At UnHerd, Sohrab Ahmari has had
enough with Donald Trump’s “mad king” governing style, and sides
with Pope Leo in his feud with the president.
James Franklin’s
new book The Necessities Underlying
Reality: Connecting Philosophy of Mathematics, Ethics and Probability is
available by Open Access.
American Songwriter reports that Donald Fagen has retired from touring with Steely Dan. More details at Vulture.
At his
Substack, Edward Pentin interviews
Peter Kwasniewski about the new book The Disastrous
Pontificate: Pope Francis’ Rupture from the Magisterium by Dominic
Grigio.
Gene
Callahan interviews
Philip Pilkington about his book The Collapse of Global Liberalism, at Modern Age.
Philosopher Susan
Haack died last month. Obituary
at the University of Miami website.
Luke Foster reviews Pierre
Manent’s Challenging Modern Atheism and
Indifference, at Public Discourse.
At his blog,
Daniel Shields replies
to Fr. James Dominic Rooney’s review of his fine book Nature and Nature’s God. (Shields
replied to my own review in an
earlier post.)
Two new open
access articles on hylomorphism and quantum physics from physicist and
philosopher William M. R. Simpson: Don’t
Squint: Quantum Hylomorphism Can Solve Albert’s Macro-Object Problem,
in Topoi; and Contextual
Bohmian Quantum Field Theories: A Hylomorphic Approach to QFT, in Foundations of Physics.
Lorraine
Daston on
Albert O. Hirschman’s The Passions and the
Interests, at Public Books.
CBR on six
changes the Apple TV+ adaptation made to Isaac Asimov’s Foundation.
At Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Corey
Barnes reviews
Richard Cross’s Early Scholastic
Christology 1050-1250.
At his blog,
Colin McGinn argues
that Jerry Fodor was the most influential of recent philosophers. He also offers some frank remarks
about various eminent philosophers (and later responds to critics of
those remarks).
Matt McManus on the late Jürgen Habermas, at Jacobin.
The Beauty of the Internet.
ReplyDeleteWhy so few comments?
ReplyDeleteNothing terribly provocative, except maybe Colin McGinn roasting every philosopher he can think of. Ergo, nothing to argue about.
DeleteBecause it's truly the end of Steely Dan. We need a moment of silence.
DeleteA long moment of silence.
DeleteDr. Feser (or another knowledgeable reader), can you recommend
ReplyDelete1) a history of philosophy book? Ideally, it would cover the greater and lesser known philosophers, and their contributions to philosophy.
2) a defense of Catholicism. I'm a non-Catholic Christian, but many of my heroes are Catholic. The spirit of the book should be "why you should be a Catholic"
You might well be aware of it but Fr Copplestone’s 11 volume History of Philosophy gives a general overview of ancient to interwar philosophy with significant details given to scholastic and other less commonly covered philosophical movements e.g. 19th century Russian thought.
DeleteDue warning though that it’s too an extent dated, Coplestone was writing to an extent to justify philosophy as a whole and metaphysics in particular against Logical Positivism and as such took that movement way more seriously than anyone (including Ayer himself) did later on.
1) Fr. Copelston's history of philosophy series is an excellent introduction to history of philosophy. Alasdair Macintyre's God Philosophy and University is also excellent.
Delete2) Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Rome.
For your first question, Peter Kreeft's 4-volume work "Socrates' Children" would be worth reading. It gives a good overview of the history of philosophy from the Pre-Socratics through the 20th century Thomists.
Delete1) The gold standard is Fr. Copleston’s multivolume History of Western Philosophy. Copleston was a young convert from Anglicanism. For a shorter text, Peter Kreeft (another young convert) has a single-volume history.
Delete2) There are a number of options, and it would be helpful if you could explain your desire a bit more. General introductions include Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity and TJ White’s The Light of Christ. Intellectual autobiographies that come to mind are Newman’s Apologia and Louis Bouyer’s The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. What did it for me (encapsulating the “spirit of Catholicism”) was Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man, and that was just for me. Everybody is different.
A New History of Western Philosophy by Kenny
Deletehttps://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy/dp/0199656495
Also, the Condensed Copleston, a one vol version of his 9 vol set.
https://www.amazon.com/History-Philosophy-Condensed-Copleston/dp/1472950763
Thank you to everyone who commented. I'm very grateful.
DeleteI'm not sure what kind of Christian you are and how indepth your theological knowledge is, which makes recommendations difficult.
DeleteA reasonably accessible anthology of essays that covers a broad range of defenses of Catholicism is Faith & Reason: Philosophers Explain their turn to Catholicism.
As the title suggests, all the philosophers are converts or have returned to Catholicism, from a range of denominations and each address different disputes and themes that they believe points to Catholicism over their previous positions. Dr. Feser has an essay in it too.
Thanks Billy. That looks excellent. And thanks again to everyone who made a recommendation. I'm grateful.
DeleteTo your second question: my go-to's are 'Why We're Catholic' by Trent Horn and 'Why God, Why Jesus, Why the Church?' by John-Mark Miravalle.
ReplyDeleteThey're both pretty general and accessible.
Steely Dan rules
ReplyDeleteFrom the interview of Peter Kwasniewski on Edward Pentin's substack:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you say to critics who think the book risks undermining confidence in the papacy itself, and that it is too soon after Pope Francis’s death for such a work, not least because so many of the faithful remain traumatised by the pontificate’s incoherence and scandal and wish to forget it?
We cannot bury our sorrows in forgetfulness. We have to take action to correct the fallout of those twelve horrible years before it hardens into false precedent.
Indeed: the work is not (directly) on the soul or character of Francis, not impugning him as a sinner as such, it is a critique of his works - his teachings and actions. We are always allowed to critique such things. (Even if we are not allowed to call into question the correctness of an infallible ex cathedra declaration, we can still critique it from the standpoint of clarity, etc. And Francis never attempted anything of the sort anyway.)
And we SHOULDN'T wait: waiting is a kind of silence, and silence implies consent. We should not - by inaction or omission - allow ambiguous teachings resting space to continue to cloud the truth. In addition, we should not allow inaction to inadvertently leave room for people to imagine Francis as an eminently worthy teaching figure to uphold and follow closely, nor room for a movement to form promoting a case for his canonization without first dealing with the damaging teachings.
Fair and substantiated critiques of a pope do not improperly undermine confidence in the "papacy itself", they undermine improperconfidence in the pope's fallible (or peccable) status on things that he could get wrong. Catholics should be given room to become adults in their faith, i.e. to get over a childish, naive simplicity that "the pope is always right", not to be coddled by never having to cope with difficulties. As St. John Henry Newman said, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt".
I suspect that a lot of people have been cringing so long at hearing a Pope giving off-the-cuff and ambiguous remarks that Pope Leo started his pontificate under a cloud. Let's pray that he finds a way to remove that cloud.
DeleteI think these two posts by Dr Budziszewski belong in the list,
ReplyDeletehttps://www.undergroundthomist.org/blasphemy-and-presidency-in-perspective
https://www.undergroundthomist.org/is-the-war-in-iran-just
I think the second post is pertinent because it differs from Dr Feser but it is a fine example of how two eminent classical natural theorists can disagree on a prudential matter.
All that is left is for them is to have a respectful dialogue with each other.
Trust me Prof, if that happens it will be a boon for just war theory, no better people then you and Dr B
Remember that Pope St.JP II condemned our pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003, even sending his personal emissary Cardinal Laghi to plead his case with Bush. Even JD Vance said it was an "unforced disaster."
DeleteMcGinn's post was thought-provoking. Though of course all philosophers have their limitations, he just expressed that in a critical manner. But the whole point of philosophy is trying to seek understanding to the best of one's capability. Anyway, even if there was a philosopher who was qualitatively superior to everyone else, a lot of people wouldn't believe him.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, not only are there different branches of knowledge, but different ways to work with knowledge. There are a lot of people who won't believe in something unless you can make money off it. But I would suspect, if someone really has deep knowledge of a philosophical issue, then who is to say it can be used it that way? It could increase understanding, help you to live right, but could you make money from it, maybe not.
For that matter, what does it mean to solve a philosophical issue? Mathematics is one of the few subjects where you can solve a problem, write down the solution and that's it. Of course even then it's not the end because the solution has to be understood. But most other areas, you still have to put the solution into practice. Maybe you have found the best way to make a door. But you still have to actually build the door.
And perhaps philosophy is like that. Even if you find the answer, you still have to live it out. And you know what, maybe it's like that even for the angels. After all, if they could just know and that's it, then why even do anything? But despite that some may have believed that, I don't think they are just passive. They know, but then they have to act as well.
I read Colin McGinn's book The Mysterious Flame a while back. His thesis of mysterianism is interesting. And certainly, we do not know *how* the mind and body are joined or how the body and soul are joined, however one wishes to say it. If we did know that would be good, so long as it couldn't be manipulated and mess things up. That is really the biggest drawback to knowledge, it being abused to manipulate and distort things, unfortunately. But I think true philosophical knowledge would not be able to be abused in that way.
I read McGinn's critique with some humor: he rightly criticizes pretty much all modern philosophers, though with varying levels - more often on how they are limited, and some on the fact that they aren't actually philosophers but pursue some other aspect of knowing. He may be right to an extent, and it's true that "philosophy has been a shambles since Descartes” (though he meant AFTER Descartes but I include Descartes in the criticism). But his larger comment
DeleteI think the vast majority of current philosophers have no idea what philosophy is about and struggle to come to terms with it, I think philosophy has been a shambles since Descartes, I think Plato and Aristotle were philosophical preschoolers, I think no one has ever really grasped the nature of philosophical problems, I think the human brain is a hotbed of bad philosophy (and that is its great glory)
comes off as his being merely a dyspeptic curmudgeon than useful. Of course Plato and Aristotle were beginners (of a sort), having nearly nothing to build up from that preceded them: the wonder is that they did anything useful at all, not that they didn't have a perfect product. Would the world even have the term "philosophy" for the lovers of wisdom without Plato? And even if it were true that "no one has ever really grasped the nature of philosophical problems," (which isn't really true), there's no shame in the most difficult of projects being...more difficult than we first realized.
As a Thomist, I would offer the thought that the prospect that the highly coherent Thomistic edifice - built on top of the Aristotelian base but extended in many directions in vastly more areas (by many Scholastics and not just Thomas) - is an implausible SORT of multi-centuries long human project (across several different regional cultures) if the base was wholly useless. And the "shambles" of modern philosophy (upon abandoning Scholasticism without properly defeating it), with not a single "great" philosopher having established a school that has been accorded even 1/10 of the general consensus agreement that Scholasticism had, establishes at least this: A dominating philosophy is very hard to achieve.
The thing with philosophical or moral knowledge is that the practical effects are often not immediate. Also, there is often no particular social prestige or financial incentive.
ReplyDeleteTo a large extent that is the jist of the argument between computer scientists or physicists and philosophers. The first two have some kind of materialist paradigm which they have come to believe in for various reasons. A philosopher gives reasons why it should be rejected and the computer scientist or physicist basically says, "as long as my field is prestigious and makes money and I have a career in it, then I'm going to stay in this paradigm."
What is true can be true whether or not lots of people think it, whether or not it is currently high status to believe, and whether or not you need to believe it to get a career.
Truth is a two-way street. You often have to put in the effort to understand and recognize it. In a good culture, this will be aided and it won't feel like conscious effort. But it is not always like that. The danger is that if one's standard is that what is true is what induces you to believe with no effort, then often one ends up believing things that induce for other reasons than truth.
A remark about sceptical arguments based on the disagreement or lack of consensus between philosophers. Many of the same argument can be made about the sciences especially the beloved “Physics”--in that we know that most of our basic cutting-edge theories are “wrong” in the sense of being incomplete or having major gaps; however, these accounts can have instrumental usage in a way philosophy does not (Ptolemaic Astronomy is largely sufficient for basic ocean going navigation, Newtonian physics suffices for much of our engineering needs) .
ReplyDelete*Philosophers if anything are resistant to application of their theories. Ayer never stood up to dismiss Holocaust outrage as the non-cognitive wailings of animals in pain, Mackie actively fought against first-order applications of his meta-ethics, Churchland the Eliminativist never claimed George Floyd was never murdered because he never lived in the first place, et cetera et cetera. One might think of this as the Madman phenomena.
A.J. Ayer was a lifelong friend of F.C.Copleston, was an accomplished tap dancer, bedded countless women and backed down boxing champion Mike Tyson when he demanded him to get off model Naomi Campbell who cried out for help at a party in a NYC apartment.
DeleteI am aware of all of this save for the tap dancing (I thought he was also semi-professional grade at cricket). But none of that affects the point about ethical non-cognativism, if anything it shows he probably *didn't* want it to have effect outside philosophical theory.
DeleteThe Rev. John Archibald Dyer also ran a school. He taught many students and was known for having high standard. He gave many B's, but it was difficult to get an A. He officiated at the weddings of several former students.
DeleteOne might therefore say that J.A. Dyer wedded many B-men.
Very true. I only wrote it because I met him once when I was young and he was kind enough speak to me about philosophy, when he could have easily brushed me off.
DeleteEd Pentin's interview of Kwasniewski is excellent. It's fair to say that Francis was quite simply a crazy pope.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what bothered me most about the Francis papacy was not Francis's many problematic statements (as bad as those were), it was how his papacy showed that there is no canonical process whatsoever for correcting, disciplining or removing a crazy pope. All that concerned bishops, priests and laity could do was hope and pray that Francis would either repent of his ways or that his papacy would be mercifully short.
Disturbingly, in the face of a crazy pope, the Church was revealed to be essentially impotent.
It seems implausible that Francis was crazy in any standard sense: he was clearly capable of setting his sights on complex, long range goals, and pursuing them intelligibly.
DeleteIt is perhaps more plausible that his goals were incompatible with Catholicism, and so his goals were wrong-headed insofar as he tried to achieve them within the Church. But then the best description is that the people who elected him were 'crazy', IF they thought he was in line with Church doctrine. Some of them surely knew better, and (from unsubstantiated reports, of course) perhaps many others were hoodwinked.
It is true that the Francis pontificate showed us a difficulty with the organizational structure of the Church: no formal mechanism to get rid of a pope like this. But really it's two problems, and I think they are truly different: (A) the case of a true nutcase, a person who (during his pontificate) has truly gone certifiably crazy, and (B) the case of a person who intends to harm the Church. In case (A), I suspect that the cardinals could get together and pursue some kind of abdication effort, though I'm not sure of details. For (B), it appears (to me) that the best recent literature spoke of praying to God to intervene and remove him, through whatever means He determined. At least, we have the interesting phenomenon that Francis never issued an ex cathedra teaching (though: we cannot have any proof that he didn't WANT to and...somehow, never could manage it).
It is arguable that Christ so instituted the Church that she isn't supposed to have a mechanism to remove a pope like in (B), we are meant to rely directly on God for His providence in this.
@ Tony:
DeleteThanks for your thoughtful reply.
When I describe Francis as "crazy", I don't mean that he was insane or demented in the clinical sense. There's no evidence for that.
I simply mean that his way of conducting himself as pope was fundamentally different from (and much more reckless than) that of practically all of his predecessors.
Most or all popes throughout history at least tried to hold to orthodoxy. Francis is perhaps unique in papal history in that it appears that he couldn't care less about (A) the confusion and unease caused by his many heterodox statements and (B) the potential long-term damage that his heterodox statements might cause to the Church and to the authority of the Petrine office in particular. It is this frankly reckless disregard for serious consequences that I have in mind when I describe Francis as "crazy".
With respect to the lack of a process for removing a problematic pope, I suspect that the reason there is no such process is because (like the fathers of the 1st Vatican Council) the bishops and canonists thought that the Holy Spirit would prevent the election of someone like Pope Francis in the first place. Clearly, this presumption was wrong.
That's why the Church should at least start to propose a canonical process for removing a problematic pope in case another Pope Francis emerges.
I always wonder how Prof seems to believe in the sustainability or atleast salvageability of the American system as opposed to more radical thinkers like Dr Chad Pecknold, who practically beleive that the left are demons that can't be allowed to be in power at all costs, at times I admit I am sympathetic especially on causes related to abortion and the destruction of the traditional family, I don't think America can survive without these. Yet I see a kind of noblety from Prof's side with regards to the democrats, he doesn't want to demonise them completely, I wonder if there has been a shift in Prof's thinking. I mean Prof himself has written and spoken about the unsustainability of the American system, yet he seeks to defend whatever is left from those who would tear it down completely, he needs not participate in tearing it down, just remain neutral, but he has gone out of his way to defend it, he could easily sit back and say I predicted it was going to collapse at some point.
ReplyDeleteHe writes for example
"I don't think we're yet at the stage of the country degenerating into a complete politicization of the institutions of state, with lawfare and the like becoming the new normal. We are close but we're not there yet, and there are enough people in the middle who would sympathize with a right that tried to pull back from that abyss. The people I am criticizing, by contrast, seem to want to jump feet first into that abyss. This is bad in itself and likely to destroy the right politically in the next two elections. Whether we should do what is necessary to save the country is not what is at issue. What is at issue is precisely which policies and tactics are actually more likely to accomplish that."
"The threat to the rule of law posed by the Democrats (by way of court packing, lawfare, and the like) was real, but talk about "gulags" is utterly demented. It's this fantasyland exaggeration of real problems that has led people to acquiesce in Trump's own excesses, and turned the MAGA right as crazy as the woke left."
Prof also says that it is important to keep in mind that
"For one thing, I think it's important always to keep in mind that there are people who vote for Democrats despite these evils, not because of them. People who are very interested in politics too often assume that everyone who votes for a certain party must be committed to what the party's loudmouth activists and ideologues believe. But that's not the case. Many people are not interested in that sort of thing and pay little attention to it. For example, there are many people (I know some) who hate the woke stuff but still vote for Democrats for whatever reason (economic policy, dislike of Trump, or whatever)."
In this respect Prof even seems to be showing some grace to the other side.
It kind of confuses me sometimes but I tend to be in Prof's camp.
"The GOP deserves to become a smoking crater. The Democrats will be no better. Elections are now just about punishing whichever gang of lunatics is holding power at the moment. This is unsustainable."
Again it presumed that while the GOP and democrats are essentially the same.
And that an America where democrats are in power is still livable.
In other words going to war against the state, red states and blue states breaking off from each other to form their own countries are things that are not on the table for Prof but for a lot of MAGA it does seem to be.
I am in Prof's camp but I think that side deserves a response as to why their position is untenable.
Since we are told that Democrats and Republicans are about equal in number it seems that the independents are the ones that end up being the deciding factor. I doubt that the "MAGA cult" is as influential for the Republicans as many people tell us. I mean Trump can't even get his party to agree to ensure voting is secure even though 80% of the population wants it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand is James Carville mainstream for a Democrat? I used to be told he was.
In other words going to war against the state, red states and blue states breaking off from each other to form their own countries are things that are not on the table for Prof but for a lot of MAGA it does seem to be.
ReplyDeleteNorm, you have a lot of good points here, but I am going to start with this one. First, while there are some MAGA people who would actually agree with this, I doubt that there are all that many who really mean it. I suspect that most MAGA still want America to be one country, and think it's still salvageable in that form. How many don't? I don't inhabit large-scale MAGA gatherings (or any size, for that matter) so I can't hazard a guess.
For the (hopefully fewer) MAGAns who actually, in conscious thought, believe America as an enterprise cannot be salvaged and we should dump her in favor of red states going their own way: I doubt more than 1/10 of them have ANY CLUE how dangerous that would be, how many evils would be suffered, how fraught with difficulty, and (especially) how plausible it is that wholly unplanned outcomes take over after the initial repudiation of federal authority. (The fact that often after initial rebellion, crazy extremists take over the movement and you get a terrible result.) The fact that "this is unsustainable in the long run" isn't logically equivalent to "we should rebel right now".
At least theoretically, it is entirely possible that (a) this is unsustainable in the long run; and (b) we have no realistic prospect of producing a better regime, so we must submit to this anyway. Or (c) the only realistic prospect we would have of a better regime is to endure this condition for X more years while building conditions from which some other regime had a realistic chance (and X might not be a known, specific number).
At the same time, we can't wholly discount the Divine Providence in what might happen: while it may seem like "God does not pick sides" in political disputes, that's only the appearance from the inside of history, God does have a plan, and (at times) he does intervene, sometimes even more or less directly (St. Joan of Arc's intervention got rid of the English holding half of France in 10 years - a result entirely unpredictable from human knowledge of conditions.) No, we can't predict such miraculous interventions, but we also cannot discount SOME KIND of divine action (often quiet or somewhat quiet). Nobody in 1981 predicted the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 - WITHOUT war.
I am not sure that this phrasing is absolutely right, but at least roughly speaking, the virtues of obedience (to all due authority) and of prudence require that a people not overturn their long-standing governmental order except at very grave need: the principles of just war apply (including "all other means have been tried" and "reasonable chance of success"), but overlaid onto a primary duty to obedience to authorities delegated by God, and a duty to their fellow citizens to not make things worse that they don't owe equally to the citizens of some enemy state. Anyone who thinks he has the kind of prudence required to justly decide this without making it in concert with many other just and prudent men is, by that fact, probably not prudent and at least should be greatly doubted. One of the incredible differences about the American Revolution was that it was decided by the very people who had been successfully running their state governments for decades, and therefore DID have the individual and communal prudence to decide this.
The fact that "this is unsustainable in the long run" isn't logically equivalent to "we should rebel right now".
DeleteTony
I agree completely.
But I don't understand why people like Dr Pecknold don't see it this way.
He will countenance almost every extreme thing this administration does in the name of "saving the country".
He has accused Dr Feser of subscribing to "beautiful loser" tactics.
He wrote in response to one of Prof's tweets
"I concur completely with @gjpappin on these false dichotomies. The argument has more in common with anti-political tendencies of “beautiful loser” liberal conservatism than with a genuinely postliberal appreciation of wielding power in defense of one’s commonwealth."
How can a man who reflected so beautifully on St Augustine think this way.
And what I find is more surprising is Prof's mild response to it. I wasn't around then but I have read the old blog posts, Prof used to really meet rhetoric with rhetoric, I guess he considers Dr Pecknold a friend so he is holding back.
Why should true conservatives stick their necks out for Trump?
DeleteWhat has Trump done on the abortion issue since retaking power last year? What has Trump done to strengthen the family? What has Trump done to strengthen the institution of marriage?
The answer to all three of these "what" questions is nothing. All Trump has done in the last 15 months is engage in corruption unseen since at least the Teapot Dome scandal, engage in some performative cost-cutting and immigration enforcement, alienate longstanding allies, launch international trade wars that no one wants and launch another Middle East war than no one wants, apart from old fashioned war hawks. Trump has given true conservatives nothing. Instead, he has tarnished the conservative brand with his corruption, incompetence and malevolence.
Anon
DeleteTrue
One thing Trump has given conservatives is at least a pause in the destructive agenda of the left. That one thing includes a long list of evils avoided.
DeleteAll Trump has done on "the destructive agenda of the left" is to issue a few performative executive orders. He hasn't introduced [let alone passed] any legislation in Congress to strengthen the family and marriage.
DeleteThe only thing Trump uses Congress for is to pass a budget. Trump and the GOP Congress have added $2.7 trillion [yes: trillion with a "t"] to the national debt since he started his second term. Republicans, of course, don't care about this. They only care about the national debt when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Anonymous April 24, 2026 at 6:57 AM,
Deletehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/achievements/
https://besharamagazine.org/metaphysics-spirituality/david-bohm-wholeness-timelessness-and-unfolding-meaning/#:~:text=Jane:%20So%20in%20your%20view,it%20finally%20and%20define%20it.
ReplyDeleteHi Prof
I found something very interesting said by physcist David Bohm
"Therefore some people have said – and Einstein was one of them – that only this block of time/space is real, and they do not engage with the question of timelessness.
But then you get into trouble when you start to deal with the experience of process, because we say that here we are moving through time, and we propose that the relationship between what is and what was is velocity. But how can you make a relationship with something that has already gone, which is not? And how can the basics of necessity be found in such a relationship? The problem with thought is that it always has to make a static abstraction in order to explain things, so it will never be able to grasp process totally, although it may give some insight, some way of looking at it."
I think you may like the last line.
Free for everyone to answer
ReplyDeleteHi Prof
I just wanted to clarify a simple thing,
Given Donald Davidson's thesis that there can't be any strict law like correelation between the mental and the physical entails, so that even if someone wants to make any claims of supervenience, this supervenience cannot entail any strict dependency of the mental on the physical (however one conceivesof the physical) right ?
At most only a contingent dependence given the current circumstances or something like that.
So for example intentionality, qualitative truths about redness , hotness that Russell took to be essential to the practice of physics cannot have any necessary relationship with the mathematical structure of the brain (if one takes the brain to be nothing more then mathematical structure for the sake of argument).
At most it would only be a very contingent sort of dependence of any.
Am I right here ?
I think I am
This should be easy for you to answer :)
Hi Norm,
DeleteFirst, it depends on what you mean by "strict dependency." Davidson does think mental events are identical to physical events, so that if we're talking about ontology, the mental does not float free of the physical in any way. It is in how we conceptualize the mental and the physical that there is a gap - a mental description of some fact cannot be strictly deduced from a physical description of the same fact.
Second, I wouldn't use Russell to try to elucidate Davidson. Russell's point about physics giving us only abstract structure is a different point than the one Davidson is making.
Hi Prof
DeleteWell by strict dependency, I kind of mean to say there cannot be any necessary connection between the meaning of words and the symbols/sense imagery/physical brain state/meanings that scientists make use of in the sentence, "that needle is showing red."
In principle they could have always had some different physical representation, however one conceives of the physical (either as nothing but structure or the atomists etc). You can use different symbols, to convey the same meaning.
I suppose Donald Davidson may have not made this point but I guess you have right ?
Was my clarification on strict dependency correct, Prof.
DeleteI think the point I made in the reply, recapitulates points you have made, wouldn't you say ?
Hi Norm, yes, there's no strict dependence of that sort.
DeleteNote: The Open Access book appears to be a tribute to James Franklin, not written by himself.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take on Habermas. His effort to preserve rationality and dialogue is quite admirable.
ReplyDeleteHow do post-liberals tend to see public dialogue with people that are outside the Church? Would a great deal of tolerance and even influence be on the table?