tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1626225935045380179..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Pink on Aristotle’s RevengeEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40505681503144451022020-11-22T02:49:00.626-08:002020-11-22T02:49:00.626-08:00My ready analysis? You mean reading and paying att...My ready analysis? You mean reading and paying attention? Some of us can do that quite easily. Also are you suggesting a double bluff on my part? That I made a crude caricature of an anti-troll post so that I could accuse you of pretending to be me? That's 4-D chess and then some. It also is clearly very unlikely. Otherwise why would my ready analysis be relevant? That your "evidence" beyond disliking Stardusty is so far-fetched or just lacking any explanation adds further to my suspicions. <br /><br />The characteristics almost certainly show it was someone who wanted to make those who object to the trolls look bad. That doesn't mean it's you, true. But you are surely the prime suspect. No one has supported your pro-troll shilling. So that would mean it was either a random lurker or one of the trolls themselves. Can't rule out these but a lurker would surely have said something in support of you at one stage, and I just don't see Stardusty or Papalinton making such posts. No, the more I think about it the more it seems so likely to be you. Pathetic. Just remember, no body takes your pro-troll crap seriously. Constable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47429966490258317092020-11-22T02:35:45.995-08:002020-11-22T02:35:45.995-08:00I won't be getting into these exchanges on liv... I won't be getting into these exchanges on live threads, but this is an old one' Ha, ha - how ridiculous. <br /><br /> As this is not a live thread though, I will not get into another exchange.<br /><br /> It is worth commenting though, that all the characteristics you see in the vile, threatening post , hardly indicates that it was me, but rather your ready analysis might confirm my hypothesis that it was you!<br /><br /> Nothing further to gain from this exchange. Just remember though Constable, God is watching you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11867648753944052192020-11-22T02:14:13.377-08:002020-11-22T02:14:13.377-08:00I don't know 100% it was you, but I highly sus...I don't know 100% it was you, but I highly suspect it. It and the one on the voter fraud thread were almost certainly (95%+ certainty) by someone pretending rather ineptly to be anti-trolls. Who else would it be? You presented no circumstantial evidence except I don't like Stardusty. But that could convict most people here. You don't respond to my evidence , which increases my suspicions. For instance would a person in earnest talk like this:<br /><br />"And then, I'd make sure none of your useless person and worthless being is intact."<br /><br />It isn't just that it is over-the-top but that it reads like what someone wanting to sound over-the-top, and without the intellect to try to sound realistic, might write.<br /><br />I read Tim's quote. I won't be getting into these exchanges on live threads, but this is an old one. Did you read his quote, or Jeremy's? Did you not notice they were a lot harsher on you than me?Constable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20066595660723352072020-11-22T01:44:19.018-08:002020-11-22T01:44:19.018-08:00You protest a very great deal, even returning for ... You protest a very great deal, even returning for a second salvo, no doubt in a pathetic attempt to half convince yourself of the cogency of your ramblings and so assuage your feelings of guilt.<br /><br /> Is this going to turn into yet another completely 'unproductive' and 'undignified' exchange Constable, something that you have been repeatedly warned about, and which you once recanted for?<br /><br /> I absolutely did not post the recent vile and threatening contribution about StarDusty, or its predecessor several threads ago. I ofcourse apologise if it was not made by you either, but I maintain that as a probable though tentative hypothesis given the circumstantial evidence.<br /><br /> Why not read your quote from Tim's post again Taliban, and save yourself even further indignity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25713320953084678092020-11-22T00:12:39.618-08:002020-11-22T00:12:39.618-08:00Tim's post, intervening in our dispute:
"...Tim's post, intervening in our dispute:<br /><br />"Constable Anonymous this wrangling is indeed counterproductive if you're worried about the disruption of trolls. Just relax. No one takes this guy [in context obviously you!] seriously. He's pretty transparent. We can all read AKG's posts and some of us remember him. Just because you don't respond doesn't mean you concede."<br /><br />It's just weird you would bring this stuff up. Constable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5692378008776524532020-11-21T23:57:19.191-08:002020-11-21T23:57:19.191-08:00Which 2 readers? I count only you, unless mean Je...Which 2 readers? I count only you, unless mean Jeremy or Tim. They gave me constructive criticism but sided with my basic perspective. It's bizarre you would even bring that up. Jeremy's posts are right there above. Who could read them and think you come off better?<br /><br />It doesn't sound like me either. And why would I start writing like that just to insult him? It doesn't make much sense. Changing styles would make a lot more sense if it was someone trying to make those who object to trolls look bad. In rereading that post and the one under the moniker KilltheTrolls, it strikes me even .ore that they are a caricature of anti-troll posters. They just scream fake. I'm over 90% sure. And if I'm correct they are almost certainly you. I can't see anyone else would do it. <br /><br />Your "reasonings" don't make sense. What twin? There was a posting on the then current thread. You list no real evidence therefore except I don't like Stardusty, but that would cover most commentators and lurkers on the blog. You are clearly an idiot, so this might just be your general intellectual level. However such poor reasoning seems to show you are grasping at straws and therefore you are desparate to paint me as the author because that was your plan.<br /><br />It's all rather pathetic and just lame. It isn't well-executed. Constable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58521381717524903282020-11-21T23:03:17.968-08:002020-11-21T23:03:17.968-08:00It catagorically was not me, and sounds nothing li... It catagorically was not me, and sounds nothing like me. However, the post expresses your deep and visceral hatred towards StarDusty in a manner that might indicate that your guard was down ( perhaps you had been on the 'pop' ), and followed my question on a different thread of where the guy had gone who made extreme and threatening comments about StarDusty if it was not you.<br /><br /> Of course, I cannot prove it, but I would speculate that after being humiliated recently by two readers of this site effectively telling you to shut up and cease your counterproductive interventions, and while fuming at me and StarDusty, you posted the above vile posting to try and create the imoression that your twin in obsession had returned. Instead, the circumstancial evidence - including that the posting was not made on the then current thread - indicated the opposite, that it waa the not very intelligent Constable up to his deranged old tricks again.<br /><br /> All I can say Taliban is that if it was you , always remember that God is watching you and there will be an accounting for this one day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58560859277219809412020-11-21T19:10:27.831-08:002020-11-21T19:10:27.831-08:00No, does it look like it's me? A totally diffe...No, does it look like it's me? A totally different posting style for a start. This guy posted on the voter fraud thread as well. I suppose you are quite capable of indulging in speculation about me using a different posting though.<br /><br />Here's my speculation: this is Troll-Feeder-in-Chief pretending to be someone else to make those who object to the troll look bad. <br /><br />I can't be sure, I fully admit, but it would explain why this guy is almost comically over-the-top. It does look like what a not too bright troll-feeder might cook up to bring odium on those who dislike the trolls. Look at this:<br /><br />"And then, I'd make sure none of your useless person and worthless being is intact."<br /><br />It seems fake. <br /><br />It would also explain why Troll-Feeder-in-Chief keeps going on about another caricature-like attack on Stardusty a while ago.Constable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66051664546468146372020-11-20T23:46:53.780-08:002020-11-20T23:46:53.780-08:00That guy needs a shrink,or a priest, or visit from...That guy needs a shrink,or a priest, or visit from the cops I reckon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72389034299412963272020-11-20T22:54:27.416-08:002020-11-20T22:54:27.416-08:00Anonymous at 7.40pm Is that you Constable, fest...Anonymous at 7.40pm Is that you Constable, festering with animus and wounded pride?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26046192444238414052020-11-20T19:40:03.933-08:002020-11-20T19:40:03.933-08:00I wish I knew where you lived, StarshittyPussy. I&...I wish I knew where you lived, StarshittyPussy. I'd love to mash a good club against your empty skull until we'd see how stupidly shitty your brain is.<br />And then, I'd make sure none of your useless person and worthless being is intact.<br /><br />So, be good, and pray that I never learn your real identity.<br />Until now, be a dear, and shut up. <3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64070749953448281262020-11-15T05:32:26.419-08:002020-11-15T05:32:26.419-08:00@Anonymous 11:48 pm
..Are we therefore best to app...@Anonymous 11:48 pm<br /><i>..Are we therefore best to approach philosophers and their beliefs culturally, psychologically and sociologically?</i><br /><br />Clearly these factors play in to any philosopher’s theories, but I would add <b>honestly</b>, and <b>sincerely</b> to the list. We have to at least make an attempt at objectivity, or else lose all credibility except with those in our own echo chambers. <br /><br />Having read account’s of Ed’s philosophical development, and as he states in the Last Superstition, he does not seem to have found god in a bottle. His journey seems to have been remarkably free from psychological factors driving him towards the truth of Thomism. <br /><br />My journey has more psychological motivators, but I would like to believe I would have been attracted to Thomism without those factors, in an ideal world. I would call myself a refugee of the sexual revolution, having experienced painful things in my youth that seem to me to be directly caused by the sexual liberation so touted to be an improvement in every respect by proponents of the sexual revolution. My childhood friend, who was more of a sister to me, was a party girl, fell into drugs and alcohol abuse, was repeatedly raped, and experienced abortion twice. She has no religious background, but eventually, deeply regretted her abortions, even going to the point of naming her unborn children. Growing up in the 1980s and 90s, I watched In horror as the sexual revolution tore her body and soul apart. <br /><br /><br />Having said all of that, I did experience an Atheistic phase in university. The religious perspective I was exposed to at this stage in my life were not comprehensive or sophisticated enough to provide any kind of intellectual grounding for me. But through my studies in the Classics and Greek and Roman history, I was exposed to authors like Plato and Aristotle, and later on, with Thomas. I am firmly convinced that more traditional approaches to sexual morality might have shielded my childhood friend from her experiences. <br /><br />The Me Too movement we are seeing right now seems to be a reaction in the right direction, that will, hopefully, lead the younger generation to a more prudent approach to matters of sexuality. I hope that it will lead to a rediscovery of the virtue of chastity, of a more courteous and gentlemanly approach to romance, of a rejection of crass pornographic attitudes towards sex. <br /><br />But I don't think this can be done adequately without a much better understanding of the purpose of human sexuality. And, from a philosophical perspective, this cannot be done apart from a teleological approach to the sexual faculty. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54641226845379011672020-11-15T02:57:59.011-08:002020-11-15T02:57:59.011-08:00What you mean by the immorality of non-procreative...What you mean by the immorality of non-procreative sex is ambiguous. It is something of a strawman of Thomism and Catholicism that sex can only be for procreation, if that is supposed to mean the spouses must have this as their immediate subjective intention in having sex. What Thomism and Catholicism say is that sex must be open to procreation.<br /><br />I don't think philosophy is soft. I think that the issue is that we often compare it, consciously or not, with science. Science very often is based on experiment, which is a lot easier and more definitive for our minds to grasp. It is a little simplistic, but we can see with our eyes whether a testable hypothesis is true or not. Philosophy is about rational argument, which isn't quite so easily testable, at least in as easy to grasp a way for us humans. But I wouldn't say that this means that we can just find reasons for any position we want to be true and we will be able to find ones of equal weight to those against the position. This doesn't actually follow. The psychological and the rational are separable here: as hard as it can be for humans to come to definitive philosophical conclusions in many areas, it doesn't follow that there aren't stronger arguments for one position over another.<br /><br />The relationship of Property Dualism and Panpsychism to Naturalism is debatable. They certainly aren't Materialist. They seem to me to stretch Naturalism as traditionally understood, especially Panpsychism, unless by Naturalism you mean just the rejection of Theism (and presumably Idealism). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13576724172162090652020-11-15T01:23:59.032-08:002020-11-15T01:23:59.032-08:00 I must admit that I am gravitating towards proper... I must admit that I am gravitating towards property dualism, and take panpsychism seriously. These positions are a development and enlargement of the naturalist paradigm though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92032149375463799792020-11-15T01:19:27.557-08:002020-11-15T01:19:27.557-08:00Yes, I can see that it is necessary for an individ... Yes, I can see that it is necessary for an individual to read widely in their search for philosophical 'truth', and not to simply assimilate the current majority oppinion, which may just be a fashion of the times. However, having done this, I doubt if a random sample of "seekers' would alite on anything like the same conclusions, which makes me think that psychological factors play a very important role here. We can struggle to be logical and objective, but the field is so 'soft' that reasons can always be found to avoid a conclusion that one finds personally unpalatable. I am inclined towards naturalism for example, and freely admit that the immorality of non-procreative sex in Thomism makes it very hard for me to give it a fair hearing, becauuse it just does not sit well with me and I do not want it to be true. I can imagine that the same is true of yourself with respect to naturalism, in which we are ultimately just deeply illusioned animals, destined for oblivion at the end of our short physical lives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55777066069884394932020-11-15T01:05:09.334-08:002020-11-15T01:05:09.334-08:00By the way, my impression is that Materialism and ...By the way, my impression is that Materialism and Naturalism, whilst still dominant, aren't quite as much as they were a few decades ago. Not only are there more non-Naturalists, but the popularity of more hard line Materialism is probably less than it was from the 50s to 80s. Behaviorism and Verificatism are some of the few philosophical positions that seem definitively dead. Identity Theory is nearly so and has lost a lot of philosophical support. Eliminative Materialism ticks along, but it remains very much a minority position and hasn't really grown in popularity. Property Dualism is probably the most popular single position in philosophy of mind, and even theories like Panpsychism are seriously discussed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79203633216486429972020-11-15T00:44:31.125-08:002020-11-15T00:44:31.125-08:00Yes, it's the zeitgeist. As someone with a phi...Yes, it's the zeitgeist. As someone with a philosophy degree, I have observed first hand how Natrualism is simply assumed. <br /><br />As for the first question, it doesn't follow from the lack of substantial progress in philosophy, or good parts of it, that we cannot come to truth here. It just means that the we can't take current majority opinion as necessarily authoritative. It means that the a lot more of the search for truth devolves to the individual seeker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56335023407311113652020-11-14T23:48:23.794-08:002020-11-14T23:48:23.794-08:00Anonymous 3.45pm and Daniel
Just a couple of que...Anonymous 3.45pm and Daniel<br /><br /> Just a couple of questions.<br /><br /> Do you think that there is ever any real progress in philosophy, other than the further elucidation and delineation of positions ( including the occasional introduction of new ones ), as the persistance of such diversity among qualified and so presumably well informed practitioners, which ebbs and flows through time, suggests not. Are we therefore best to approach philosophers and their beliefs culturally, psychologically and sociologically?<br /> <br /> Secondly, if naturalism is such a self evidently bankrupt framework as theists tend to profess,how is it that the great bulk of academic philosophers today adhere to it? They are, after all, clearly highly intelligent and philosophically able people, well versed in the range of theoretical options available in their particular specialisms. Can it really be primarily just a case of the 'zeitgeist', but if not that, then what?<br /><br /> These are questions that I find genuinely puzzling, and are sincerely asked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45160222571016401212020-11-14T22:46:39.293-08:002020-11-14T22:46:39.293-08:00I should add that your discussion of your criticis...I should add that your discussion of your criticisms of Thomism is remarkably ignorant. You seem to be talking about theological claims of Thomism or Catholicism more generally, which are separate from the strictly philosophical aspects of Thomism. The arguments for the existence of God are philosophical, but then Feser, among others, has given sophisticated treatments of these. You give neither refutation of them nor do you have any authority that would make us trust your views on these arguments without evidence. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42093382255003790672020-11-14T22:25:50.406-08:002020-11-14T22:25:50.406-08:00You have no idea what you are talking about. First...You have no idea what you are talking about. Firstly, where's the evidence Thomism is dwindling in its influence? It is definitely a minority in the academy, but it is probably more popular now than it has been for decades or even centuries, if we are talking about philosophy in the mainstream Anglo-American tradition. More broadly Neo-Aristotelian philosophy has been having something <br />of a renaissance. Furthermore, you speak clearly as one who doesn't know much about contemporary philosophy. Whilst Thomism is of course a system, philosophy in the academy is generally about analyzing particular philosophical issues across the various fields and sub-fields. For example, a philosopher might write a book on the problem of universals or even a subsection of it. Although more philosophers tend to Materialism or Naturalism than other broad metaphysical positions, when it comes to the nitty gritty of all the different particular philosophical topics, there's often a great variety of positions. For universals, there are realists, conceptualists, and nominalistd, and then again these all can be broken down in particular varieties, such as trope nominalism vs. blob nominalism, and individual philosophers often have their own particular variations of these. In some areas there is a relatively clear majority position, whilst in others there isn't really. But it is rare that the majority position is taken to have definitively routed all challengers. Having a minority position in philosophy isn't often something to be ashamed of. The Aristotelian-Thomosm position on universals is a live one, for instance.<br /><br />Of course, and most importantly, you haven't done anything to show philosophical fashions are generally authoritative. You've presented no evidence at all in fact. Some progress occurs over time in philosophy, but it more like literary theory, where the changing intellectual fashions certainly can't be taken as representing a uniform linear progress, than (ideally) science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70131971504197506802020-11-14T17:35:15.464-08:002020-11-14T17:35:15.464-08:00God is a cause and satisfies the PSR.
You can fre...God is a cause and satisfies the PSR.<br /><br />You can freely will the change in your own mental disposition. That would be the first, meritable, even though microscopic, step in searching for truth. If you pray for it and it makes you feel like a goof, that is a good sign because before the uncaused cause we are nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90758016343565258292020-11-14T17:02:45.639-08:002020-11-14T17:02:45.639-08:00Daniel @ 6.48am
You haven't provided any evid...Daniel @ 6.48am<br /><br />You haven't provided any evidence of the fact and truth of the role of Thomism that counters the argument of its shrinking power and influence in contemporary philosophical discourse. Your two anecdotal Canadian examples hardly qualify as evidence of any change whatsoever that mitigates the dwindling nature of religious-based philosophy and rescues it from the periphery of mainstream contemporary discussion.<br /><br />You see, it's all about the broader context and not the niche or boutique market that Thomism occupies that drives the debate proper in addressing the many philosophical challenges into the future.<br /><br />I reject the rationale behind your four approaches to Thomist study as they comport only to a personal preference of characterisation. In all, the listing doesn't convey any substantive confirmation that Thomism is a growing force du jour in modern philosophy. <br />Adherence to Thomism tells us little about the bona fide character of philosophers but everything about their religiosity. It equally tells us much of the misguided notion that can we actually extend our sociality beyond the human world to a (putative) realm of non-human agents who apparently can also interact with us socially in turn. A completely unfounded premise in Thomism. One need only to attend a Sunday service to witness the practice of apparently communing with non-human agents across the natural/supernatural divide. This is the untested and unverified baggage that Thomism carries, the core of unsubstantiated claims that confutes it as a truly universal, competitive philosophical framework. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2377763559786328732020-11-14T16:53:21.313-08:002020-11-14T16:53:21.313-08:00Anon,
“By a free will choice”
On the PSR free will...Anon,<br />“By a free will choice”<br />On the PSR free will is impossible.<br /><br />If there is an element of intrinsic randomness in the universe then some aspect of the way the universe progresses does so for no reason at all, by no cause, much less a sufficient reason.<br /><br />That is what a random effect is, an effect without a cause. If the effect had a cause it would not be random. A random effect occurs without any cause at all and completely absent any reason whatsoever. Since a random effect must necessarily be an effect without any reason a random effect would violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason.<br /><br />An absence of reason cannot be a sufficient reason, so any degree of randomness in the universe would be a violation of the PSR.<br /><br />Without any randomness in the universe, as the PSR mandates, the universe must be strictly deterministic. On a strictly deterministic universe free will is impossible, rather, the entire universe is a clockwork, utterly devoid of free choice because there is no way anybody or anything can do other than what is actually done.<br /><br />There is no room for any element of free will in a deterministic universe, and the PSR mandates a strictly deterministic universe, therefore the PSR mandates an absence of free will.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23234743280013428632020-11-14T16:27:40.567-08:002020-11-14T16:27:40.567-08:00Agreed @Anonymous 3:54 It makes me wonder if there...Agreed @Anonymous 3:54 It makes me wonder if there is something cyclical in societies that makes them abandon perfectly good ideas for bad ones. Or, perhaps on the other hand, even when bad ideas start to proliferate, there always seems a remnant in society that returns to the basics of Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas. They go about doing their damage, and when folks get sick of them, they return back to rationality. One can hope they do anyway. Or perhaps some society less decadent will pick them up and thrive on their ideas. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79313068752534815622020-11-14T16:04:56.294-08:002020-11-14T16:04:56.294-08:00No. God never changes. But God's will can be c...No. God never changes. But God's will can be contingent upon what I determine to do using my free will.<br /><br /><br />By a free will choice, I can change the course of the whole world, not miraculously, but through sensitive dependence of outcome on the nonmaterialistically selected choice from the superposition of states in my brain. A random neural discharge (random here meaning not predictable by material science, in principle) comes out of a superposition of possible discharges, which God has miraculously (it's not following rules of science at all, unlike my choice made from a superposition) granted me the mental power to make in the material of my brain<br /><br /><br />The prayer is said on the beads for my benefit, to aid my prayer, which God knows without beads or even necessarily, verbal utterance, but my free choice to make it must be involved. It can affect the course of material history through the above mentioned dependence of outcome from a microscopic differential distribution of possible initial conditions, a selection indeterminable to material science but which I can make, conditional of course on God not over-riding my choice for his own never-changing indeterminate, inscrutable, infinity.<br /><br /><br />You keep saying stuff that amounts to nothing more than "materialism therefore materialism". Now "if materialism then materialism" is tautologically true, but you can't make "materialism" true by insisting on it. I would suggest you get a rosary and say "materialism" on each bead except that you wouldn't be praying to anything without logically contradicting your belief … but … try it anyway. Maybe God will respond by changing your mind, making some of those choices from the superposition in your brain. Your praying on the rosary might be known by God as evincing humility and be known as the crucial, for you, beginning of the search for truth. You can't find truth by being stubborn, angry, proud, impatient, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com