tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1934165010760234423..comments2024-03-28T08:34:20.807-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: There is no Santa clauseEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89708357678502787312021-11-12T22:12:39.620-08:002021-11-12T22:12:39.620-08:00Alternatively, Santa Claus does exist and so does ...Alternatively, Santa Claus does exist and so does Superman.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXnef2Ltklg&ab_channel=JonathanPageauBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10106721661664177097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29530982557097911962011-03-07T11:55:50.065-08:002011-03-07T11:55:50.065-08:00I agree with Mr. Feser entirely, which is why I wi...I agree with Mr. Feser entirely, which is why I will tell my children the same thing my father told me when I asked him if Santa Clause was real. He said "Santa Clause is a real myth", and I got on quite happy. For, I was five and did not understand the difference between reality and myth.Timothy Trosclairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18693896484836147502010-12-26T20:26:08.282-08:002010-12-26T20:26:08.282-08:00Lies!! Santa Clause is real and you will get what&...Lies!! Santa Clause is real and you will get what's coming to you next Christmas. He will judge you and find you naughty!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16402768879089553434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14424121447406708352010-12-25T14:48:28.891-08:002010-12-25T14:48:28.891-08:00Although I am completely opposed to lying in any f...Although I am completely opposed to lying in any form, including jocose and officious lies, I DO tell my children about Santa Claus -- only he is called "St. Nicholas" around my house. Does he wear a red coca cola outfit? No. Does he slink down the chimney? No. Does he drie a herd of reindeer? No. Does he bring children gifts at Christmas? Absolutely! This is not a lie because I BELIEVE what I am saying, and one only lies when one's words contradict one's beliefs. Perhaps then I am just delusional? No. Because we pray as a family for the good bishop's help, and my children understand that sometimes God uses natural or voluntary instruments to bring about His will, St. Nick being one, but Mom and Dad, Grandparents. neighbors, or anyone else inspired by the story of St. Nicholas being others. The older my children get, the more they understand the role of the instrumental causes. Do miracles occur? Sometimes, but usually, the only miracle is that a grumpy, older sibling has been inspired at Christmas to make a present for an annoying little brother and write on its wrapping, "From Santa Claus."Rocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87751876913814272142010-11-29T09:02:33.854-08:002010-11-29T09:02:33.854-08:00Is it a lie if it's intended as a symbolic tru...Is it a lie if it's intended as a symbolic truth? This is something I've thought about with my daughter, and I thought perhaps the proper use of Santa Clause is as a long-term lesson about maintaining gratitude/excitement for graceful provision. That is, the child grows up being excited about and grateful for gifts from Santa Clause on Christmas morning, and then gradually learn than Santa Clause is really his parent, who's the proper object of that excited gratitude.<br /><br />I think it would be possible to employ this without telling a lie.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16028054397755632614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58434282327911833392010-11-20T05:27:14.621-08:002010-11-20T05:27:14.621-08:00Would this be a moral problem if no presents were ...Would this be a moral problem if no presents were exchanged? <br /><br />What is the role of Play in all this? <br />Is there a problem because Play intrudes into the space of Faith? Why is that a problem? Are there not instances of Myth and Play in Religion? <br />Cruel disillusionment is not a sufficient reason to use, since most of us have a whole bunch more of those in store.<br /><br />Why not pull the kids aside, wipe their tears and tell them that Santa is a symbol ( and as real and potent as the symbol "Money" is real and potent!) for all men and women of goodwill?<br />There is more to reality than mere fact and mere lie.Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00017648070522030951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85712646368293408222010-11-14T11:43:29.540-08:002010-11-14T11:43:29.540-08:00Continued from above....
But this would be true e...Continued from above....<br /><br />But this would be true even for a strict Pharisee. Hence, if on a Sabbath day he dishonor his father and violate ritual purity laws to boot by pulling a woman his father has forbidden the family to deal with out of a cesspool, he has both broken weighty commandments and besmirched his hands. But these are both venial in the context, and he has only to wash his hands and observe any atonement and Mosaic redress--just as if, if it were I as a Christian, I should at my next confession number these incidentally-contracted offenses, which, counterbalanced though they be, weigh on my conscience.<br /><br />How much more terrifying is the alternative, to go before our High Priest, who has covered our sins and issued a higher law, and say, I didn't want to soil my hands or anger my dad, so I let the man drown in filth. Or, I knew you were a hard master and I didn't want to sin against your holy laws, which are like honey in the honeycomb to me, so I threw him the best stick I could and looked for a way to shovel out the cesspool while I called 911.<br /><br />If you hemmed and hawed with the commies while I listened in terrified silence and dawning horror as you casually suggested I MIGHT be in your home, you couldn't say for sure, I would feel betrayed, and your lily-while lips and hands would nauseate me.<br /><br />I disagree with those who say that our liberty in Christ is such that in retrospect we should feel no compunction whatsoever for the eggs that were broken to make an omelet. It's good for us to be aware of every jot and tittle and to take heed lest trespasses become well-trodden paths. One should be aware of the dirt on one's feet, and take them to the Master. <br /><br />Margaret DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15486774012612623422010-11-14T09:06:43.835-08:002010-11-14T09:06:43.835-08:00Just as there are degrees of importance in the Mos...Just as there are degrees of importance in the Mosaic law ("the greatest of these... the least of these commandments..," etc.), there are degrees of evil or guilt in breaking them. <br /><br />Thus while Sabbath-keeping is so important a law as to be among the ten commandments, both Jesus and the Pharisees had no problem with rescuing cattle on that day; and Jesus went one further in licensing Sabbath-breaking for a higher good by defending his disciples' breaking off grain to eat, ie, working on the day of rest.<br /><br />I'm sure there's already a pigeonhole for my thinking--perhaps you can tell me what it is-- but it would go something like this: being compelled by wisdom and love to violate a law or commandment in this miserable, conflicted world may involve committing objective sin, but the sin does not loom large in God's eyes. We are clean in Christ, and it is but our feet that need washing.<br /><br />Continued...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71265942603872970942010-11-14T09:05:05.133-08:002010-11-14T09:05:05.133-08:00Just as there are degrees of importance in the Mos...Just as there are degrees of importance in the Mosaic law ("the greatest of these... the least of these commandments..," etc.), there are degrees of evil or guilt in breaking them. <br /><br />Thus while Sabbath-keeping is so important a law as to be among the ten commandments, both Jesus and the Pharisees had no problem with rescuing cattle on that day; and Jesus went one further in licensing Sabbath-breaking for a higher good by defending his disciples' breaking off grain to eat, ie, working on the day of rest.<br /><br />I'm sure there's already a pigeonhole for my thinking--perhaps you can tell me what it is-- but it would go something like this: being compelled by wisdom and love to violate a law or commandment in this miserable, conflicted world may involve committing objective sin, but the sin does not loom large in God's eyes. We are clean in Christ, and it is but our feet that need washing.<br /><br />But this would be true even for a strict Pharisee. Hence, if on a Sabbath day he dishonor his father and violate ritual purity laws to boot by pulling a woman his father has forbidden the family to deal with out of a cesspool, he has both broken weighty commandments and besmirched his hands. But these are both venial in the context, and he has only to wash his hands and observe any atonement and Mosaic redress--just as if, if it were I as a Christian, I should at my next confession number these incidentally-contracted offenses, which, counterbalanced though they be, weigh on my conscience.<br /><br />How much more terrifying is the alternative, to go before our High Priest, who has covered our sins and issued a higher law, and say, I didn't want to soil my hands or anger my dad, so I let the man drown in filth. Or, I knew you were a hard master and I didn't want to sin against your holy laws, which are like honey in the honeycomb to me, so I threw him the best stick I could and looked for a way to shovel out the cesspool while I called 911.<br /><br />If you hemmed and hawed with the commies while I listened in terrified silence and dawning horror as you casually suggested I MIGHT be in your home, you couldn't say for sure, I would feel betrayed, and your lily-while lips and hands would nauseate me.<br /><br />I disagree with those who say that our liberty in Christ is such that in retrospect we should feel no compunction whatsoever for the eggs that were broken to make an omelet. It's good for us to be aware of every jot and tittle and to take heed lest trespasses become well-trodden paths. One should be aware of the dirt on one's feet, and take them to the Master. <br /><br />Margaret DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40408535180844670112010-11-12T18:58:14.513-08:002010-11-12T18:58:14.513-08:00When I was a child I taught all kinds of fairy-tal...When I was a child I taught all kinds of fairy-tale stories including those about Santa Claus, the Easter Rabbit, the Tooth Fairy, and of course Jesus (Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so).<br /><br />I quite naturally outgrew all of them. Stories about, and belief in Jesus do not provide anything real to cope with the facts of life, and besides which everybody dies,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36509572242033166412010-11-11T14:54:08.282-08:002010-11-11T14:54:08.282-08:00I avoided the whole issue by playing the Santa Cla...I avoided the whole issue by playing the Santa Claus game. When kids are very young, there is no difference between fable and fact. As they age, they understand what games are, that they are fun to play, and it's about the participation.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57069109672345463932010-11-11T12:31:11.703-08:002010-11-11T12:31:11.703-08:00JT,
It shouldn't. I'll have a post up ad...JT,<br /><br />It shouldn't. I'll have a post up addressing the "murderer at the door" example by later today or tomorrow.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77324333958157544292010-11-11T11:38:13.808-08:002010-11-11T11:38:13.808-08:00Most excellent counter argu,ent to my now shaken c...Most excellent counter argu,ent to my now shaken conclusion.<br /><br />Still, considering the Catholic take on lies along with VJ's points does really call the natural law into doubt, at least for me. But I am more pragmatic about these things.just thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73161016712391711802010-11-11T10:38:19.066-08:002010-11-11T10:38:19.066-08:00JT seems to me to be writing from the Twilight Zon...JT seems to me to be writing from the Twilight Zone, 'cause I have quite the opposite reaction to Vincent's latest. <br /><br />First of all, I am, of course, writing from a Catholic POV, and I assume Vincent is too. But in that case, what does first-century Judaism have to do with anything (even assuming that Vincent is representing it correctly)? Especially since, as we know from the NT, Christ disagreed in all sorts of ways with opinions then prevailing? (And since when is the NT a record of absolutely everything He taught, so that if He doesn't say it there, He must not have taught it?)<br /><br />Second, since when does some guy's sheer speculation, formulated literally yesterday (and in a combox!), about what Christ might have thought trump centuries of more or less settled consensus among Catholic theologians, the teachings of saints, popes, and catechisms, etc.? I would think even a non-Catholic might find that a bit hard to swallow.<br /><br />Third, why would a natural law theorist or Catholic theologian be impressed for a moment by Vincent's other arguments, which are sheer consequentialism, and thus simply beg the question against natural law theory and Catholic moral theology? (For the record, natural law theory does allow what it calls stratagems in war -- making it unclear where one is going to attack, putting equipment where one does not intend to use it, etc. -- though not lies. Take the bother actually to read some of the work written on this by natural law writers if you're interested in the reasoning, because I did not intend, and do not have the time, to discuss every possible application of the natural law view of lying here in the combox!)<br /><br />Finally, how does anything Vincent said -- or what some others have said here, for that matter -- actually address the reason why Aquinas and other natural law theorists have given for the claim that lying is intrinsically wrong? Just saying "Well here's an early Church father who thought it was OK, and then there's what some article I read about Judaism says" doesn't cut it.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15061134484666595052010-11-11T10:33:01.891-08:002010-11-11T10:33:01.891-08:00David: "Rather, lying ought to be seen as par...<b>David:</b> "<i>Rather, lying ought to be seen as parallel to killing, and thus possible to justify in theory.</i>"<br /><br />A related point to be understood has to do with <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/there-is-no-santa-clause.html?showComment=1289375017973#c1972050400095104195" rel="nofollow">the charge of circularity that was lobbed</a> against what I'd said in defence of such a position -- <i>What distinguishes murder from mere killing (or manslaughter)?</i> One might say that the difference is that murder is unjustified and immoral. But that's merely to state a tautology, for "an unjustified and immoral killing" is simply the definition of murder.<br /><br /><br /><b>David:</b> "<i>The other, quite separate, problem I have is the suggestion that different kinds of deception carry different moral weight; that is, that some intentional deception is lying and some isn't. I cannot see any logically coherent way to defend such a distinction.</i>"<br /><br />There is no rational way to claim that some intentional deception is not lying. "Intentional deception" is simpply the $5 way to say "lying."<br /><br />But, as not all killing is murder (i.e. "immoral killing"), so to, not all lying/deception is [<i>we don;t have an English word for this</i>] (i.e. "immoral deception").<br /><br />And, we all know this, which is why "the Nazi at the door" scenario is so unsettling for some. <br /><br />However, human beings being perverse, most of us would rather insist upon sticking with the incoherencies we're used to than to stretch our minds and eliminate an incoherency. Sadly, it isn't only the so-called atheists who behave in this manner.<br /><br /><b>David:</b> "<i>If lying is intrinsically wrong, but killing isn't, then lying itself is a worse <b>kind</b> of thing than killing is. So an instance of lying is a worse kind of thing than an instance of killing... </i>"<br /><br />In truth, there is no such thing as a gradiation of wickedness; all sin is equally wicked, all sin is equally death-dealing. However, we do not dwell on that absolute plane, and so, in our social intercourse, we must relativize some sins as "worse" than others.<br /><br /><b>David:</b> "<i>(Obviously the murder can be a more evil action than a small lie.) But even to say that natural law can justify killing people but never telling a lie is enough to prompt us to take a closer look at the premises.</i>"<br /><br />And, as ought to be clear, almost no one is willing to do that.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10857807726090083672010-11-11T10:22:10.092-08:002010-11-11T10:22:10.092-08:00RP:
I was being a bit tongue in cheek, seeing as...RP: <br /><br />I was being a bit tongue in cheek, seeing as this blog seems to draw more eggheads, while W4 seems to draw more "balanced" people, i.e., people who care about a broader range of topics than metaphysics and the like. Hence, I think you can find more there than here on the topic of why opposing "the Santa ruse" as an existential claim does not equate to opposing "the Santa thing" as a cultural diversion.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34922098512973237432010-11-11T08:44:05.862-08:002010-11-11T08:44:05.862-08:00Brandon: The parallel would be right if the claim ...<i>Brandon: The parallel would be right if the claim were that all deception were lying; but it's precisely the recognition that this is not true that seems to be lumped in the 'loophole' category. </i><br /><br />Well, yes: people seem to be claiming that all lying is wrong, but not all intentional deception is lying. That seems to me to be confused both morally and linguistically. That is, if you use sarcasm to negate a statement it's as much a lie as using the word "not" would be in the same situation. (You're right, of course, that sarcasm can have other effects besides negation, but in the context, I don't think anyone was suggesting those other kinds of sarcasm.) It does not make sense to say that one kind of intentional deception is a lie (=wrong) and that a different mode of intentional deception is only sarcasm (=acceptable). Either the intentional deception is wrong, or it isn't. (It would be like saying "killing someone with a gun" = murder = always wrong; but "killing someone with your bare hands" = manslaughter = OK. That sounds like a bizarre technicality to me.) <br /><br /><i>This diverges from the case we are considering, where everyone ex hypothesi is positing what everyone would recognize as a lie from the get-go and asking whether it's entirely moral, as you note in the other thread. So I don't know why you keep structuring the parallel the way you do.</i> <br /><br />There are two things I disagree with: one is the claim that lying is intrinsically wrong (or specifically, that the natural end of communication is only to divulge our actual beliefs; without this premise, it does not following that lying is always wrong). Rather, lying ought to be seen as parallel to killing, and thus possible to justify in theory. <br /><br />The other, quite separate, problem I have is the suggestion that different kinds of deception carry different moral weight; that is, that some intentional deception is lying and some isn't. I cannot see any logically coherent way to defend such a distinction. To say that all forms of intentional deception are lying/immoral would at least be consistent. (Of course, joined with my other point, I would claim instead that all forms of intentional deception are not intrinsically immoral, but rather their morality depends on the context — it does not, however, depend on the particular mode of deception.) <br /><br /><i>I confess that having read your argument twice, I'm still completely puzzled by where you are getting the claim in the other thread that on the point in question "it seems to follow that lying is worse than murder"; were you just responding to something I missed? </i><br /><br />If lying is intrinsically wrong, but killing isn't, then lying itself is a worse <b>kind</b> of thing than killing is. So an instance of lying is a worse kind of thing than an instance of killing (even if that particular instance is an evil one, i.e. is an instance of murder). But maybe that's too rhetorical, so I won't push the point. (Obviously the murder can be a more evil action than a small lie.) But even to say that natural law can justify killing people but never telling a lie is enough to prompt us to take a closer look at the premises.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45622894843737988632010-11-11T07:14:30.870-08:002010-11-11T07:14:30.870-08:00Take for instance being your neighbor. That restri...<i>Take for instance being your neighbor. That restricts me from just walking into your house without permission. That is strictly a restriction, but no one would in their right mind call that ‘evil.’</i> <br /><br />It is an evil in that it is a defect in charity. Why should I have barred you from my house? Why should I not have used that Modern Ages greeting: "Make yourself <i>at home</i>"? <br /><br />But then, of course, you must respect my natural right to property. (Remember, the medievals spoke of natural rights to life, liberty, and property. It is entirely possible that these should come into conflict from time to time. That's why we talk about choosing the <i>lesser</i> of two evils.<br /><br />Part of the problem is the Modern tendency to restrict the term "evil" to only the most extreme lack of a good and not to any lack of a good. This is akin to someone telling you "You are not sick" because you have a head cold and not bubonic plague. There are degrees of good, and therefore there are degrees in their lacking. That's why Dante's hell is layered.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79488930869536758892010-11-11T05:59:45.055-08:002010-11-11T05:59:45.055-08:00Codgitator
The 4W thread for this post has a lot ...Codgitator<br /><br /><i>The 4W thread for this post has a lot of this topic in it, seeing as I think w4 draws moe "real people" than this blog (by real I mean, like, adults, and parents, and stuff, ya know)</i><br /><br />I don't know what you mean. I do notice you have many posts on this topic on Feser's blog and none on 4W.RPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25102629060931325072010-11-11T04:14:09.855-08:002010-11-11T04:14:09.855-08:00I think Dr. Torley's perennial insight has onc...I think Dr. Torley's perennial insight has once again won the day.<br /><br />Nothing in this combox or in Ed's post rise to the level of challenge he poses here.<br /><br />Game over. Good work, VJ!just thinkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37357751836645051962010-11-11T03:13:42.578-08:002010-11-11T03:13:42.578-08:00RP:
Does harry Potter help keep the magic of Hal...RP: <br /><br />Does harry Potter help keep the magic of Halloween alive? Sure. Do we tell kids he is real for all that? No, and Dr Feser's point is that to tell kids otherwise is a lie. The 4W thread for this post has a lot of this topic in it, seeing as I think w4 draws moe "real people" than this blog (by real I mean, like, adults, and parents, and stuff, ya know). I agree Santa is "real" insofar as he represents the "spirit of Christmas"--ruddy, fat, earthy, magical, jolly and just--and is a real part of Christmas just like dancing skeletons are real parts of Halloween. Real, real, real, but not existent in the way the Santa ruse presents it in kids' minds.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56191959369622491242010-11-11T03:08:47.515-08:002010-11-11T03:08:47.515-08:00I was a little disappointed as a child to learn th...I was a little disappointed as a child to learn that Santa is not real but I did not harbour any bitterness towards my parents for teaching me such. A child's imagination is a wonderful thing that needs to be encouraged by the parents and I don't believe that telling them about Santa is a lie, but rather an invitation to use their imagination.<br /><br />Sorry Ed but I am with Dennis Prager on this one;<br /><br />http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2002/12/24/in_defense_of_santa_claus/page/full/Damien Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06155771324306587504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-199047984380918842010-11-11T02:48:27.814-08:002010-11-11T02:48:27.814-08:00just thinking:
The friar's lack of a fun side...just thinking:<br /><br /><i>The friar's lack of a fun side has sent a lot of self-fondlers to Hell over the last 700 years, too.</i><br /><br />Lots of people, maybe all, lose their faith because they won't give up their sins. And if they go to hell it's because of that - no matter what kind of sins they prefer. Unrepentant sin of any kind changes the way we think and see reality.<br /><br />I didn't think anyone would take me seriously that philosophy has declined because Aquinas couldn't see a joke. Sorry - it's my stupidity and ignorance.<br /><br />My point is simply it's not all about Logic. If Chesterton believes in Santa Claus there must be some way he is real; some way in which it is alright to tell your kids about him; some way to keep the wonder and mystery of childhood alive. Otherwise, maybe we should use Aristotle's <i>Categories</i> as their first Reader.RPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18945604209284571312010-11-11T02:42:00.909-08:002010-11-11T02:42:00.909-08:00It may be tangential but Vincent's point about...It may be tangential but Vincent's point about parsing the Judaic and Christian stances on lying raises the issue of <i>sola Scriptura</i> and the development of doctrine. Presumably, if Jesus disagreed with the consensus view that "God is one" simply speaking, He should have said so explicitly. But that's to pretend Nicea and Constantinople never happened. Etc. <br /><br />More to the point, though, we can also find a much laxer stance on abortion in the rabbinic tradition than in the Catholic and largely Christian tradition, but I don't think that's going to convince Dr Feser, or any other committed Catholic, that his position is weaker therefore.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11192483779188807402010-11-11T02:19:56.039-08:002010-11-11T02:19:56.039-08:00Rabbibical = RabbinicalRabbibical = RabbinicalKjetil Kringlebottenhttp://kjetilkringlebotten.com/noreply@blogger.com