tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3273146050919974991..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Claremont Christmas ReadingEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29779862869106007542012-12-29T02:43:32.514-08:002012-12-29T02:43:32.514-08:00Don't look now gentleman but Paps edited his p...Don't look now gentleman but Paps edited his post and now his list is A WONDERFUL LIST that Paps posted to himself.<br /><br />I am sorry Grodrigues but I just can't let go stuff like this XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32868530160699588012012-12-25T04:19:25.967-08:002012-12-25T04:19:25.967-08:00Crude,
Certainly there are problems, especially w...Crude,<br /><br />Certainly there are problems, especially with his argument about having an objective morality beyond sheer preference and consensus using his so-called method of wide reflective equilibrium. As far as I can see at this point, he's still just talking in circles here, playing a game of inferential musical chairs. His language-game rhetoric comes back to haunt him here.<br /><br />However, I actually agree with his argument for the necessity of an independent moral criterion for both calling a being God and calling God good. But this is no problem for a thoroughly rational theism, and to me fits the Thomist notion of natural reason quite well, as a core aspect of the image of God built into the very nature of mind and personhood, assuming I understand that correctly. I'm still processing the monumental Last Superstition book, so I haven't gotten to Ed's philosophy of mind treatise yet.<br /><br />But Nielsen's argument for the incoherence of the concept of God is formidable, and I don't see that any theist philosopher has even attempted to do justice to it, much less refute it. Bill Craig, who actually debated Nielsen, told me in a public facebook comment that he doesn't know of any refutation of it in existence.<br /><br />Maybe there's some book or journal article out there that has really taken this on, but even Mackie merely says that he doesn't see anything wrong with disembodied personhood and lets it go at that, not even addressing the issue about whether or not a being can be both transcendent and immananent.<br /><br />I don't think this affects ether Ed's argument or the criterial argument, since the notion of God in both cases is built up from strictly atheistic premises as a logical cul-de-sac. But Nielsen's argument still needs to be dealt with on its own merits, which are, at first sight anyway, quite powerful.<br /><br />And I don't see any theistic literature that even mentions, much less deals with, Nielsen's argument for a moral criterion that is necessarily independent of any notion of God. I believe that argument is invincible, although I think it clearly backfires into the criterial argument for God, and again doesn't affect Ed's dynamic-simultaneity argument at all. In fact, I think Nielsen's argument actually strengthens Ed's case, and helps to complete the architectonic for both of our arguments. Nielsen is still writing papers to this day. I just hope he stays healthy and mentally clear so I can get up to Calgary and talk to him about all these issues.<br /><br />Nielsen is arguably the greatest atheist thinker of all time, but he may end up being the greatest boon to theism since Aquinas. Time will tell.<br /><br />Merry Christmasmachinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42913506745694256722012-12-24T20:26:38.807-08:002012-12-24T20:26:38.807-08:00Machinephilosophy,
Merry Christmas, and let me co...Machinephilosophy,<br /><br />Merry Christmas, and let me compliment you on your efforts. Damn impressive, really.<br /><br />Do you really think Kai Nielsen is the best of the lot? I'm reading through his book (Atheism and Philosohy), and I'm seeing problems popping up all over the place. I'm looking forward to seeing your treatment of his views, since you clearly have him in your sights.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6041768728058122292012-12-24T12:09:28.555-08:002012-12-24T12:09:28.555-08:00Well nice Article Machine, hmm I wonder how the fu...Well nice Article Machine, hmm I wonder how the future will be for science.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2628486364841698132012-12-24T11:32:15.386-08:002012-12-24T11:32:15.386-08:00Man I wish I had went into philosophy before talki...Man I wish I had went into philosophy before talking about Theology and related stuff.<br /><br />But nope, I entered the talk through Evilution! (Not that Evolution has any evil in itself, but the internet debates about it are as close to the edge of madness as you can possibly go) Which of course IS DA BEST place for you to discuss about G*d... not.<br /><br />The first atheist who pledged to be THAT DAMN good was Dicky Dawkins (Yeah he is a dick), and I was baffled that anyone could take the guy seriously, even more baffled that people followed the guy like some sort of Guru XD. I mean, all I met was not intelectuals but ideologues like so many crackheads that come around places like these; I learned in the debate Hate and Fear before Reason.<br /><br />Really my dearests, I am a lost mind, I am just not like the usual Trash Can material because of some miracle (Must be my weird love to against mainstream). Not saying that I am worthwhile or anything like that, which I doubt I am, but damn I feel sorry for me and the crackheads.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7859576630869651062012-12-24T11:23:29.391-08:002012-12-24T11:23:29.391-08:00Eduardo,
All those books will be covered, but the...Eduardo,<br /><br />All those books will be covered, but they're not high on my list. Have to master all of Ed's works long before I get to any of those.<br /><br />I believe that in a few years, Nielsen's incoherence and moral criterion arguments, Feser's simultaneous causation argument, and the criterial argument are going to take center stage in the God debate.<br /><br />In other future news, neo-Thomistic metaphysics, once it's developed and digested a good bit further, is going to revolutionize both basic science and the philosophy of science. A good (and amazing) hint at some of this can be found at:<br /><br />http://www.thomist.org/jourl/1999/Jan%20A%20Smith.htm<br /><br />Felice Navidadmachinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44798089637334829132012-12-24T10:52:13.324-08:002012-12-24T10:52:13.324-08:00Wow... so you mean Paps list is a bunch of crap???...Wow... so you mean Paps list is a bunch of crap???<br /><br />wow, not a surprise XD.<br /><br />Now just kidding, have no idea what the content of the books are except one of course.<br /><br />Amazing, so Mackie's is really that good huh? So I guess I can throw away the Cambridge Companion to Atheism XD.<br /><br />Never Heard of Nielsen though; which is not a surprise too.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9780174422604238762012-12-24T10:46:58.313-08:002012-12-24T10:46:58.313-08:00Eduardo,
It's going great. Now synthesizing n...Eduardo,<br /><br />It's going great. Now synthesizing notes on Nielsen's 2nd edition Ethics Without God with notes from his Atheism and Philosophy. Almost half way through.<br /><br />It's amazing how the strongest arguments for atheism are absent from the more recent pro-atheism books, public statements, and online rantings.<br /><br />Just finished notes on Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, which is still (Unless Michael Martin's book surprises me) the best one-volume anti-theistic pro-atheism work to date. But Nielsen went far beyond him, and is the one to master. Only a dozen more books of his---and about 400+ of his journal articles, and I'll be done.<br /><br />Cheersmachinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31308328406242372652012-12-24T10:29:49.832-08:002012-12-24T10:29:49.832-08:00Merry christmas Machine.
How is your research goi...Merry christmas Machine.<br /><br />How is your research going?Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76572915212817460892012-12-24T10:28:11.541-08:002012-12-24T10:28:11.541-08:00Anything by Feser, Veatch, Maritain, or Gilson is ...Anything by Feser, Veatch, Maritain, or Gilson is worth very close reading, rereading, and notetaking.<br /><br />But don't forget about this old tome, especially you Thomists: Nature, Knowledge, and God by the late Brother Benignus, Professor of philosophy at Manhattan College. The best one-volume exposition of Thomism I've seen so far. Fast-paced as it is systematic. Think of Benignus as a tailgunner on the fighter plane Feser.<br /><br />Merry Christmasmachinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81646479659982719042012-12-23T15:05:49.786-08:002012-12-23T15:05:49.786-08:00People keep coming here from Victor Reppert's ...People keep coming here from Victor Reppert's blog. It's kind of strange--even I fall into this category.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21228473736472043182012-12-23T09:36:18.591-08:002012-12-23T09:36:18.591-08:00I think it could very well be that Crude and Papal...<i>I think it could very well be that Crude and Papalinton are, in fact, the same person.</i><br /><br />Hi Zach. ;)<br /><br />Anyway, you're right Grod - my bad. Even if the ban weren't in place, talking with the guy is a waste of time. For now I'll just do the usual job of <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/was-aquinas-dualist.html?showComment=1349025520932#c7285703798154290064" rel="nofollow">pointing out Linton's plagiarism</a> as yet more reason why to just ignore the guy's comments. Low-quality troll, ladies and gentlemen - your time is better spent elsewhere.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1883281400566198102012-12-23T09:32:59.374-08:002012-12-23T09:32:59.374-08:00I think it could very well be that Crude and Papal...I think it could very well be that Crude and Papalinton are, in fact, the same person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81575661399580561112012-12-23T07:59:03.251-08:002012-12-23T07:59:03.251-08:00Kiel,
>>>Has anyone read Alex Pruss'...Kiel,<br /><br />>>>Has anyone read Alex Pruss' One Body?<br /><br />I'm reading it right now. I gave it to myself as a christmas present. :) So far it's very good.21st Century Scholasticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77732445262612326672012-12-23T06:13:51.658-08:002012-12-23T06:13:51.658-08:00I am not much of giving behaviorial advice and eve...I am not much of giving behaviorial advice and even less scolding, but if memory does not fail me the Papalinton Troll was explicitly banned from this blog by the host himself, so it seems to me a discourtesy to him to engage in dialog *here* with the Troll -- that the latter does not understand what banned means is understandable, but the others, that are grown ups, should know better.<br /><br />But this is just my opinion. Carry on, soldiers.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48365803938815715132012-12-22T20:41:33.174-08:002012-12-22T20:41:33.174-08:00errr... he never said anything about order of meri...errr... he never said anything about order of merit. Second who cares if you will read them???<br /><br />You are telling people to read books based on your gut feeling! That is exactly what people are criticizing you for.<br /><br />The idea of the thread was about saying: "Hey I read these awesome books and I think they are worth the time". Not going like this:"Hey here it is a bunch of books with cool names that I haven't read but I think by the reviews you should read them!"<br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85681371153495787872012-12-22T20:41:07.478-08:002012-12-22T20:41:07.478-08:00Linton,
You gave a recommended list of the 't...Linton,<br /><br />You gave a recommended list of the 'top ten best books of the last decade'. And now, you admit you didn't read six of them, and may well not have finished the four completely.<br /><br />If you don't understand why this is hilarious, I can't help you. And I have plenty of friends in Australia - I'm well aware of the seasons.<br /><br />Let me remind you, Linton: the reason you plagiarize is because, when you actually try to communicate your own thoughts, the result is a mess. Hence gems like 'teleological mystery' in this context. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20115736052459630232012-12-22T20:35:33.053-08:002012-12-22T20:35:33.053-08:00Crude
"Hahaha. 'Here's a list of the ...Crude<br /><i>"Hahaha. 'Here's a list of the best books of the past decade according to my recommendations.' + 'Didn't read this one yet but...'"</i><br /><br />No Crude. This is my list. And there is no order of merit, just ten that I have acquired. I have read four [1, 6, 7 and 8] of the ten on my winter solstice list. [Of course you will probably not know that it is actually our Summer Solstice here is the southern hemisphere.] The remaining six are those that I am looking forward to read in the next couple months. That's all. No teleological mystery in there.<br /><br />Have a great festive season.<br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37547744892460620232012-12-22T20:24:48.238-08:002012-12-22T20:24:48.238-08:00By the way old time reader of this Blog, Jime is a...By the way old time reader of this Blog, Jime is apprently having a nice debate with Oppy XD about the Kalam and arguments someone ought to accept.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35207173080343015822012-12-22T20:16:30.459-08:002012-12-22T20:16:30.459-08:00Nah Feser will mostly like ERASE all these worthle...Nah Feser will mostly like ERASE all these worthless comments XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82546101775067728862012-12-22T20:15:03.194-08:002012-12-22T20:15:03.194-08:00Most likly he noticed that Oppy has a page on the ...Most likly he noticed that Oppy has a page on the Infidels site and went: "Oh boy I gotta include ONE of his books, this guy is awesome, he has this psychotic look in his eyes!"<br /><br />(Now with all seriousness Oppy has a crazy look man XD, but he seems like a nice guy to drink some boose with)Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42370690684181485532012-12-22T20:14:03.339-08:002012-12-22T20:14:03.339-08:00Hahaha. 'Here's a list of the best books o...Hahaha. 'Here's a list of the best books of the past decade according to my recommendations.' + 'Didn't read this one yet but...'<br /><br />Multiple incidents of plagiarism and being exposed as an ignoramus wasn't enough for him. I like how, now matter how deeply he digs the hole for himself, he always finds a way to dig it a little deeper with his next appearance.<br /><br />Ah well. That's my once every two weeks at most comment about him. Back to ignoring him, as he deserves. ;) I thought Ed banned him over his last masterstroke.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73873584966605791402012-12-22T20:12:24.413-08:002012-12-22T20:12:24.413-08:00I read the beginning of William Rowe's Cosmolo...I read the beginning of William Rowe's Cosmological Argument, and I love how he states: "Aquinas mean that for something to go to an state A there must be something in that state A already" (not his words, but that is basically his interpretation of the argument)<br /><br />Now, I got so tired of listening to Feser speaking about potency and act XD that I quickly realized that Rowe's has got it wrong! The metaphysics I mean. Then he completes by saying that "This is the best interpretation for what Aquinas meant." That was it he never showed why, he just said this was the best interpretation.<br /><br />U_U I am starting to realize that only TRUE way to learn something done by humanity is begin from the beginning, so I am about to start learning from the Pre-Historics.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21077639025474610892012-12-22T19:57:01.012-08:002012-12-22T19:57:01.012-08:00That.... or he forgot to add; "Well, I really...That.... or he forgot to add; "Well, I really haven't read this one yet either. But the title sounds FASCINATING!"Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66973154461837384352012-12-22T19:55:22.389-08:002012-12-22T19:55:22.389-08:00I find very funny that arguing about gods from Opp...I find very funny that arguing about gods from Oppy, which seems to be a rather more hardcore book that analyse a series fo argument for G*d, you didn't say a word about it, must be due to the fact that you couldn't understand the critiques XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.com