tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1973863878084783180..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Tom and JerryEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79570965567146980952011-07-23T14:34:04.394-07:002011-07-23T14:34:04.394-07:00Chuck, I like your "investigate everything th...Chuck, I like your "investigate everything thoroughly and don't accept easy answers" mentality. Life is complicated, after all. Keep up the good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88173097641616724912011-07-23T08:54:06.475-07:002011-07-23T08:54:06.475-07:00I was wrong about Dr. Coyne and his capacity for c...I was wrong about Dr. Coyne and his capacity for charity. It seems I've been banned from his site due to my insistence he stop misrepresenting Dr. Feser's request that Dr. Coyne read one book on the TCA, if Dr. Coyne wishes to be a critic of it. He continues to play the lie that Dr. Feser demands a syllabus if one is to engage the TCA.<br /><br />This exchange has freed me from the philosophical superficiality of "New Atheism". Thanks all. I am still an atheist but feel free to investigate, rather than debunk, ideas of theism.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80843833192451089752011-07-18T06:15:12.887-07:002011-07-18T06:15:12.887-07:00TOF seems like a brilliant thinker.TOF seems like a brilliant thinker.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25818527522753253132011-07-18T05:36:52.472-07:002011-07-18T05:36:52.472-07:00TOF is Ye Olde Statistician? Wow...I had no idea....TOF is Ye Olde Statistician? Wow...I had no idea. I've picked up some of his fiction and look forward to getting around to reading it soon.<br /><br />I already had a ton of respect for TOF, but a couple years back when I was trying to understand Aquinas, some of his comments in a thread at First Things concerning a David Bentley Hart post really helped me put things together. Unfortunately, I think they have removed the post and comments (there were something like 1000+ of them), but it was very helpful.Rangernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64563790831250827932011-07-17T18:03:40.741-07:002011-07-17T18:03:40.741-07:00I believe that the hostility practiced by the New ...I believe that the hostility practiced by the New Atheists is a reaction to the scope creep of Evangelical Christianity that was increasingly bold during the W administration. <br /><br />The use of public piety by less than ethical paragons, as a political asset, has probably frustrated unbelievers who don't buy into the easy morality of the kind of black and white fallacy too often used by the electorate. <br /><br />It did me and I was a believer at the time.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2469637945746832782011-07-17T16:16:56.182-07:002011-07-17T16:16:56.182-07:00You can file this under “ironic”, especially with ...You can file this under “ironic”, especially with respect to the ignorant vitriol at Coyne’s blog regarding Thomism. I was flipping through my copy of Marcia L. Colish’s “Medieval Foundations of the Western Tradition”, and found the following:<br /><br />“Thomas extends the same critical yet open-minded attitude to contemporary opponents. Whether or not he agrees with an opinion, he presents it as forcefully and accurately as possible. He takes its author seriously as a fellow seeker after truth. He listens to the author, hears what he has to say, and argues with him on grounds they share.” (p. 296).<br /><br />If only the New Atheists at Coyne’s blog were capable of doing the same as Aquinas.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89271132408578469132011-07-16T16:52:21.024-07:002011-07-16T16:52:21.024-07:00Cheers dguller I'm glad I could help.
Keep up...Cheers dguller I'm glad I could help.<br /><br />Keep up the good work.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40201338912519336972011-07-16T16:40:10.745-07:002011-07-16T16:40:10.745-07:00dguller have you tried reading Summa Contra gentil...<b>dguller</b> have you tried reading <i>Summa Contra gentiles</i> from head to toe, now that you are at least familiar with most of the important vocabulary?<br /><br />You can find it online here(<a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm" rel="nofollow">LINK</a>)Tapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20783190578683134512011-07-16T16:14:29.224-07:002011-07-16T16:14:29.224-07:00Dmt117:
>> We aren't doing that with ch...Dmt117:<br /><br />>> We aren't doing that with change; the notion of an unchanged changer is simply "that which changes others without itself changing," and it seems perfectly comprehensible in the abstract, even if "change" means efficient change. Instead, we are comparing certain examples of empirical change with the abstract concept of an unchanged changer, and finding the latter wanting. I think all this does is show that an actual unchanged changer is not part of our experience, not that it is incoherent.<br /><br />Fair points all.<br /><br />I suppose that reason dictates that there must be an unchanged changer, even though we have no idea how this is possible, because there is nothing in our experience that would justify it. There are plenty of other entities in science whose existence is justified by a series of inferences and assumptions, but that we are unable to understand coherently. Quantum phenomena are the best example of this. Even Feynman said that anyone who claimed to understand quantum mechanics has not understood quantum mechanics. So, it would be unfair of me to have a double standard in this case.<br /><br />>> I wonder if your real difficulty isn't the incoherence of an unchanged changer, but the fact that it by nature transcends our normal experience. The only thing we can show is that the abstract notion of an unchanged changer is coherent, but as to knowing how a true unchanged changer in the full sense actually works, is something that is beyond us (at least in this life).<br /><br />True.<br /><br />As Ben says below, I think I am confusing incomprehensibility with incoherence. And it is certainly true that there are truths that are incomprehensible to us.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25876169203396905312011-07-16T16:08:24.301-07:002011-07-16T16:08:24.301-07:00the right to publish Superstition and other works ...<i>the right to publish Superstition and other works on your own as a pdf or something</i><br /><br />Epub format. All the cool kids are publishing in epub.Jinzanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155467948613318531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14551450646922497282011-07-16T16:07:04.633-07:002011-07-16T16:07:04.633-07:00Martin:
>> As to your other reservations, I...Martin:<br /><br />>> As to your other reservations, I think that as Feser says, these are the logical conclusions of the arguments. To get out of the conclusion you would have to deny one of the otherwise plausible metaphysical premises.<br /><br />My skepticism would be directed towards whether logic and reason are applicable outside of space-time, or even at the deepest levels of reality. Certainly, it is possible that they have their limits, and become unreliable outside of those limits. The fact is I do not know whether they are reliable in those contexts, and thus cannot be sure that the conclusions are true when they pertain to those contexts.<br /><br />>> But color me impressed by Tommy boy. It's a scandal that so many "rational" atheists are so dismissive of him before even understanding.<br /><br />Agreed.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11718678875882408102011-07-16T15:39:25.129-07:002011-07-16T15:39:25.129-07:00And of course, I -highly- recommend buying Ed'...And of course, I -highly- recommend buying Ed's books. Because my eyes blur out for the rest of the day upon any substantial reading of hardcopy text, I've scanned one of my copies to make it easy to take notes on and save my eyes. Too bad St. Augustine's Press did not offer this in digital form.<br /><br />Ed, could you check into this? If it's not in your contract, maybe you have, by default, thereby retained the right to publish Superstition and other works on your own as a pdf or something. It would help people like me who can look at text all day on computer but have problems reading hardcopy.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75036660469802806832011-07-16T15:37:37.552-07:002011-07-16T15:37:37.552-07:00isn't "radioactive decay" a descript...<i>isn't "radioactive decay" a description of an observable attribute of some physical elements? By suggesting that we don't know what "causes" it, isn't he changing his definition of "cause" in the middle of his argument?</i><br /><br />A general feature of all quantum mechanics, including radioactive decay, is that a quantum mechanical system has no determinate properties prior to measurement. This goes by the name "no hidden variables." Thus, a particle does not decay, rather, a rate of decay is measured and this value of this rate is precisely specified by quantum mechanics.Jinzanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155467948613318531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35977896811833429412011-07-16T14:07:30.256-07:002011-07-16T14:07:30.256-07:00>I think all this does is show that an actual u...>I think all this does is show that an actual unchanged changer is not part of our experience, not that it is incoherent.<br /><br />One could also say Infinity is not part of our experience but we can have the idea that numbers go on forever even if we don't & can't have actually experience with all numbers.<br /><br />But that doesn't make infinity incoherent merely incomprehensible. <br /><br />I might suggest (I could be wrong) dguller's ideas of Reason breaking down at some level of reality might be a conflation of incomprehensibility with incoherence.<br /><br />Just a thought I hope is helps.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68522689435620306562011-07-16T14:02:19.027-07:002011-07-16T14:02:19.027-07:00The first post outlining my purpose in practicing ...The first post outlining my purpose in practicing charity when engaging belief on my new blog is up.<br /><br />http://charitableatheism.wordpress.com/<br /><br />Love to get comments and will be putting out a solicitation for guest authors soon.<br /><br />Peace.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83064560697914009992011-07-16T13:12:42.956-07:002011-07-16T13:12:42.956-07:00Vincent,
I'm doing an exhaustive logical outl...Vincent,<br /><br />I'm doing an exhaustive logical outline of Superstition and will eventually add in notes on Ed's other books including Aquinas. All my writings and notes are public domain, so contact me if you're interested in monitoring that document. Right now I'm on page 41. I'll post the link to it today on my blog.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20130104327633217472011-07-16T12:32:41.164-07:002011-07-16T12:32:41.164-07:00dguller,
I agree that your counter-example of sha...dguller,<br /><br />I agree that your counter-example of shapes is an example of incoherence. The definition of shapes includes bounds, so a "shape" without bounds makes no sense. Are we in a similar situation with respect to "changer"? Does the very notion of "changer" require a change in the changer itself, the way "shape" requires bounds? <br /><br />Before I get to that, it appears we may have reached agreement as to the possibility of unchanged changers with respect to final causes. This is no small deal, as Aristotle considered the final cause the most important of all, being the sake for which all the other causes are causes at all. Plato's God was nothing other than the Good, i.e. the Unchanged Changer as ultimate final cause.<br /><br />Anyway, with respect to efficient causation and my thought experiment, I'm not sure I would identify the gold as an efficient cause. Aristotle says the efficient cause is "the primary source of the change or coming to rest; e.g. the man who gave advice is a cause, the father is cause of the child, and generally what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed." If there were a war over the gold, for example, I would identify gold as the final cause and the people involved as the efficient cause, since they are the ones who "make" the war.<br /><br />But those remarks don't really address your concern, because even in Aristotle's examples of efficient changers, the changers are themselves changing (father giving advice, etc.) So the question remains whether the very notion of an efficient changer requires change in the changer.<br /><br />I don't think it does. Consider again your example of shapes. We didn't have to give any examples of shapes to show the incoherence of boundless shapes; we didn't have to think specifically about squares or triangles, and compare the hypothetical boundless shape with them, to arrive at our conclusion of incoherence. We just consulted the notion of shape in the <i>abstract</i> and drew our conclusions from it.<br /><br />We aren't doing that with change; the notion of an unchanged changer is simply "that which changes others without itself changing," and it seems perfectly comprehensible in the abstract, even if "change" means efficient change. Instead, we are comparing certain examples of empirical change with the abstract concept of an unchanged changer, and finding the latter wanting. I think all this does is show that an actual unchanged changer is not part of our experience, not that it is incoherent.<br /><br />I wonder if your real difficulty isn't the incoherence of an unchanged changer, but the fact that it by nature transcends our normal experience. The only thing we can show is that the abstract notion of an unchanged changer is coherent, but as to knowing how a true unchanged changer in the full sense actually works, is something that is beyond us (at least in this life).<br /><br />The view that our knowledge can't go beyond experience certainly has a strong pedigree and can't be easily dismissed; but I think that is a different problem than the problem of whether the notion of an unchanged changer is coherent.dmt117http://www.lifesprivatebook.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60449330290699431022011-07-16T11:52:51.743-07:002011-07-16T11:52:51.743-07:00dguller,
Well, do keep in mind that prime matter ...dguller,<br /><br />Well, do keep in mind that prime matter <i>is</i> in fact an absurdity, and cannot exist. Matter cannot exist without form. It is an abstraction only.<br /><br />As to your other reservations, I think that as Feser says, these are the logical conclusions of the arguments. To get out of the conclusion you would have to deny one of the otherwise plausible metaphysical premises. <br /><br />This seems difficult, to me, if not impossible. I see no way out of the impossibility of a per se series, and I see no way out of physical change as a per se series. <br /><br />I think I have to conditionally concede, keeping an agnostic streak, although I still agree with you about the abstract and remote nature of this being. Ed has a post on this but I find it to not quite have enough umph for me: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-man-and-classical-theism.html<br /><br />But color me impressed by Tommy boy. It's a scandal that so many "rational" atheists are so dismissive of him before even understanding.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49441867116394620252011-07-16T11:43:26.123-07:002011-07-16T11:43:26.123-07:00This article needs tidying and expanding - but in ...This article needs tidying and expanding - but in it David Glass and I argue that Gnu Atheists (what we call McAtheists) are consciously copying the worst aspects of the evangelical subculture. <br /><br />http://e-n.org.uk/p-4971-McAtheism.htm<br /><br />Graham Veale<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(PS we owe a debt of thanks to Dr Benton for printing a "rough and ready" version of an article in an Evangelical Magazine)Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65956950676805293462011-07-16T11:15:10.436-07:002011-07-16T11:15:10.436-07:00Dmt117:
>> Turning to the gold example, it ...Dmt117:<br /><br />>> Turning to the gold example, it is true that gold is susceptible to change as all beings in the universe are. In the example, however, gold is causing change in the mode of a final cause, and as a "final causer" it isn't changing. It attracts people because it was gold yesterday, is gold today, and will be gold tomorrow. It's "goldness" isn't changing at all, and its the fact of goldness that is the source of its power as a final cause.<br /><br />But in its mode of efficient cause, it necessarily must change, and it is this mode that I am interested in, because this is the mode that actually makes the direct impact upon the world to generate change. My GPS made give me directions (i.e. final cause), but my car is what actually moves me on the road (i.e. efficient cause), and it is the latter that I am most interested in. In other words, how can Pure Act be an efficient cause of change in the universe without undergoing any change itself? It is incomprehensible to me, and mainly because all my concepts that involve efficient causation are loaded to the hilt with spatio-temporal change, and so applying this to an unchanging entity that is outside space-time seems to drain efficient causation of all meaning.<br /><br />It would be like starting an argument about shapes with premises that shapes have lines that bound them, and the argument concluding with the existence of shapes without lines at all. I am pretty sure that no-one here would conclude that there are, in fact, line-less shapes out there that are simply beyond our understanding, being limited by lined shapes. Instead, we would agree that this conclusion is absurd, because the idea of a line-less shape is incoherent, and would them have to look back at the argument to see where we have gone wrong, because we must have gone wrong to have resulted in such an absurd conclusion.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87048943983278654512011-07-16T11:14:35.676-07:002011-07-16T11:14:35.676-07:00Martin:
>> The gold analogy is imperfect, b...Martin:<br /><br />>> The gold analogy is imperfect, but I think was just intended to give a rough approximation. If you examine it closely, as you do, then you start to move right into the real First Way itself, and out of the analogy. The light from the gold is actualized by the sun, the sun is actualized by its own gravity, its gravity is actualized by its gravitons, -------> unmoved mover?<br /><br />And that is what I find so fascinating about this line of inquiry, and others like it in classical metaphysics. The idea of pure act, like the idea of prime matter, is utterly paradoxical to me, and yet they seem to be inevitable conclusions of a series of premises that I find intuitively plausible. And what is most paradoxical about them is that they lack the very properties that made the premises so plausible in the first place, because the premises are based upon entities that are combinations of act and potential, which we have a fairly good understanding of. But, do they necessarily still apply when we are talking about entities of pure act or pure potential? <br /><br />So, I vacillate between taking these arguments as reductions to absurdity, and thus requiring the rejection of some underlying premises (e.g. that reason and logic are applicable to entities beyond space-time), or accepting the truth of some conclusions that actually seem to be absurd. There are good reasons to go either way, and that is why -- although I am able to comfortably reject the Thomist arguments for mental properties of Pure Act -- I am struck by the first three Ways as both compelling and repelling in equal amounts.<br /><br />The real interesting question to me is the status of reason itself in this discussion. Do we assume that the rules of reason and logic are necessarily applicable in every domain of reality, and thus the conclusions of reason and logic are to be accepted as true, even if they are incomprehensible in a number of reasons? Or, do we accept that they possibly have limits beyond which they result in conclusions that appear to make sense, but are actually incoherent?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29419981542429168692011-07-16T08:39:39.187-07:002011-07-16T08:39:39.187-07:00dguller,
It is quite true that any example from e...dguller,<br /><br />It is quite true that any example from experience I can come up with is imperfect, because our experience (or at least our normal experience that can serve as philosophical evidence) involves only beings that are composites of act and potency. Of course, this fact is the very basis for the hypothesis of a being of pure act in the First Way, a being who transcends the universe.<br /><br />But what I think we can do from common experience is defend the notion of the unmoved mover from the charge of incoherency. We may not mean the same thing by "incoherent." By incoherent, I mean something that is inherently nonsensical; the notion of jumping down your own throat, for example, is metaphysically incoherent, since my throat is part of me, and I can't make sense of my throat as being both the thing that is going through something and also the thing that is gone through.<br /><br />Turning to the gold example, it is true that gold is susceptible to change as all beings in the universe are. In the example, however, gold is causing change in the mode of a final cause, and as a "final causer" it isn't changing. It attracts people because it was gold yesterday, is gold today, and will be gold tomorrow. It's "goldness" isn't changing at all, and its the fact of goldness that is the source of its power as a final cause. <br /><br />It's true that we only know about the gold because we see it, and that involves photons and electromagnetic radiation, etc. But this is a consequence of our own natures as embodied knowers (we only gain knowledge of the universe through our senses - another Thomistic doctrine), and not something that concerns gold as a final causer <i>per se</i>. <i> Insofar as it is per se a source of final causation </i>, the gold isn't changing. It <i>is</i> changing in other ways, of course, as it must as a limited, physical being in the universe. But my project here is to give a coherent meaning to "unchanged changer", not prove that gold is the perfect Unchanged Changer of Aristotle.<br /><br />We can notionally strip off the properties of gold that are incidental to its power as an unchanged changer, and see it in its <i>per se</i> nature as a source of final causation; as such a source, it is not changing. From this I think we can conclude that the idea of an unchanged changer is not incoherent in the manner of jumping down your own throat or being your own father is.<br /><br />Of course, this in itself doesn't prove that there is such an Unchanged Changer. It only shows, if successful, that when we speak of an Unchanged Changer, we aren't speaking nonsense.dmt117http://www.lifesprivatebook.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60067190347688931782011-07-16T07:03:11.274-07:002011-07-16T07:03:11.274-07:00Anonymous writes,
“I mean, serioiusly...a philoso...Anonymous writes,<br /><br />“I mean, serioiusly...a philosophical elucidation of the concept of causation is mere "Theobabble"? "Enjoy the squeaky toy!" (in reference to someone as eminently intelligent and well-mannered as TOF)? "Aristotle and Aquinas were idiots"?? What the hell is wrong with these otherwise intelligent people? What is so difficult about seriously engaging the arguments of others in their strongest forms? What is so difficult about being intellectually honest?”<br /><br />It all makes perfect sense when you recognize the Gnus as an anti-religious socio-political movement that is sustained by emotion. As such, they have an agenda and the agenda defines everything. And when someone who believes that it is they who invent meaning and morality also has an agenda, the whole situation is powerfully front-loaded to justify the means with the end.Mike Genehttp://designmatrix.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64894257989491064392011-07-16T06:52:11.811-07:002011-07-16T06:52:11.811-07:00dguller,
The gold analogy is imperfect, but I thi...dguller,<br /><br />The gold analogy is imperfect, but I think was just intended to give a rough approximation. If you examine it closely, as you do, then you start to move right into the real First Way itself, and out of the analogy. The light from the gold is actualized by the sun, the sun is actualized by its own gravity, its gravity is actualized by its gravitons, -------> unmoved mover?<br /><br />If you have read Aquinas, I would recommend reading it again. A lot of things I missed the first time around and thought was a problem, but then I saw it was actually addressed. It's a <i>really</i> dense book, despite it's sub title as a "beginner's guide." <br /><br />I've actually read it three times now, and starting on my fourth. This time I'm gonna take notes. :)Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28289356900349990732011-07-16T06:50:54.359-07:002011-07-16T06:50:54.359-07:00Chuck
Trust me, you'll love Prof Feser's b...Chuck<br />Trust me, you'll love Prof Feser's book. I would read "Locke" and "Aquinas" together. The mediaeval world view is quite different than the modern world view. <br />I think that the early moderns could only reject scholasticism because they were theists, and God could cover some of the debts that the mechanistic view of nature created. (And even then, Prof Feser would want to argue that this was a mistake!)<br />Once God is dropped from the modern worldview we have an incoherent mess. Morality, mind and meaning do not fit into the modern world view. <br />I hope that Coyne realises that his whole worldview is suspect. I hope that he realises that he can't defend atheism by raising a few technical objections to cosmological arguments. <br /><br />But I doubt it. He has a fan base that he has to satisfy. Market driven academia. Don't ya just love it!<br /><br />Graham VealeMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.com