Bernard
Wuellner’s always-useful Dictionary
of Scholastic Philosophy defines violence as “action contrary to the nature of a thing.” Readers of Aristotle and Aquinas will be
familiar with this usage, which is reflected in their distinction between
natural and violent motion. Some of their
applications of this distinction
presuppose obsolete science. For
example, we now know that physical objects do not have motion toward the center
of the earth, specifically, as their natural end. Hence projectile motion away from the earth
is not, after all, violent. But the
distinction itself is not obsolete. For
example, trapping or killing an animal is obviously violent in the relevant
sense. It is acting contrary to the
natural ends of the animal.
"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)
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Capital punishment on The Patrick Coffin Show
A few weeks
ago I was interviewed by Patrick Coffin on the subject of capital punishment
and the recent change to the Catechism. You
can now watch the interview either at The Patrick Coffin Show website or at YouTube.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
By Man on radio
Last week on
The Catholic
Current radio show, I was interviewed by Fr. Robert McTeigue
about By
Man Shall His Blood Be Shed and the recent change to the Catechism’s
treatment of capital punishment. The interview
lasted an hour and you
can listen to the podcast online.
Friday, October 12, 2018
The voluntarist personality
A voluntarist conception of persons takes
the will to be primary and the intellect to be secondary. That is to say, for voluntarism, at the end
of the day what we think reflects what we will.
An intellectualist conception of
persons takes the intellect to be primary and the will to be secondary. For intellectualism, at the end of the day,
what we will reflects what we think. The
two views are, naturally, more complicated than that. For example, no voluntarist would deny that
what we think affects what we will,
and no intellectualist would deny that what we will affects what we think. But
the basic idea is that for the voluntarist, the will is ultimately in the
driver’s seat, whereas for the intellectualist, the intellect is ultimately in
the driver’s seat.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Caught in the web
Many of you
will have heard the awful news already.
Longtime blogger Zippy
Catholic has died.
David
Oderberg’s new book Opting
Out: Conscience and Cooperation in a Pluralistic Society has just been published by the
Institute of Economic Affairs.
At
the Daily Intelligencer, the liberal Andrew Sullivan on the
dangerously illiberal tendencies currently unfolding within the Democratic
Party.
At Five Books, Peter Hacker on the best books
on Wittgenstein.