tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post307817422958298171..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The whole manEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66251021474485815702016-11-03T02:02:11.504-07:002016-11-03T02:02:11.504-07:00Update to the link: http://www.claremont.org/crb/a...Update to the link: http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-necessity-of-freedom/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846055498202862359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16208565085254446092013-03-16T14:02:10.893-07:002013-03-16T14:02:10.893-07:00Yes, We Have No Bananas
Sorry, Danielius, my mist...<i>Yes, We Have No Bananas</i><br /><br />Sorry, Danielius, my mistake. I didn't have my bifocals on, and my old iPhone screen is not as big as the new Samsung. But as you will often hear me say, it's all in the music:<br /><br />- There's a fruit store on our street<br />It's run by a Greek.<br />And he keeps good things to eat<br />But you should hear him speak !<br />When you ask him anything, <br />he never answers "No".<br />He just "Yes"es you to death, <br />and as he takes your dough<br />He tells you<br />"Yes, we have no bananas<br />We have-a no bananas today." -<br /><br />(Lyrics by Frank Silver, Irving Conn 1922).<br /><br />Yes, I hope Prof Feser will do further postings in the future on this fascinating subject. I'd settle for half a banana. Ciao<br />c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63615967623871700152013-03-16T13:19:51.354-07:002013-03-16T13:19:51.354-07:00Hello emerson, you're mixing up a Greek realis...Hello emerson, you're mixing up a Greek realist with a Latin one. So I can't speak for Dianelos. However, I'm all for his suggestion of discussing Platonic realism vs. Aristotelian realism, but we need Prof. Feser to start us off with a post, otherwise it'd be hopelessly off-topic here. Danieliusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35811128473622141762013-03-16T12:32:16.190-07:002013-03-16T12:32:16.190-07:00Cheers. Dare I ask for an elaboration on your reif...Cheers. Dare I ask for an elaboration on your reification point? But I prefer to be taught, not preached at.c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78065563971591984462013-03-16T10:58:55.658-07:002013-03-16T10:58:55.658-07:00Okay, since the active discussion seems to be over...Okay, since the active discussion seems to be over, and after celebrating that the Sede Vacante period is over, I feel that its appropriate to engage in something very natural for us of the Dominican slant - cheap Jesuit jokes! <br /><br /><br />Vatican Gazette headline just after the election - "Conclave locates a Jesuit loyal to the Pope!"<br /><br />(and funnily enough, this is somewhat relevant to the discussion above)Danieliusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44703748229090472142013-03-15T16:34:54.380-07:002013-03-15T16:34:54.380-07:00Thanks, Prof F, for the post cite - it was good to...Thanks, Prof F, for the post cite - it was good to read. Thanks, Susan, for continuing to raise gritty issues for subsequent discursive argument and discernment. <br /><br />Let me throw St. Paul's 'fear and trembling' passage into the mix (I Cor.2:3) (without formal training), and, more particularly, his 'discernment' passage (I Cor.2:14 - KJV): "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."<br /><br />The relationship between discursive and non-discursive knowledge is of great interest to me, so let me quote from a previous comment (Susan, re Hart, Mar 7, 4:33 pm):<br /><br />> The traditional term “intuition” invites misunderstanding. When Aristotle claims that there is an immediate sort of knowledge that comes directly from the mind (nous) without discursive argument, he is not suggesting that knowledge can be accessed through vague feelings or hunches. He is referring to a capacity for intelligent appraisal that might be better described as discernment, comprehension, or insight. [Source not specified].<br /><br />Of course, the process of discernment has to be carried out through some instrument. This supports Prof Feser's point that the Ignatius principle is not about lying, it is instead about whose process of discernment to accept. Some battles have been fought over that, but that seems to be where the issue rests.c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64484286355631182602013-03-15T16:30:18.567-07:002013-03-15T16:30:18.567-07:00Susan, you misunderstand the vow.
When the Church...Susan, you misunderstand the vow.<br /><br />When the Church exercises her full authority to define a revealed truth, we must give the assent of divine and Catholic faith to that truth, even if that truth is not personally evident to us. In other words, Ignatius was rejecting theological rationalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23513787570708579022013-03-15T11:44:59.337-07:002013-03-15T11:44:59.337-07:00Oh brother. First of all, Susan, the statement yo...Oh brother. First of all, Susan, the statement you are citing (and misunderstanding, as so many people do) has nothing to do with lying. Quite the opposite: The claim is rather that if the Church says so, it must be <i>true</i> that white is black, not false, and thus not a lie.<br /><br />But even that makes it sound like a recipe for irrationalism, and it is not that at all. Since I've written on this before, I'll just direct you to the relevant post:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-black-and-white-and-misread-all.htmlEdward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51419813222482458272013-03-15T10:57:00.517-07:002013-03-15T10:57:00.517-07:00Great - now I can cross "be a troll" off...Great - now I can cross "be a troll" off my bucket list.<br /><br />But before I do, did you know the new pope was trained to ... get ready for it ... <b>lie</b>? Yes he is Jesuit. I just came across this nugget in the news: <br /><i>Jesuits take a vow of obedience to the pope – a famous Ignatian rule says if the church “shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black." </i><br /><br />I feel rather vindicated. If it is good enough for our awesome Pope Francis I, then it is good enough for me.<br /><br />Pronounce it to be black, no less. Not use mental reservations or distraction. Just pronounce it. Thank you, dear Jesuits.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59134333686078822682013-03-14T19:27:00.051-07:002013-03-14T19:27:00.051-07:00@Tony
> "That Hideous Strength"
I no...@Tony<br />> "That Hideous Strength"<br /><br />I now see Monk68's posts at Mar 12, 6 pm and 9 pm. Missed that paragraph. Thanks. I don't know whether you agree or disagree, since I don't get the reference to "That Hideous Strength". <br /><br />I don't agree that the cloning example is as metaphysically easy as you suggest. My thought experiment here is the complete replacement of the existing DNA in the "receiving" cell with the complete DNA of the "donor" or "cloned" person. Assuming the technology works (and I suspect it already does), then the resulting new organism would presumably mature into a physiologically "normal" human. If that is what you mean, then I agree with you as to the physical part. <br /><br />But what would such a situation mean, metaphysically, with respect to the "A-T soul" of that human? Will it be the same soul it would have been? Or would the new human be without a soul? Consider Monk68's reference to brain surgery where such surgery might "entail an act of volitional violence to the underlying matter of the human substance such that it would no longer be capable of sustaining the human substantial form (i.e. the soul)." Wouldn't the replacement of 100% of the DNA of one cell with 100% of the DNA of another already functioning mature cell have A-T metaphysical consequences? How would this be different from the two half-brains = two whole persons situation? (Or is all of this just half-brained?)<br /><br />(I trust I am not offending any metaphysical sensibilities, since I believe this discussion reflects legitimate metaphysical issues).<br /><br />Off the subject, the BBC is reporting today that scientists "at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) the particle outlined in July 2012 looks increasingly to be a Higgs boson."<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21785205<br /><br />As Mr. Green said, a good bet is that the universe will continue to surprise us.c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47619681016014900732013-03-14T18:06:36.457-07:002013-03-14T18:06:36.457-07:00And, back to Eduardo, don't we get to the same...<i>And, back to Eduardo, don't we get to the same problem when (not if) we gain the ability to actually clone the first human being?</i> <br /><br />I don't think there is any metaphysical problem here in the cloning question. When the cloned body is a complete, functioning body, it is operating as a unified, coordinated, integrated whole <i>for its own sake</i>, not that of the source of the cell. It is an independent substance, and therefore must have a distinct soul. Simple, straightforward. And it becomes still easier to accept when we point out that by making the clone body "from" a source cell, we are using that which has within itself a reproductive principle already operating. <br /><br /><i>If the soul is unique to one earthly body</i> <br /><br />This is one of the reasons we know that reincarnation is impossible: the soul is the animating principle of a whole integral unity, it is not the magician behind the curtain operating the machine. The soul informs the body, but equally the body is the seat of individuation by which the soul is a THIS soul. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-800343595785346542013-03-14T18:00:11.898-07:002013-03-14T18:00:11.898-07:00The soul is a tricky thing in A-T philosophy. IIRC...The soul is a tricky thing in A-T philosophy. IIRC, it has more so to do with formal causation, rather than a completely separate immaterial thing that is "seated" in the brain. It all comes down to your conception of matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24559928160244535642013-03-14T17:49:42.493-07:002013-03-14T17:49:42.493-07:00Accordingly, since for the human substance, the so...<i>Accordingly, since for the human substance, the soul is the form of the body and its substantial presence entails just what it means for a man to be “alive” (intrinsically animated); when the brain is physically split apart, this would entail an act of volitional violence to the underlying matter of the human substance such that it would no longer be capable of sustaining the human substantial form (i.e. the soul). Therefore, the man *as such* would be "dead" in the relevant A-T sense (as respecting a human substance), even if one of the organs previously belonging to that man (in this case the brain) is capable of existing in some fashion, according to its own form, after the death of the human substance. </i> <br /><br />Quite right, quite right. Why, it's all in "That Hideous Strength"! What DO they teach young people these days? Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59405220398492470452013-03-14T17:43:31.937-07:002013-03-14T17:43:31.937-07:00@rank
> A few places claim it's a reference...@rank<br />> A few places claim it's a reference to St. Francis Xavier (who founded the Jesuits with Ignatius)<br /><br />Yes, Francis Xavier, not Ignatius of Loyola, but the co-founder of the Jesuits with him. Thanks for correcting me.<br /><br />@Eduardo,<br />> B) Welll ... sort of, if personhood is generated solely by a structure in the brain, then we would have a funny clone XD.<br /><br />Yes, exactly the problem, as developed below. Thanks.<br /><br />@Mr. Green,<br />> No <br />and further,<br />> ... human operations ... occur in a hylomorphic whole; however, they cannot be reduced simply to matter.<br /><br />I appreciate the frank (no pun intended) "No". Yes, the metaphysics of forms, matter and substances will continue, but will it continue abated or unabated as to what a whole human is?<br /><br />I used the word "theoretically" because no brain has yet been split and embedded into two separate functioning bodies. Perhaps the experiences of single or unified split-brain patients might shed light here. I agree we would not expect to see "shared breathing" in cases of lung transplants (or with kidneys, part livers, and other organs). But that's the question, isn't it: is the brain just an organ (although a special one at that), or is the brain somehow the seat of the soul? And if the latter, then how? On the other hand, if the soul of a human is an immaterial substance, not composed of matter and form, is it unique to one earthly body? See <i>New Advent</i>, Question 76:<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm (Art. 2).<br /><br />If the soul is unique to one earthly body, what happens if the theory above becomes practice? And, back to Eduardo, don't we get to the same problem when (not if) we gain the ability to actually clone the first human being? Any thoughts? I'm here to learn. Peace.c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36214563184916542172013-03-14T16:23:15.762-07:002013-03-14T16:23:15.762-07:00Does anyone know whether he took the name from Ign...<i>Does anyone know whether he took the name from Ignatius, Assisi, or both ?</i><br /><br />I've heard conflicting information. A few places claim it's a reference to St. Francis Xavier (who founded the Jesuits with Ignatius), but others say it's St. Francis of Assisi. Who can say for sure.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49310410458058187142013-03-14T16:06:56.540-07:002013-03-14T16:06:56.540-07:00-----------------------------------
A) Well in a ...-----------------------------------<br /><br />A) Well in a sense... sort of..., I mean if half a brain can absolutely replace the whole thing, in another words, I can make a test of a whole brained person and a half brained person and they have statistically the same capabilities, then yeah I think we could no doubt conclude A as beyond true... or most likely true XD. But if not, the half brained is always inferior but viable (as I am guessing it is viable, otherwise XD there wouldn't be this surgery to solve certain problems); than I would say that the brain can rapidly adapt parts just not with the same efficiency, but wouldn't conclude that a part can take over the hole of the whole.<br /><br />B) Welll ... sort of, if personhood is generated solely by a structure in the brain, then we would have a funny clone XD.<br /><br />C) Well, sort of hard to answer this one, it depends on the definition, on the model of what we call soul.<br />But that said, I do see that the question becomes very interesting if the sould could be said to be a Kite attached to a peanut, the peanut being the brain XD. I mean you crack it in half, does the connection breaks when divide them, or the kite divides in 2, or maybe the connection divides but the two halves have the same soul XD.<br /><br />I mean... Dunno, sort of hard, it all depends on what soul is suppose to perform, what "parts" it has, what is it's "nature", how it behaves within the system.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21188099842658305062013-03-14T16:00:14.663-07:002013-03-14T16:00:14.663-07:00C emerson: It's at least possible, is it not, ...C emerson: <i>It's at least possible, is it not, that consciousness is physical?</i><br /><br />No.<br /><br />(Depending what you mean by "consciousness", of course. Understanding and "conscious experience" are physical insofar as, being normal human operations, they occur in a hylomorphic whole; however, they cannot be reduced simply to matter.)<br /><br /><i>(b) therefore, one brain could (theoretically) be split into two, and each half would thereafter support two separate whole persons,</i><br /><br />Theoretically? Sure — for example, in some future day it might be possible to split someone's brain and use half for a brain transplant to someone less fortunate. (Such an operation has many attendant dangers, of course... hence the saying, "If he had half a brain, he'd be dangerous!") But of course, the mere technological possibility is quite independent of the underlying metaphysical substances. We wouldn't expect a lung-transplant to result in "shared breathing" or anything like that, after all.<br /><br />The argument has never been, "We can't think of a complex enough arrangement of matter to do the job, therefore the mind must be immaterial." The argument is, "Understanding is holding a form intentionally instead of entitatively, therefore the complexity of matter is, er, immaterial to the question in the first place." Thus details of what's possible in neuroscience, or what may some day become possible, are simply not relevant — any more than advances in measuring techniques could ever prove, say, that the diagonal of a unit square has a rational length.<br /><br /><i>Meanwhile, best wishes for Pope Francis I. Does anyone know whether he took the name from Ignatius, Assisi, or both ?</i><br /><br />Given the challenges that the Church faces, I think he just wanted to be Frank.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58179384130166546082013-03-14T15:49:02.416-07:002013-03-14T15:49:02.416-07:00Dianelos Georgoudis March 12, 2013 at 8:19 AM said...Dianelos Georgoudis March 12, 2013 at 8:19 AM said,<br />> More careful consideration though tells us that a human being is by nature a thing that experiences eating, sleeping, digesting, growing, reproducing, moving, feeling, perceiving, thinking, remembering, and willing. And, further, that part of a human being's experience is that of a physical environment, displaying obvious order, which deeper nature the physical sciences uncover. <br /><br />Georgoudis then says:<br />> What I am driving at is that perhaps A-T theorists are also falling for their own version of the reification fallacy.<br /><br />It is my turn to ask what (in more detail) Georgoudis means by suggesting A-T theorists (as moderate realists, I presume) may be falling into their "own version" of the reification fallacy relied on, in part, by Prof Feser in his OP.<br /><br />Elsewhere (for eg, <a href="http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2012/10/sacrificing-a-t.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> in the combox on Prosblogion) I have found Georgoudis' posts to raise interesting insights as to realism and idealism, a point (as it relates to the reification fallacy) that does not seem to have been picked up yet by any of the Thomists on this post.<br /><br />A different Anonymous said:<br />> I personally don't think it's even possible to undermine the idealistic thesis. Unlike materialism which can be refuted rather easily.<br /><br />How do you refute materialism 'easily'? If both halves of a human brain could power a. 'whole' human, how would you explain that with a non-material metaphysics?c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68785985038562738852013-03-14T13:25:24.494-07:002013-03-14T13:25:24.494-07:00>It's pacing back and forth in the waiting ...>It's pacing back and forth in the waiting room.<br />@Mr. Green,<br /><br />Yes, I like it. and what is it doing while it is pacing back and forth?c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34825766309001198802013-03-14T13:13:56.949-07:002013-03-14T13:13:56.949-07:00"I think I get more or less what anon, is try..."I think I get more or less what anon, is trying to say, but it is too vague, I might end up creating my own argument hahahah instead of guessing his."<br /><br />Hello, Eduardo, I am the 2:15 am 'Anonymous' - and, yes I was a bit vague. It was late at night and I was having a sudden thought, an intuition if you will, which came to me more in the form of a question than an answer. Scott created this sub-thread, when he posted about split brains. I immediately answered 'yes' to his question because I cannot think of a single scientific reason to answer 'no' - and a quick trip into Google Land got me to John Hopkins, innovators in hemispherectomy.<br /><br />To state my position a bit clearer:<br /><br />It's at least possible, is it not, that consciousness is physical? If a human can gain back most, if not all, of his/her functionality with just one half a brain (and <i>most importantly: either half</i>), then doesn't that (a) show in fact that either half of the brain would support the whole, (b) therefore, one brain could (theoretically) be split into two, and each half would <i>thereafter</i> support two separate <i>whole</i> persons, leaving us with (c) the very interesting question as to what this suggests for the immateriality of consciousness, immateriality of thought and the existence of a single immaterial soul per 'whole' human?<br /><br />Meanwhile, best wishes for Pope Francis I. Does anyone know whether he took the name from Ignatius, Assisi, or both ? The poor of the world need him, I think. I wish him well. And a non-European Jesuit teacher to boot. Peace.<br /><br />c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6243431135647695032013-03-14T12:23:18.380-07:002013-03-14T12:23:18.380-07:00Anonymous: So why isn't consciousness just ano...Anonymous: <i>So why isn't consciousness just another function performed / produced by the brain, and where is the immaterial soul during these brain repairs?</i><br /><br />It's pacing back and forth in the waiting room.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26857252192314208112013-03-14T11:03:11.850-07:002013-03-14T11:03:11.850-07:00To the whole idealism vs realism debate...
Person...To the whole idealism vs realism debate...<br /><br />Personally I like both metaphysical systems but it must be noted that despite of all the detractors of idealism and their work no one has even come close to refuting idealism. I personally don't think it's even possible to undermine the idealistic thesis. Unlike materialism which can be refuted rather easily. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85361285678911506792013-03-14T08:55:22.164-07:002013-03-14T08:55:22.164-07:00It's thought that has immaterial aspects, whet...It's thought that has immaterial aspects, whether that thought comes from a complete brain or half a brain. These are aspects which one cannot explain with just material and efficient causes, which is all materialism has access too.<br /><br />This whole "where is the soul" thing seems like a version of the Phineas Gage type "brain damage" argument against Cartesian Dualism. Regardless, the objection misses the mark because it fails to take into account what Descartes actually formulated.<br /><br />This has been discussed before:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/churchland-on-dualism-part-iii.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6030473547891747622013-03-14T05:18:18.309-07:002013-03-14T05:18:18.309-07:00Errrrr... I don't get it.
1- someone with one...Errrrr... I don't get it.<br /><br />1- someone with one brain hemisphere can have most brain functions if the surgery occured when he or she was young.<br /><br />2- therefore, this seems to tell us that consciouness is produced by the brain and that the immaterial soul has no influence on the brain.<br /><br />I think I get more or less what anon, is trying to say, but it is too vague, I might end up creating my own argument hahahah instead of guessing his.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27593834482253677192013-03-14T02:15:22.828-07:002013-03-14T02:15:22.828-07:00"All I would bet on is that the universe, no ..."All I would bet on is that the universe, no matter how much we learn about it, will continue to surprise us."<br /><br />John Hopkins performs hemispherectomies, removing either half as needed:<br /><br />Facts About Hemispherectomy -<br /><br />http://hemifoundation.intuitwebsites.com/facts.html<br /><br />http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole<br /><br />If this occurs early in life, the brain can adapt for most functions. So why isn't consciousness just another function performed / produced by the brain, and where is the immaterial soul during these brain repairs?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com