tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post295703222848555355..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Bad lovin’Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30602368425590239762018-08-06T06:50:52.014-07:002018-08-06T06:50:52.014-07:00If a religions concept of God involves a clear cha...If a religions concept of God involves a clear change from unloving to loving, or vice versa, what would be the best way to demonstrate how this is an intrinsic change? Of course, this is not meant to toss aside the wrath of God, but to concentrate on the contradiction of the divine essence being both unloving and loving.Joshua and Caleb Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12914814181847071199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46148614637501386532016-07-31T10:21:51.016-07:002016-07-31T10:21:51.016-07:00Curio: Has anyone here read Chastek's take on ...Curio: <i>Has anyone here read <a href="https://thomism.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/love-as-primarily-willed-or-emotional/" rel="nofollow">Chastek's take on the subject</a>?</i><br /><br />In belated response, I did read it, but he shouldn't say that love is not a choice; he has a point about emotions, but it would be better to say that while <i>love</i> is indeed "merely" a choice, human beings are not merely wills, and thus a proper <i>human</i> response must integrate our emotions as well as our will. Our feelings provide data upon which we act; and our actions in turn provoke other feelings; but neither is part of the act of willing itself. As James points out, our emotional responses are imperfect, and one reason it's so important to understand that <i>love</i> is matter of willing is so that we can take into account the (un)developed state of our emotions and act accordingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34701479000363684032016-07-26T04:19:30.375-07:002016-07-26T04:19:30.375-07:00
Interesting segues:
http://www.reasonablefaith...<br /><br />Interesting segues: <br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/love-and-justice-in-the-trinity<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-mercy-an-essential-property-of-god<br />scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45006818732987281952016-07-20T11:34:45.001-07:002016-07-20T11:34:45.001-07:00DJ,
With the understanding that there's a sli...DJ,<br /><br /><i>With the understanding that there's a sliding scale of degrees, the nightmare parent is motivated to a greater extent and by a lower type of self-love or self-interest. But in the context of the OP, how would you say the relative numbers differ from ancient times?</i><br /><br />For ease of comprehension, my response is two parts:<br /><br />1. Data.<br /><br />2. Sufficiency.<br /><br /><i>Were Plato's suggestions on education on the supportive or nightmare end of the scale? From my POV, I vote for nightmare.</i><br /><br />Since Plato thought the individual should be developed / educated re the physical, mental and, let us say, 'extra-mental', and you deny the reality of anything 'extra-mental', it is understandable that your vote should be as has been cast.<br /><br /><i>Btw, I'm going to have to read The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I'm in a screenwriting group so I read a lot of amateur scripts. It's a pleasure to read a well-written pro script, even though I don't care for the movie.</i><br /><br />I like the movie, but prefer the book.<br /><br />Anyway, good luck with the screenwriting.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76641299819336208602016-07-20T09:21:26.321-07:002016-07-20T09:21:26.321-07:00Glenn,
"Given two cases, one of a supportive...Glenn,<br /><br /><i>"Given two cases, one of a supportive parent, and one of a nightmare parent, would it be more likely that the concupiscent tail has begun to wag the dog in the case of the supportive parent, or in the case of the nightmare parent?"</i><br /><br />With the understanding that there's a sliding scale of degrees, the nightmare parent is motivated to a greater extent and by a lower type of self-love or self-interest. But in the context of the OP, how would you say the relative numbers differ from ancient times? Were Plato's suggestions on education on the supportive or nightmare end of the scale? From my POV, I vote for nightmare.<br /><br />Btw, I'm going to have to read The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I'm in a screenwriting group so I read a lot of amateur scripts. It's a pleasure to read a well-written pro script, even though I don't care for the movie.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36041721118442981002016-07-19T10:08:58.775-07:002016-07-19T10:08:58.775-07:00Btw, although it wasn't something I myself had...Btw, although it wasn't something I myself had tried to say, I too thank Mr. Collinson.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77685861942819945662016-07-19T09:58:21.768-07:002016-07-19T09:58:21.768-07:00DJ,
You to John Collison:
There's a differen...DJ,<br /><br />You to John Collison:<br /><br /><i>There's a difference between nurturing and molding. It's one thing to give a child the opportunity to be a gymnast if that's the child's desire. It's another to assume the child's best interest is in becoming a gymnast. What you describe could be a supportive parent or a nightmare parent.</i><br /><br />In recognition of your perspicacity, a modified excerpt from the script for <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX6KD18__NAhVKej4KHaRfA_QQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pages.drexel.edu%2F~ina22%2Fsplaylib%2FScreenplay-Treasure_of_the_Sierra_Madre%2C_The.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFPTI3wzu90FOW2IXAEO_WiSEEzmA&bvm=bv.127521224,bs.2,d.dmo" rel="nofollow">The Treasure of the Sierra Madre</a>: <br /><br />- - - - -<br />Dobbs' hasn't had a haircut in months and there is several days growth of beard on his face. Dobbs pulls his belt in a couple of notches and walks up the street. Something Dobbs sees causes him to increase his pace. He catches up with an American who is dressed in a white suit.<br /><br />DOBBS: Brother, can you spare a dime?<br /><br />White Suit fishes in his pocket, takes out a toston and gives it to Dobbs who is so surprised by this act of generosity that he doesn't even say thanks. For several moments he stands rooted looking at the coin in his palm. The he closes his hand around it, making a fist. Putting the fist in his pocket, he cuts across the street.<br /><br />Dobbs now can afford to pay for a meal, which he does. Later, Dobbs is sitting on a bench.<br /><br />A man in a white suit passes the bench. Dobbs' eyes follow him speculatively.<br /><br />Dobbs gets to his feet, and turns away from the bench.<br /><br />DOBBS: Brother, can you spare a dime?<br /><br />White Suit takes a toston out of his pocket, gives it to Dobbs. For the second time this day, Dobbs is surprised into speechlessness. Dobbs thrusts the coin into his pants pocket, turns on his heel and marches off.<br /><br />Dobbs now can afford to pay for a haircut, which he does. Later, Dobbs is walking down the street.<br /><br />Reaching the corner, he observes a man in a white suit about to step off the curb. Dobbs goes directly up to him.<br /><br />DOBBS: Can you spare a dime, mister?<br /><br />White Suit reaches in his pocket, takes out a toston. Dobbs reaches for it. But White Suit keeps the piece between his fingers.<br /><br />WHITE SUIT: Listen, you. Such impudence never came my way as long as I can remember.<br /><br />Dobbs stands utterly perplexed while the stranger continues.<br /><br />WHITE SUIT: Early this afternoon I gave you a toston. Later, I gave you another toston. Now, once again. This is beginning to get tiresome.<br /><br />DOBBS: Excuse me, mister. I never realized that it was you all the time.<br />- - - - -<br /><br />To baffle you further... a quote from the OP, and a question:<br /><br />OP: "Of course, love is indeed <i>in part</i> a matter of self-fulfillment. Spouses fulfill themselves in being good husbands and wives, parents fulfill themselves in being good parents, friends fulfill themselves in being good friends. But such self-fulfillment is an <i>effect or byproduct</i> of love rather than the <i>aim</i> of love. When it becomes the aim, the beloved is no longer loved for his own sake, and the concupiscent tail begins to wag the dog."<br /><br />Question: Given two cases, one of a supportive parent, and one of a nightmare parent, would it be more likely that the concupiscent tail has begun to wag the dog in the case of the supportive parent, or in the case of the nightmare parent?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61877540719253187482016-07-19T07:22:54.254-07:002016-07-19T07:22:54.254-07:00John Collinson,
"Furthermore, if you see you...John Collinson,<br /><br /><i>"Furthermore, if you see your child dirty, don't you want to clean it?"</i><br /><br />I changed quite a few diapers in my day. When I did so, my primary concern wasn't to improve the child but to improve the atmosphere. :)<br /><br />The child raising issue is slippery. There's a difference between nurturing and molding. It's one thing to give a child the opportunity to be a gymnast if that's the child's desire. It's another to assume the child's best interest is in becoming a gymnast. What you describe could be a supportive parent or a nightmare parent. Nightmare parents are not motivated by a superior love. The same can be said of meddling people and the nanny state. At some point efforts to "improve" others is not love at all.<br /><br />But remember, the issue is where or if "modern people go wrong where love is concerned." Is it your contention that moderns don't clean their children? They don't take them to the doctor? They aren't interested in educating them? It seems to me that if we look at modern parenting versus ancient parenting, the moderns are more concerned -- maybe overly concerned -- with the health and well-being of their young.<br /><br />Also, please don't assume I think people should love unconditionally. I don't give money to beggars, I don't love them, and I don't think I should. My opinion is that that sort of love can be very superficial too. The naive check-writer who sends $20 to his favorite cause is not practicing much love, IMO.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80934858457045271052016-07-18T11:59:10.752-07:002016-07-18T11:59:10.752-07:00That's exactly what I was getting at. Thank yo...That's exactly what I was getting at. Thank you.Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4532866705105861572016-07-18T07:08:04.383-07:002016-07-18T07:08:04.383-07:00Don Jindra,
>If I claim to love my wife for he...Don Jindra,<br /><br />>If I claim to love my wife for her own sake, I cannot then say I don't love her the way she is now (the end of Bridget Jones's Diary comes to mind). To speak of reform is to speak about change. The change is to some ideal. The object of love is not the reality, but rather an ideal form of reality. Therefore the love is not actually for the person. The love is for a supposed, "platonic" ideal. <br /><br />Aristotle divides being into act and potency, i.e. a thing is not just what it is in act, but also what it is in potency. When you love someone, you don't just love what they are actually, but also what they are potentially. This is most obvious in the case of children. Furthermore, if you see your child dirty, don't you want to clean it? If you see your spouse ill, don't you want to see them cured? Should we leave beggars starving without anything to eat because, "we should love them as they are"? Wanting to leave someone in their dirtiness, illness, and poverty is not loving them as they are, but a kind of neglect and lack of love. When we talk about loving someone in order to "reform them" or "change them" or "make them better", we are talking about helping them to overcome their faults and weaknesses so that they might realise more fully their potential and live more happily.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54523226232899117892016-07-17T20:43:51.946-07:002016-07-17T20:43:51.946-07:00Has anyone here read Chastek's take on the sub...Has anyone here read Chastek's take on the subject?<br /><br />https://thomism.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/love-as-primarily-willed-or-emotional/<br /><br />Curionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44198577837165857342016-07-17T19:08:23.971-07:002016-07-17T19:08:23.971-07:00Misspoke:
....the abolition of good-minus-somethi...Misspoke:<br /><br />....the abolition of good-minus-something (in those two minds/souls).... Etc....scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12967531066574651912016-07-17T16:37:03.934-07:002016-07-17T16:37:03.934-07:00The evidence shows: If one starts young enough wit...The evidence shows: If one starts young enough with a child in sex trafficking one can produce a child loyal to her owner. Pleasant feelings amid a job well done, amid providing more help to her family/owner. Serotonin and all that. <br /><br />To love the child and her adult owner <i>for themselves</i> reduces to the irreducible value and worth of said souls, which lands in the immutable lap of love's timeless reciprocity within "Trinity"..... to God. Full stop. <br /><br />Not to feelings. <br /><br />To assert that said love is void of the will towards the abolition of both minds/souls, void of love's reformation of both irreducibly valuable minds/souls, is to commit category errors amid irreducible value, love, and our final felicity, our true good. Love moves within and among <i>all of the above</i>, and all while loving the (irreducibly precious) beloved. <br /><br />One has to take the Christian on his own terms. Otherwise one isn't debating Christianity.scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79313082568241092382016-07-17T08:45:16.566-07:002016-07-17T08:45:16.566-07:00Willing the good of the other must first have the ...Willing the good of the other must first have the other as it's real object before a perfection for their good can be willed (since it is a good to which <i>their</i> particular person is ordered). I doubt you are being fair to Edward Feser, or that you are representing him accurately Don Jindra. <br /><br />By the way I am the same Anonymous that spoke about affectivity above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17597153269207370432016-07-17T08:20:27.466-07:002016-07-17T08:20:27.466-07:00Glenn,
"So, out of a love for the good of ma...Glenn,<br /><br /><i>"So, out of a love for the good of maintaining standards (in lieu of lowering them), you engaged in an act of will directed towards a good end."</i><br /><br />That's a love for the standard, not a love for the object that fall short of the standard.<br /><br />jmhenry,<br /><br />I wouldn't phrase the issue in terms consumption, one exploiting the other. Love is a mutual arrangement. It's bidirectional, mutually and equally beneficial.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3536596933567183722016-07-17T08:06:10.751-07:002016-07-17T08:06:10.751-07:00Fred,
"A love that rules out reform from the...Fred,<br /><br /><i>"A love that rules out reform from the beginning is not a love that wills the good for another."</i><br /><br />That's debatable. But my point was not about that. If I claim to love my wife for her own sake, I cannot then say I don't love her the way she is now (the end of Bridget Jones's Diary comes to mind). To speak of reform is to speak about change. The change is to some ideal. The object of love is not the reality, but rather an ideal form of reality. Therefore the love is not actually for the person. The love is for a supposed, "platonic" ideal. Our gracious host interprets "for her sake" in a way that I don't believe the average English speaker means. I'm not convince an ancient speaker would interpret the language different than I do. Look at Glaucon's challenge to Socrates, for example. Glaucon begins by asking Socrates, "How would you arrange goods -- are there not some which we welcome for their own sakes, and independently of their consequences, as, for example, harmless pleasures and enjoyments, which delight us at the time, although nothing follows from them?"<br /><br />This is not a modern "for their own sakes," yet there's no implication of a need to change the good itself. There's not even an implication that the good can be detached from the pleasure it brings. Of course this is a translation, so it could be that the translator got things wrong. But the context seems to be pretty clear. And I'll note that the remainder of the work is an attempt to argue that justice should be loved for its own sake, yet the argument fails.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55839619298327560272016-07-16T16:39:40.605-07:002016-07-16T16:39:40.605-07:00Some of these projects would be on display for day...<i>Some of these projects would be on display for days, some for months. None had any meaning. None excited an appetite. None provided a perceivable benefit. Therefore none were any good.</i><br /><br />Maybe this is where our society is headed in the decades and centuries to come. In the future, we'll think of people no differently than how we think of works of art. We'll put them on display and ask ourselves: "Do they excite my appetites? Do they have any perceivable [social or economic] benefit?" The question then becomes what to do with the people for whom the answer is no -- those who fail to satisfy whatever appetites we happen to have at that time, and who fail to pass our cost-benefit analysis. We don't have to love them, so what is to be done with them? Does it matter? Since they are ontologically no different than objects of art, maybe we can put such people in a field somewhere (per one of Glenn's speculations) and let the local archery or rifle team use them as target practice.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86933284982972239812016-07-16T15:06:33.147-07:002016-07-16T15:06:33.147-07:00DJ,
Reactionary that I am, I refused to love thos...DJ,<br /><br /><i>Reactionary that I am, I refused to love those objects for the sake of the objects. All I saw was a lowering (if not total abandonment) of standards. So I'd run past and chuckle to myself.</i><br /><br />1. I never did see those objects myself, so all I have in the way of that which would enable me to come to my own conclusion (as to whether those objects of years ago really did represent a lowering of standards) is your recent hearsay testimony.<br /><br />That said, let it be supposed that those objects were genuinely awful. The question, then, is why were those objects so awful? <br /><br />Some speculations:<br /><br />a) They were the work of people who have a poor artistic sense.<br /><br />b) They were the work of people who have a good artistic sense, yet lack the means or skills to adequately express it.<br /><br />c) They were works which, awful as they were, actually were improvements over the prior efforts of their creators.<br /><br />d) They were works put on display as examples of what not to strive to produce.<br /><br />e) They were works which might have come out good, except for one or more missteps or mishaps which led to their coming out bad.<br /><br />f) They were works recognized as being bad, and put out for the archery or rifle team to utilize, or to claim for the purpose of utilization, during their practice sessions.<br /><br />g) They were works displayed with an accompanying sense of (misguided) pride regarding the advancements made in furthering of the decline of standards.<br /><br />h) They were works which, to make room inside, were put outside (and which were slated to be carted away later to the town dump or for recycling).<br /><br />i) Etc., etc., so on and so forth.<br /><br />2. Whatever the reason for why those objects were so awful, and whatever the reason for why those awful objects were put on display, or merely were just placed outside, the fact remains:<br /><br />It is good not to approve of or encourage the lowering of standards (when those standards are standards for that which is good)). So, out of a love for the good of maintaining standards (in lieu of lowering them), you engaged in an act of will directed towards a good end. That is, you exercised your will for a purpose which is a good purpose. Or, to put it yet another way, your intentional refusal to approve, encourage or 'reward' the (alleged/supposed) lowering of standards -- by feigning a non-existent love for either the objects or their creators -- was an intentional act born of the existent love you have for the good of maintaining standards (in lieu of lowering them).<br /><br />3. Of course, maybe those objects weren't genuinely awful. <br /><br />Maybe they were actually quite good; maybe it was the artistic sense of a certain viewer which was deficient; and maybe it was that deficient artistic sense which led to the misguided notion that those objects truly represented a lowering of standards.<br /><br />Hard to tell.<br /><br />Or, at least, it is hard to tell when all one has to go on is the hearsay testimony of one who has insisted that only that which can be empirically verified is worthy of one's trust or confidence.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78714041035092693292016-07-16T12:29:18.193-07:002016-07-16T12:29:18.193-07:00D.J., A love that rules out desire to reform someo...D.J., A love that rules out desire to reform someone and "is pretty much anything anyone wants it to be" is precisely the kind of shallow, empty modernist version of love Feser is criticizing. To will the good for someone may well mean willing for him or her to stop doing something self-destructive or start doing something beneficial. A love that rules out reform from the beginning is <i>not</i> a love that wills the good for another. As for those sculptures, there has been a move in the last thirty or forty years to claim there are no objective standards by which to judge art, but that is a very recent development. Before that, going back at least to Aristotle, aesthetics has been a well-respected branch of philosophy exploring, explaining, and justifying such standards. Hamlet's speech to the players contains a set of objective standards by which an actor's performance can be judged. Pope's Essay on Criticism is a set of objective standards for judging poetry, as is much of the work of Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelly. In the later nineteenth century, Balzac, Zola, and Henry James set forth standards by which to judge the novel. Most of the High Modernist poets and novelists were also critics who wrote aesthetic manifestos as well as poetry and fiction. I would bet if you asked enough students and teachers of sculpture which sculptures they liked and why, despite some disagreements you would find remarkable consensus about which sculptures are better and what makes them so. Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53078014007457981782016-07-16T11:46:38.691-07:002016-07-16T11:46:38.691-07:00I hesitate to comment on this. What can I possibly...I hesitate to comment on this. What can I possibly know about love? I've only been married 41 years. It takes at least 42 before one begins to understand love.<br /><br />When I lived in Texas, my daily 4 mile run took me past the University of North Texas art building. The MFA sculptors would haul their latest creations out to the back lawn. Some of these projects would be on display for days, some for months. None had any meaning. None excited an appetite. None provided a perceivable benefit. Therefore none were any good. There was no apparent standard by which one could separate the bad from the good. This, I believe, was intentional. It was an act of will. It was art for art's sake.<br /><br />Reactionary that I am, I refused to love those objects for the sake of the objects. All I saw was a lowering (if not total abandonment) of standards. So I'd run past and chuckle to myself.<br /><br />Now I'm wondering what objects of love lie on the lawn outside the residence of The Philosopher? First, let's be clear. To love a man for his own sake rules out any effort to reform him, just as to love art for its own sake rules out any effort to judge art by an objective standard. When one claims inflicting pain on the beloved is no different than inflicting pleasure, truly "love is pretty much anything anyone wants it to be." Modern notions of love are no more relativistic than that. It would be hard for such a person to prove his "tough love" was not merely about how the object affects him emotionally, that is, about his subjective feelings about how the world should be. This can only happen when love toward an object is not for its own sake, but for the sake of the observer.<br /><br />So once we understand and reject this contradiction, we're left with love truly for its own sake, a love devoid of judgment. It denies a love based on behavior. Love, then, is not "essentially a matter of finding someone who will generate in oneself pleasant feelings." Neither is it a matter of generating in others those same pleasant feelings.<br /><br />Therefore it's a socialism of love. It's a love in which all are entitled an equal share no matter how much they contribute to the pot. The individual becomes an autonomous love sponge, soaking it all in, never having to be bound by mutually beneficial behavioral ties.<br /><br />I can't help but think that this love lawn is going to be strewn with quite a few mediocre, meaningless objects. Perhaps after 42 years I'll feel differently.<br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26527073374019294582016-07-16T03:53:02.976-07:002016-07-16T03:53:02.976-07:00What is the definition of goodness and moral goodn...What is the definition of goodness and moral goodness?<br /><br />How can we demonstrate rigorously that moral goodness or goodness in general is an objective feature of the world (that it exists)? <br /><br />Why should we love in Aquinas' sense? Can non-Christians love in this sense? Isn't it an infused theological virtue, so that those without faith cannot have it, and only love in the emotional sense?<br />Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53225076482079555342016-07-13T10:04:25.451-07:002016-07-13T10:04:25.451-07:00I am reading The Heart by Dietrich von Hildebrand....I am reading <i>The Heart</i> by Dietrich von Hildebrand.* It ties into this topic perfectly. Have you read it Prof. Feser? <br /><br />I think von Hildebrand expands on the concept of "willing the good" of the other, while adding a greater degree of nuance to the concept of passions, affectivity and feelings than may be found in St. Thomas's writing.<br /><br />*[Personally I am disinterested in what influenced von Hildebrand (i.e. phenomenology). I do however think his thought compliments Aquinas. There is a slight divergence of views I'm sure in relation to affectivity between the two, since they came at things from different angles and questions.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84014670895924861462016-07-13T09:59:54.404-07:002016-07-13T09:59:54.404-07:00I should probably have earlier said "intra-sp...<br /><br />I should probably have earlier said "intra-species" or "across the membership of the species" or "categorically applying with regard to the species", rather than the awkward "pan-[the]species"; which could be understood or misunderstood I guess, as nonsensically referring to a moral imperative supposedly common to, and incumbent upon all the world's various species.<br /><br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6793351010253850632016-07-13T08:49:23.186-07:002016-07-13T08:49:23.186-07:00Greetings, Ed,
I greatly appreciated this post an...Greetings, Ed,<br /><br />I greatly appreciated this post and I think that you are spot on with regard to your critique of our cultural moment and its wide scale petty sentimentalism and intellectual, spiritual poverty. That said, a question: Would you affirm that the apprehension itself of the good *as such* obtains in way that is wholly devoid of affectivity? I myself believe that affectivity is a mode of perception--a manner in which we evaluatively construe a given thing or state of affairs. As such, emotions are like lenses--at times they render transparent (e.g., the joy one feels when witnessing a noble moral deed or a beautiful landscape), and at times they skew things (e.g., the examples you point out). In contemporary popular culture, the latter seems most pronounced. A reclamation of the sovereignty of reason is much needed. But, even so, I would argue that affectivity is possessed of an irreducible cognitive significance and that, when properly functioning, it is ingredient to the successful exercise of reason itself.<br /><br />(By the way, a friend and mentor of mine recently pointed out to me that my own position on affectivity, according to which it is a mode of perception, has strong resonances with Aquinas' doctrine of "connatural knowledge." On this point, see, e.g., Jacques Maritain, "On Knowledge Through Connaturality," Review of Metaphysics 4 (1951): 473-81; Taki Suto, "Virtue and Knowledge: Connatural Knowledge according to Thomas Aquinas," Review of Metaphysics 58 (Sept. 2004): 61-79.<br /><br />Best in Christ, and thanks again for the excellent post,<br /><br />SkylinerSkylinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82140252663734981532016-07-13T08:25:05.314-07:002016-07-13T08:25:05.314-07:00" Now, as I argued in a post on relativism, m...<i>" Now, as I argued in a post on relativism, moral relativism is really a kind of eliminativism about morality in disguise. At the end of the day, if moral relativism were true, then it wouldn’t be that moral goodness is a real feature of the world, but is relative to cultures or the like; rather, it would be the case that there simply is no such thing as moral goodness at all, but only the illusion of moral goodness. Now, for reasons like the ones just indicated, I would say that the same thing is true of moral subjectivism. If moral subjectivism were true, then this would entail, not that moral goodness is real, but really something subjective; rather, it would be the case that there simply is no such thing as moral goodness at all, but only the illusion of moral goodness."</i><br /><br /><br />Failure to track along with this logic is one of the things that drives me up the wall with some writers, usually moderate and increasingly perceptive modern liberals, such as psychologist Jon Haidt.<br /><br />An outcome of his moral foundations theory, which to its credit attempts to root moral sense in some objective facts of nature, is that as with Harris and his attempt to come up with an "objective" system of moral evaluation, it is essentially radically relativistic nonetheless, because of the Rortian style dynamic of historical contingency and pure chance which underlies whatever physical facts these two authors purport to rely on.<br /><br />For them, teleology, is reduced at best to a kind of local teleonomy, and therefore no valid pan-species moral imperatives can be inferred. "Species" here, meaning no more - apparently - than a specified population of individuals which in aggregate may successfully produce living offspring after mating, and therefore imply nothing else. That would be nothing else in the way of mores. <br /><br />So yeah, X experiences pain and anxiety when denied affirmations by Y. But, you know, so what?<br /><br />Well, you see, comes the reply, niceness and blah blah lead to trust and more niceness and cappuccinos on the boulevard, and an appreciation for those formerly too sensitive to live soft-handed types. So what else do you need to know in order to see the self-evident universal goodness of it? All the skeptic needs to do in order to understand the superior value of these values, is to value them more than other outcomes. Obviously a much better way of life than hunting cabins, and stock car racing, and keeping walking horses out in the paddock.<br /><br />And we know this how? Because we "feel" it.<br /><br />Good posting, Prof.<br /><br />Some time back, I asked Santi if it was not true that all we got in return for underwriting (i.e., politically "loving") the annoying, was not just more of the annoyances we wished to avoid in the first place. He graciously, and somewhat amused, granted the point. But he didn't see any real problem - apparently because of the wisdom of blind, mindless, evolution (when it is assisted by government imposed wealth transfers), and the glorious, fecund, diversity-to-the-point-of-self-contradiction orgasmic wonderfulness of creative nihilism. When, that is, tax supported and enjoyed from the comfort of an easy chair of course.<br /><br />What fun! What an adventure, this indulgent "love" is! Too bad everyone cannot appreciate it.DNWnoreply@blogger.com