tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2884774764947315990..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Magic versus metaphysicsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger278125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45419381807986873712011-11-05T20:11:34.266-07:002011-11-05T20:11:34.266-07:00@kwan_e
There is little reason to take your respo...@kwan_e<br /><br />There is little reason to take your response seriously.<br /><br />You accuse Dr. Feser of an ad hominem fallacy yet refer to him as an "extreme philosopher who thinks he is more important than he is"?<br /><br />So an argument ad hominem is Ok if you do it?<br /><br />Right! Sure pal!<br /><br />Plus you haven't really offered us any rational rebuttal. You are just nay-saying and name calling.<br /><br />I would forgive the name calling if you coupled it with a rational response.<br /><br />But we can't have everything.<br /><br />Ta! Taa!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84569158525392245332011-11-05T04:54:21.954-07:002011-11-05T04:54:21.954-07:00@Feser
Yet another piece that demonstrates that, ...@Feser<br /><br />Yet another piece that demonstrates that, not that scientism is a problem, but that extreme philosophers think they are more important than they actually are.<br /><br />It is an ad hominem fallacy to claim in any way that the lack of intellectual sophistication on the part of "New Atheists" affects the strength of the IMPLICATIONS of their arguments, ie, religious philosophy is pointless.<br /><br />It's quite reasonable to conclude that science is the best way of studying the world given its many successes in both material and cultural life in a way no religion or "theoretical philosophy" has.<br /><br />Religion and philosophy of the intellectually sophisticated kind are removed from their stated purpose and prove nothing other than the fact that anyone can create their own "universal set" in which their beliefs hold and others' don't with absolutely no bearing a world that actually exists.<br /><br />Extreme abstract philosophy is already pointless. Adding religion to that is multiplying by 0.King-Yan Kwanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281995628118966721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1117438436241974802011-11-01T09:19:09.189-07:002011-11-01T09:19:09.189-07:00"imply monotheism or a "ghost in the mac...<i>"imply monotheism or a "ghost in the machine"--tho many naive (or manipulative) theists insist it does. "<br /><br />Strawmen.</i><br /><br />Nothing to do with the strawman fallacy, little Anny -troll phony--but spout quasi-philosophical BS and some idiots around here might believe you. Many believers (including Feser at times) do use something like a Ad Logos argument..given human thinking/ Reason ->..G*d exists. Which is not all reasonable.Hardy Har Harnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89825667314146663912011-11-01T09:13:09.631-07:002011-11-01T09:13:09.631-07:00Thinking “What caused God?” is a good objection to...<i> Thinking “What caused God?” is a good objection to the cosmological argument is one</i><br /><br />Hume in his Dialogues of Natural Religion brings up something like this, however vull-gar papists find it--"Philo" asks well how do we know whether a creator was one, a thousand--Brahma, JHVH or Zeus, , whether finite or infinite, etc? (Kant also hints at the issue--at least somewhat related to actual empirical physico-astronomical issues..not the mind of Zeus)) Not real subtle for the wannabe-scholastic but...there is a matter of observation (and Feser has a great skill in making Aquinas sound like he knew what happened, personally tho AQ's off by a few billion years, and pre-Copernican--in other wrods, Feser presents ancient dogma as if it had something to do with science, and his acoyltes are bamboozled. The most he can say is something like what Searle suggests--"intention" seems to suggest Mind, and...yada yada yada)10101001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75665689755108412032011-11-01T07:46:18.829-07:002011-11-01T07:46:18.829-07:00DNW,
The link: "It’s an experience, an emoti...DNW,<br /><br />The link: "It’s an experience, an emotion, not an assertion of fact."<br /><br />You: <i>"I don't know anyone serious who would take such stuff at face value. You don't really, do you?"</i><br /><br />I take it seriously. It's obviously true, at least in part. Meaning is a subjective experience. It's often an emotional attachment to something like, for example, a favorite song from our youth.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20875253876531429572011-11-01T01:40:01.527-07:002011-11-01T01:40:01.527-07:00"imply monotheism or a "ghost in the mac..."imply monotheism or a "ghost in the machine"--tho many naive (or manipulative) theists insist it does. "<br /><br />Strawmen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5360994662345902762011-10-31T19:17:39.485-07:002011-10-31T19:17:39.485-07:00if Searle is right, intrinsic meaning or intention...<i>if Searle is right, intrinsic meaning or intentionality, and thus the <br />first-person point of view of the conscious, thinking subject are <br />inextricably bound up together; and if the argument in the proceeding section are right, meaning or intentionality, and thus the first person point of view of the conscious etc...Dualism would seem to be vindicated...</i><br /><br />Yet Searle has never said he was a theist..or even a dualist IIRC. Mind could exist in some fashion --at least human thinking might be unique (and it is)---that does not necessarily imply monotheism or a "ghost in the machine"--tho many naive (or manipulative) theists insist it does.Hardy Har Harnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6102040570506589872011-10-31T12:50:04.158-07:002011-10-31T12:50:04.158-07:00"The terminology of 'intentionality' ..."The terminology of 'intentionality' can also be confusing, for at least two reasons. First, intentionality has nothing in particular to do with intending, or intentions. Intentions, for instance the intention to buy a cat, are just one of many types of intentional mental states."<br /><br />http://mit.edu/abyrne/www/intentionality.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6328775365512701762011-10-31T12:24:11.872-07:002011-10-31T12:24:11.872-07:00Anonymous,
Like intentionality and intentions. E....Anonymous,<br /><br />Like intentionality and intentions. E.H. Munro avoids the issue through hair-splitting.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5826875292041825302011-10-31T08:48:59.112-07:002011-10-31T08:48:59.112-07:00EH Munro: "Sexual drive and "sexiness&qu...EH Munro: "Sexual drive and "sexiness" are not one and the same. Your analogy remains disastrously bad."<br /><br />True. Libido and sexual attractiveness are two different things. Think appetite and appetizing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88980385653118444222011-10-31T08:28:48.482-07:002011-10-31T08:28:48.482-07:00E.H. Munro,
"And you also "comprehend&q...E.H. Munro,<br /><br /><i>"And you also "comprehend" that mathematics are empirical."</i><br /><br />Speaking of bad analogies. What does the math issue have to do with the sexiness issue? Besides, I don't claim mathematics are empirical. I claim mathematics is based on empirically observed first principles, like notions of equality and sets of things (numbers). And I claim that without occasional empirical feedback math truths are in doubt.<br /><br /><i>"Sexual drive and 'sexiness' are not one and the same."</i><br /><br />Really? How are they different? And how is the in-your-mindness of sexiness different than the in-your-mindness of intentionality?Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16159103893765303602011-10-30T18:03:45.357-07:002011-10-30T18:03:45.357-07:00I comprehend that it's factually wrong. Find a...<i>I comprehend that it's factually wrong. Find a better reason or I'll stick with my analogy.</i><br /><br />And you also "comprehend" that mathematics are empirical. And in both cases you're wrong. You need to work on your comprehension. Sexual drive and "sexiness" are not one and the same. Your analogy remains disastrously bad.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6289412816972599542011-10-30T13:42:45.731-07:002011-10-30T13:42:45.731-07:00"And that's your whole problem: the purpo...<i>"And that's your whole problem: the purpose we're talking about here is the purpose it was created for. That agents may use something for other purposes never changes that."</i><br /><br />Two questions. First, a repeat: Why only <i>one</i> purpose?<br /><br />Second - I'm sure that's an <i>interesting</i> question, but why is <i>that</i> purpose (assuming arguendo it was only created for one single solitary purpose) the 'objective' purpose?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28667697726069340912011-10-30T12:28:05.275-07:002011-10-30T12:28:05.275-07:00Ray,
"Purposes are things that agents have f...Ray,<br /><br />"Purposes are things that agents have for things. And different agents will have different purposes for things. Usually multiple purposes."<br /><br />And that's your whole problem: the purpose we're talking about here is the purpose it was created for. That agents may use something for other purposes never changes that.Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85405775333399527122011-10-30T12:21:48.524-07:002011-10-30T12:21:48.524-07:00Verbose Stoic - "I'd ask what makes you t...Verbose Stoic - <i>"I'd ask what makes you think that and that you don't have an objective purpose to fulfill."</i><br /><br />What could an 'objective purpose' possibly look like? Purposes are things that <i>agents</i> have <i>for</i> things. And different agents will have different purposes for things. Usually multiple purposes.<br /><br />The White House is where the President of the United States lives when in office. Is that its 'telos'? But wait - it's also an office building; the center of the executive branch. Is <i>that</i> its telos? And, hey, wait a minute - I've taken a tour of the public areas. Is the telos of the White House to be a museum? And then there's the fact that it was designed and architected specifically to impress visiting foreign dignitaries - is <i>that</i> its telos?<br /><br />What about natural resources? What is the 'telos' of sand? To be made into static art, like a sand painting? To be made into a dynamic tool, like an hourglass? To be made into sandbags to hold back a flood? To be squirted onto rails to improve a railroad car's traction? To be used as ballast for a balloon? To be purified to make a silicon chip? If for a silicon chip, what kind - in a Wii or an Xbox or a Playstation?<br /><br />A statue in a city square fulfills <i>a</i> purpose - decoration, memorial, whatever - but not <i>only</i> that purpose. It can serve as a landmark for navigating about the city. It can serve as a jungle gym for kids to climb on. It can serve as a perch for birds. It can serve as a blind from behind which to spy on someone. It can serve a fleeing pickpocket as an obstacle to slow pursuit. It can serve as a source of metal to melt down into cannons to defend the city. The number of different 'final causes' served by anything in the real world is probably at <i>least</i> equal to the number of agents that interact with it.<br /><br />Even the artisan who <i>made</i> the statue may have multiple purposes in constructing it. He may wish to commemorate a fallen soldier... while at the same time subtly castigating the generals who ordered the march the soldier died in. The artisan may also choose a particular artistic style in order to make a statement to some of his fellow artisans, <i>and</i> have chosen brass as the medium to help out his brother-in-law the metal merchant. Plus, the artisan no doubt intends to be be paid for the statue... to help keep his children fed.<br /><br />Which of these, if any, is 'the' 'objective' purpose of the statue? Why?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78961356808732020912011-10-30T07:55:38.680-07:002011-10-30T07:55:38.680-07:00Josh: "However, if the scientific/material &q...Josh: <i>"However, if the scientific/material "nothing" bears a relation to prime matter, then it can certainly inform that whole discussion..."</i><br /><br />Let me run this through in my head...<br /><br />If the material "nothing" is prime matter, then it is conceivable for something to come from nothing since pure potential can be actualized by something actual. <br /><br />Of course, this requires that something actual already exists to actualize prime matter. <br /><br />So, it is <i>still</i> impossible for something to come from nothing <i>unless</i> something actual exists to actualize it. <br /><br />Hence "in the beginning God". <br /><br />Got it! (I think.)Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41830578268943422622011-10-29T20:33:24.193-07:002011-10-29T20:33:24.193-07:00E.H. Munro,
"Yes, is that so hard to compreh...E.H. Munro,<br /><br /><i>"Yes, is that so hard to comprehend?"</i><br /><br />I comprehend that it's factually wrong. Find a better reason or I'll stick with my analogy.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32569253677400431782011-10-29T16:40:41.331-07:002011-10-29T16:40:41.331-07:00Ray,
"And why would a self-determined teleol...Ray,<br /><br />"And why would a self-determined teleology be false or wrong? If I say, "my purpose for my life is to make myself and my loved ones happy", how would you go about arguing against that?"<br /><br />I'd ask you how you know that that's your purpose, and if you reply that purpose can only be what you decide it is I'd ask what makes you think that and that you don't have an objective purpose to fulfill.<br /><br />But you concede the point I was making, which is that you need to do more than simply listing things you find important to argue for a purpose. You have to at least declare that that IS a purpose, which can then be argued against independently over whether or not your family are important to you. So they aren't synonymous, and don't mean the same thing conceptually.Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43696364233826531762011-10-29T16:10:53.847-07:002011-10-29T16:10:53.847-07:00You said, "Evolution occurs whether or no[t] ...<i>You said, "Evolution occurs whether or no[t] anyone observes it, 'sexiness' only occurs in the mind of the observer."</i><br /><br />Yes, is that so hard to comprehend? <br /><br /><i>I said, "Sexiness is a huge part of evolution." Do you deny this?</i><br /><br />Again, it's not even remotely relevant to what I wrote. Not even a little bit. Not even a smidgeon. You may as well have written "God didn't make little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summer time..."<br /><br />Find a better example.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80421775154874204472011-10-29T12:34:44.701-07:002011-10-29T12:34:44.701-07:00Daniel,
They aren't necessarily the same thin...Daniel,<br /><br />They aren't necessarily the same thing, as Philosophy through Ontology can study Being as Being qua Being, which supersedes the material Being in its scope.<br /><br />However, if the scientific/material "nothing" bears a relation to prime matter, then it can certainly inform that whole discussion...Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21550574953664316752011-10-29T11:58:28.959-07:002011-10-29T11:58:28.959-07:00Josh: "It should differentiate between the ph...Josh: <i>"It should differentiate between the philosophical nothing and the material "nothing""</i><br /><br />Thanks for the TelicThoughts link (I'm a regular there but I didn't really pay much attention to that one.)<br /><br />Shouldn't they be the same thing though (the philosophical and the material "nothing")?<br /><br />Or, more correctly, shouldn't the philosophical "nothing" accurately describe the material "nothing"?Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38411743231555666662011-10-29T11:11:07.785-07:002011-10-29T11:11:07.785-07:00Daniel,
Check out this link:
http://telicthought...Daniel, <br /><br />Check out this link:<br />http://telicthoughts.com/empty-space-time-logical-being-real-being-or-really-really-nothing/<br /><br />It should differentiate between the philosophical nothing and the material "nothing"Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69596102351236357322011-10-29T09:57:58.988-07:002011-10-29T09:57:58.988-07:00E.H. Munro,
"Two things here, first this cla...E.H. Munro,<br /><br /><i>"Two things here, first this claim is actually irrelevant to what said."</i><br /><br />You said, "Evolution occurs whether or no[t] anyone observes it, 'sexiness' only occurs in the mind of the observer."<br /><br />I said, "Sexiness is a huge part of evolution." Do you deny this? If not, it is extremely relevant to what you said. If sexiness is a huge part of evolution then it occurs outside the 'mind' of the observer. It occurs whether the 'mind' observes it or not because it pre-dates 'mind' in the first place.<br /><br /><i>"In the second you've completely missed my point, namely that you made a horrifically bad analogy. If you're going to disprove final causality you need to find a better analogy."</i><br /><br />And you're going to have to do better than that. Your one attempt to show it was bad analogy was a failure. Do you have any others? I think it's a great analogy until you show it to be otherwise.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87243678798484368352011-10-29T09:41:42.349-07:002011-10-29T09:41:42.349-07:00I have some questions on the "debate about no...I have some questions on the "debate about nothing"...<br /><br />Doesn't equating "nothing" to "non-being" leave open the possibility that "potential being" would qualify as "nothing"?<br /><br />For instance, if we describe "nothing" in terms of being, would "pure potential" (prime matter) still be "nothing"?<br /><br />Wouldn't "nothing" be best defined then as "lacking all potentiality and actuality"?<br /><br />It seems to me that defining "nothing" in terms of potentiality and actuality is the only way to logically conclude that it is impossible for something to come from nothing - since there can be no "potential something" in "nothing".<br /><br />Thoughts?Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70489923885709565162011-10-29T08:47:11.665-07:002011-10-29T08:47:11.665-07:00Verbose Stoic - "But that's not the same ...Verbose Stoic - <i>"But that's not the same thing as meaning or point of life, since that clearly is NOT a synonym for "What's important to me" but is indeed closer to "My purpose"."</i><br /><br />And why would a self-determined teleology be false or wrong? If I say, "my purpose for my life is to make myself and my loved ones happy", how would you go about arguing against that?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.com