with a prize in economics."
      Hayek's Nobel lecture is well worth a read, by the way - much better than that Guardian article, that was pure torture!

      Delete
  3. OP: At Public Discourse, Anthony McCarthy on artificial wombs.

    I appreciate this post on a subject I think has received too little consideration, especially as it relates to the definition of when a human life begins as a matter of individual moral judgement, and as a matter of law.

    This particular link did not explore those subjects in depth but the mention of this subject is at least something valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. babies in biobags is just awful, i can't stop thinking about that one part in the matrix with the artificial wombs, yuck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous August 26, 2017 at 1:23 AM

      "babies in biobags is just awful,"
      --Is it? Yes, I realize that a distopian nightmare scenario can be disturbing but an artificial womb would also be a great advance in neonatal intensive care. I'm sure you can appreciate that for a couple facing the loss of life of a child due to premature birth advances in neonatal care are just wonderful.

      As for the abortion debate an artificial womb will present a profound legal issue. Right now the court applies the viability standard when judging the constitutionality of state restrictions on abortions. A state may outlaw elective abortions post viability, and at 20 weeks there can be a presumption of viability. The viability standard is more restrictive than the original trimester framework established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.

      Viability is defined as the ability of a child to survive a premature birth with the aid of technology, presently on record at about 21 weeks.

      So what happens to the viability standard when a fetus can survive to maturity when taken out at 16 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 2 weeks? Given our inexorable technological progress I predict we will have to face this legal and moral issue.

      In my view we will need to establish a new standard for the beginning of life, doing away with the viability standard. I think that new standard should be brain function, similar to the use of brain function as a present standard for legal declaration of the end of life.


      Delete
    2. agree, I think it would be a great help for children who are premature, it reduces the risk of premature death and damages that are common for these children.

      It could be a positive advancement in the abortion debate, instead of abortion the child would be transferred from the womb to the artificial one to gestate.

      It could push he viability standard even further but I don't think that sustaining a fetus (in it's very early stages) outside of the womb is possible. There are to many problems with the whole idea, we can only speculate for now.

      as for your last paragraph, I agree that brain function is a justified standard to use for declaring a person legally dead. When it comes to life in an early stage, some would argue that neural activity indicates life, but i think that life begins in the very first weeks.

      Delete
    3. Please don't feed the trolls.

      Delete
    4. I know he's a troll, but he responded nicely so i gave him a nice response back.

      Delete
    5. That's why I didn't respond to his first comment. But once someone engages him, he will spread like a rash, with trolling comments. Just watch. A tough, united line is our only chance to rid ourselves of this infestation.

      Delete
  5. #BanTheTrollAlready

    XD. Leave him to his misconceptions and delusions of grandure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Scruton interview was mixed. Sir Roger was, as always, interesting, but Nordlinger is getting weaker year by year. It was entertaining when he would pause, then change the subject, when he got an answer he didn't expect. While there are still some worthwhile articles, National Review has narrowed terribly on Lowry's watch.

    One thing Scruton didn't really go into, and which I think is important, is just how much nationality should be understood in modern terms. Generally, the notion of nationalism is itself a modern thing, quite distinct from the older mixture of region, dynasty, etc., and one which demands loyalty to one's country as the fundamental moral imperative.

    ReplyDelete
  7. > More justice, less crime. Joseph Bessette on “mass incarceration” as a consequence of mass crime, at the Claremont Review of Books.

    Confirmation bias. Norway decided to treat their criminals with an adult summer camp complete with scheduled activities, a dormitory, and video games and there wasn't "mass crime," so doesn't that falsify your hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure you will find both Catholic's and Thomists that agree with you in rejecting mass incarceration. The American model seems largely predicated on a business model.

      Delete
    2. Wow, one anecdotal situation, in a non-American venue...and we are supposed to draw statistically valid inferences?

      Just out of curiosity, what time frame was allotted for the data collected, and what definitions were specified for "there wasn't mass crime"?

      Delete
    3. I'm sure you will find both Catholic's and Thomists that agree with you in rejecting mass incarceration. The American model seems largely predicated on a business model.

      Did you mean to suggest there are lots of Thomists who aren't Catholics? How interesting!

      Those who commit crimes from bad will should be punished, for the good of the whole order (and this includes the one punished). Incarceration isn't the only sort of punishment...did you want to offer that we go back to whippings, the stocks, and the scarlet letter 'A'? I was under the impression that prison was intended to be less burdensome than those - and the "business model" came after the decisions to eradicate most other forms of punishment, not before.

      Delete
    4. Actually, Singapore uses caning and to great effect. And to me, caning is a less severe (i.e. more merciful) punishment than incarceration, because the pain from caning only lasts for a month or so, while incarceration can take years away from your life, making you completely desocialized and without any skills for society. Only death is worse than incarceration.

      Delete
    5. Tony I never said we shouldn't have prisons. I was just making the point that the American system has issues. Too many people end up in American prisons. Not all Thomists are Catholic.

      Delete
    6. An interesting experiment would be to give convicts the choice between caning and prison. See what they prefer...

      There is a certain attempt to avoid the responsability in only inflicting passive or abstract punishments (i.e. prison and fines). As if we are not really comfortable about dealing out justice.

      Delete
  8. Tomislav OstojichAugust 26, 2017 at 9:07 PM

    " Norway decided to treat their criminals with an adult summer camp complete with scheduled activities, a dormitory, and video games and there wasn't "mass crime," "
    --Suggestion: In your neighborhood open up an adult camp for criminals, then transfer the population of Pelican Bay State Prison to your neighborhood camp. Let's see how that works out for you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Feser, I don't know if this counts as an open thread, but I will dare to ask anyway. Given your references to the Catechism in our various interviews promoting your death penalty book, do you consider it an authoritative document?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Catechism contains teachings from various documents, mixed with some of the safer and more popular views on things by theologians. As Pope Benedict himself pointed out - inclusion in the Catechism does not increase somethings doctrinal status, nor does it settle continuing areas of theological inquiry or further development in understanding.

      Delete
    2. Thank you! Where did Pope Benedict say that?

      Delete
    3. I would have to go digging, but he may have said it in an introduction to the compendium to the catechism. Unfortunately I have family things to deal with and won't have the time to check for you.

      Delete
    4. No problem. Thank you for alerting me to it.

      Delete
  10. My source for the Norway claim is <a href="xhttp://www.cracked.com/article_19489_5-terrible-ideas-that-solved-huge-global-problems.html>this cracked.com article</a>, but remember that the fact that something is handled in an unserious manner does not logically entail that said thing must now be a falsehood.

    Given that the past hundred of years the solution advocated has always been "more retribution" and we're nowhere near closer to solving the problem, Albert Einstein's quote about insanity is certainly appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given that the past hundred of years...

      Doesn't compute. Nobody that the state is now incarcerating is someone that the state was incarcerating hundreds of years ago.

      The only way to "solve" the crime issue is to get rid of humans who have free will and have not received the Beatific Vision. No humans on this Earthy, no crime. Aside from that solution, original sin guarantees you that we will continue to have "the crime problem", and it's just gobbledygook to suggest there could be "a solution" if we only tried the right formula.

      Delete
    2. Aside from that solution, original sin guarantees you that we will continue to have "the crime problem", and it's just gobbledygook to suggest there could be "a solution" if we only tried the right formula.

      Why not be logically consistent then and not bother with any sort of government? After all, people will always do evil, so it's pointless to try to make things better. This is just a theological variation of the nirvana fallacy Tony.

      I also don't understand why Edward Feser is against utilitarianism, because natural law is literally a special case of utilitarianism. Natural law is an implementation of utilitarianism that assigns a utility of negative infinity to a list of certain actions. Therefore it is impossible to be against utilitarianism because it's just a more generalized and abstract version of natural law.

      Delete
    3. All natural law theorists are opposed to utilitarianism; utilitarianism is literally the opposite of a natural law theory. Moral prohibitions in natural law theory are not based on assignment of utilities, which requires analysis of consequences, but on an account of how practical reasoning works (one which does not primarily depend on utilities). You might as well say that utilitarianism is just a more generalized and abstract version of logic, because it's just an implementation of utilitarianism that assigns a utility of negative infinity to denying the principle of noncontradiction and other axioms. (The parallel is exact, in fact, since natural law is supposed to be nothing other than the logic of practical reasoning about actual common good.)

      Delete
    4. You might as well say that utilitarianism is just a more generalized and abstract version of logic, because it's just an implementation of utilitarianism that assigns a utility of negative infinity to denying the principle of noncontradiction and other axioms.

      Utilitarianism, along with probability theory, is indeed an abstraction of propositional logic. However, I don't know whether utilitarianism is an abstraction of logic in general because logic involves variables and rules regarding how to introduce and eliminate variables. Maybe there is a way to represent such variables as real numbers, but I don't know.

      However, after thinking about the matter, I concluded that if Feser says that "utilitarianism is false," he really means "utilitarianism is true iff it works identically to natural law." So I'm really just being pedantic here.

      For what it's worth, I do support natural law.

      Delete
    5. Utilitarianism, along with probability theory, is indeed an abstraction of propositional logic.

      This claim is literally gibberish. Propositions are not forms of utilities, and propositional logic is not a form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the consequentialist approach to ethics based on some form of the principle of utility; propositional logic neither depends on the principle of utility, nor is in any way whatsoever a form of ethical consequentialism. You seem to be making at least two fundamental errors -- confusing analysis involving utilities (which is purely a formal method) with utilitarianism, and confusing 'X can be modeled in terms of Y for certain purposes' with 'Y is an abstraction of X'. These are both very serious conflations.

      Feser says that "utilitarianism is false," he really means "utilitarianism is true iff it works identically to natural law."

      He does not; this conclusion makes the second of the errors noted above. Utilitarianism and natural law theory are opposed and mutually exclusive accounts of how practical reasoning works in ethical contexts.

      Delete
    6. This claim is literally gibberish. Propositions are not forms of utilities, and propositional logic is not a form of utilitarianism.

      Allow me to explain myself. Define the utility function f such that it is equal to zero if it violates natural law and one otherwise. Now further specify f so that for any two choice of actions S and P

      * f(S and P) = f(S) * f(P)
      * f(not S) = 1 - f(S)
      * f(S or P) = f(not ((not S) and (not P))) = 1 - f((not S) and (not P)) = 1 - (f(not S) * f(not P)) = 1 - ((1- f(S))*(1-f(P)))

      Now you can model all of natural law as utilities.

      and confusing 'X can be modeled in terms of Y for certain purposes' with 'Y is an abstraction of X'.

      I thought that the definition of "Y is an abstraction of X" was "X can be modeled in terms of Y."

      Delete
    7. Now you can model all of natural law as utilities.

      This establishes conclusively that you are making the first erroneous conflation that I noted. You have a formal analysis, involving a utility function, that has been given an interpretation that allows it to be used to talk indirectly about natural law. You have in no way whatsoever introduced utilitarianism. You are being misled by the fact that utilitarians sometimes make use of models with utility functions into thinking that models using utility functions are utilitarianism. This is false. You are equivocating on the word.

      I thought that the definition of "Y is an abstraction of X" was "X can be modeled in terms of Y."

      Under the right interpretation, you can model propositional logic in terms of term logic, and term logic in terms of propositional logic; this has been known since the nineteenth century. All this means is that they share abstract structure in such a way that with the right interpretation of that structure (for instance, by interpreting propositions as terms and taking the antecedent and consequent to be the subject term and the predicate term of a universal affirmative proposition) you can use the methods of one to infer about the other. There's no sense in saying that they are abstractions of each other; it's certain otiose to say it if all you mean is that they can be modeled in terms of each other.

      It's possible that you are thinking of a specialized meaning in a particular context; if so, it's unclear why you think any such specialized meaning, however, is relevant to talking about general approaches to ethics.

      Delete
  11. On Bradbury: Think of all the anthologies that could be made of his works: "The Irish Stories of Ray Bradbury"; "The Mexican Stories"; "The Horror Stories"; "The Hollywood Stories"; "The Love Stories"; "The Martian Stories"; "The Catholic Stories"; "The Small-Town Stories"; not to mention "The Science Fiction Stories."

    He was a phenomenon and a gift.

    ReplyDelete
  12. on Hayek.
    I don't think these Europeans mattered to the post war American economic civilization. What influence/decisions were made in Hayek's name that wouldn't of been made anyways.
    I see these people as irrelevant to a thriving civilization.
    If they were arguing with a few others about how things should be organized it still didn't matter.

    It comes down once again to attempts to turn civilization into a few conclusions relative to economy.
    I say economy is entirely a issue of intelligence, and some industry, and the 'isms are irrelevant to real civilization.
    Adam smith being the first one to get it wrong.
    Its better not to interfere with work but only a little.
    Whether a economy is planned. somewhat planned, or not planned makes no difference.
    its still just about intelligent people creating the wealth and the lack of intelligence is the origin for lack of wealth.
    just like in real people we know.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When is your next open thread? I would like to ask about a Thomistic response to Peter Singer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would like to read your input on the philosophy of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is writing on it in his book on philosophy of nature

      Delete
    2. Noted. Until then, I'd still like to see a quick non-detailed input from him on this subject in the form of a blog post or an article

      Delete
  15. Re the assertion that Hayek was the greatest social scientist of the 20th century.
    I am 75 years old and over the past 50 years or so have read hundreds of books and thousands of essays on the very broad topic of what could be called social science.
    I have never, even once, found any reference to the work of Hayek either in the footnotes or the recommended reading lists/references of these books and essays.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In case commenters are following the debate, part two of the Dignitatis Humanae debate is up at Regensburg Forum:

    http://regensburgforum.com/2017/08/31/design-by-committee-the-challenge-of-reading-dignitatis-humanae-aright/

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've just been browsing through a couple of books from my shelves.. One is called "Der Teufel in der Wissenschaft" (The Devil in Science) by Prause and Randow. It describes the catastrophic errors of the Schoolmen such as Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and Bonaventura - men who were regarded as supreme authorities. Everything these "great men" said was regarded as the absolute truth - and no one doubted (or dared openly to doubt) what they pronounced. They all claimed that witches and wizards existed, they they consorted with the demons and had sexual intercourse with the devil, that they killed cattle, spoiled harvests and made people ill, that they flew on animals or broomsticks though the night to have Witches' Sabbaths where they killed and ate little children before have sexual orgies with the demons. That's what the schoolmen said.

    And, John, people accepted that as the undoubted truth. The terrible consequences were the deaths and torture of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of innocent persons over three and a half centuries in the Inquisition (mainly, but not only, women), drowned or burnt at the stake in the name of Church. Until finally the Enlightenment and the concept of scientific endeavour based on the observation of reality eventually overcame the ignorance and superstituon of the Schoolmen.

    The second book I took to hand was the "Hexenhammer", Malleus Maleficarum.

    Perhaps you can understand that I want nothing to do with the ideas of the neo-Scholastics, least of all with a populist, rat-catching apologist like Feser and his blog - which is the point of this comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They all claimed that witches and wizards existed, they they consorted with the demons and had sexual intercourse with the devil, that they killed cattle, spoiled harvests and made people ill, that they flew on animals or broomsticks though the night to have Witches' Sabbaths where they killed and ate little children before have sexual orgies with the demons. That's what the schoolmen said.

      Citations are needed. And I'm sure that some schoolmen said outrageous things... just like how some atheists today say outrageous things, such as Stefan Molyneux. But what you need to show is that this is a fault of a theological system and give precise quotations.

      least of all with a populist, rat-catching apologist like Feser

      What does "populist, rat-catching apologist" even mean?

      Delete
    2. The Malleus Maleficarum was published in 1486, and all the men you name above died centuries earlier. "Everything these "great men" said was regarded as the absolute truth" - where do you get this rubbish from? They all were involved in vigorous debate in their time, and scholastics like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham were happy to oppose various views of Thomas Aquinas. But I don't believe your book tells the truth about what these men believed - in general medieval churchmen believed witches could cause death or abortion by means of potions, but rejected their claims that they could fly or cause harm at a distance. The Decretum of Bishop of Worms (about 1020AD) reveals: "Burchard, or the teachers from whom he has compiled his treatise, still believes in some forms of witchcraft — in magical potions, for instance, which may produce impotence or abortion. But he altogether rejects the possibility of many of the marvellous powers with which witches were popularly credited. Such, for example, were the nocturnal riding through the air, the changing of a person's disposition from love to hate, the control of thunder, rain, and sunshine, the transformation of a man into an animal, the intercourse of incubi and succubi with human beings. Not only the attempt to practise such things but the very belief in their possibility is treated by him as a sin for which the confessor must require his penitent to do a serious assigned penance." Since this medieval authority believed it sinful to believe in such powers, why would Thomas Aquinas believe it?
      However, after 1486, when the Malleus Maleficarum was published, people began to believe witches could do all these things. That was the point of the book, to claim that witches really had powers that most medieval authorities thought were just delusions.
      By the way, I have personally met people who claimed to be witches. What am I to do in these enlightened times when everyone has a right to determine his/her/its own identity? Say, no, witches don't exist. Or accept their claimed identity?
      Do you own any reliable books?

      Delete
  18. "It describes the catastrophic errors of the Schoolmen such as Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and Bonaventura - men who were regarded as supreme authorities."

    Tell it to the Archbishop of Paris, who almost immediately condemned Aquinas's teachings.

    Basically, your comment is "name-dropping equals history."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My mistake. Bishop of Paris, not Archbishop.

      Delete
  19. I find the article by Thomas Pink on Dignitatis Humanae to be remarkably unconvincing. According to his theory of what the Vatican II Fathers had to say, Christ's establishment of a Church here on Earth changed forever that no state could exercise any coercive authority with respect to religion in any sense except by being directed to by the Church.

    There are a number of ways in which this fails to pass the sniff test, including things like:

    (a) does Pink think this referred to every state in the world, as soon Pentecost Sunday hit in Jerusalem, so that polities formerly operating under what had been a natural law order which allowed states to address religion under the natural law dictates toward religion, now had no authority to do so - even though places like China and Japan would not hear of Christ for 1500 years?

    (b) Does Pink think that the way the Jewish authorities before Christ exercised coercion about religious matters was "under the natural law" rather than at God's direction as from revealed truth? If not, how then is it due to an established "Church" that the coming of Jesus changed the nature of civil authority?

    (c) Pink makes not even a smidgeon of an effort to distinguish between coercion exercised with respect to the external forum and the internal forum, and similar matters that have usually been used to distinguish Vatican II being "development" rather than radical departure from traditional teaching on the authority of the state to coerce. Does Pink intend that those distinctions are completely irrelevant to the reason why there is no radical departure in V-II from the traditional teaching?

    (d) But perhaps most importantly, Pink doesn't make any reasonable effort to show that by making a Church, Christ intended to take matters out of the state's hands that formerly had belonged to the states.

    As far as I can tell, while Thomas Pink does address the meaning of "coercion", he does regrettably little toward analyzing the differences in the Church performing coercion vs the state doing so, and whether this might have a telling influence on what we mean by a "potestas" making rules about what a person may or may not do religiously. For instance, if the point of using the term potestas is to highlight the fact that the said power not only wields the sword as a threat of physical violence and physical force to those who refuse obedience, they do so legitimately, this makes it highly troublesome to refer to the Church as a potestas in that sense, since she has not generally wielded the sword herself. Indeed, in the modern era, it is difficult to imagine people like Paul VI, JPII, Benedict VI, and Francis I even thinking to wield the sword as a Church potestas on fellow Catholics. If, on the other hand, the "coercion" that a church wields excludes physical force and violence, and is limited to imposition of religious penalties and withholding of religious rights or benefits, this can hardly be understood as "coercion" in the very same univocal sense that is so broadly condemned by liberal theory.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello Mr. Feser!

    Does this make sense from an A-T viewpoint? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/05/book-review-surfing-uncertainty/

    ReplyDelete