tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3338839904935229496..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Time, space, and GodEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79672635217455064392019-03-11T01:16:42.045-07:002019-03-11T01:16:42.045-07:00How does God create and do if he is supposedly cha...How does God create and do if he is supposedly changeless? Wouldn't he go from non action to action? <br /><br />I get you define God as pure actuality and whose existence is aynonsynon with his essence, but how does God decide to make something one way and not another way? Or to make anything at all?<br /><br />What's the point and isn't that changing?<br /><br /> Aaron Verivehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03643300716176202647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23796940909378073732018-04-17T19:02:34.774-07:002018-04-17T19:02:34.774-07:00Dr. Feser,
I'm currently working on a senior ...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I'm currently working on a senior essay for my Physics & Philosophy major. The essay deals with a theologian named Thomas Torrance and his interactions with Thomist metaphysics.<br /><br />After reading this post, I was curious what a Thomist account of space would be (instead of the Newtonian one which you critique in the article). If it's not an absolutist theory of space nor a relational theory of space, what would it be? Are there resources that you would recommend for this topic? I've been reading Cardinal Mercier's Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, but was also looking for contemporary accounts.<br /><br />Thanks for the posts you put out.<br /><br />Best,<br />Max GrahamMax Grahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74993243886353855612018-02-21T02:17:22.466-08:002018-02-21T02:17:22.466-08:00@Anonymous:
"FWIW, he often calls David Horo...@Anonymous:<br /><br />"FWIW, he often calls David Horowitz "his man" because he agrees with him so often."<br /><br />I believe you are confusing David Horowitz with Victor Davis Hanson.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20286100046900335282018-02-19T18:18:45.255-08:002018-02-19T18:18:45.255-08:00Can I ask, do you consider the president of the Un...Can I ask, do you consider the president of the United States far right? How about Pence and Paul Ryan? What about Ted Cruz? How about Hannity and Limbaugh, who you brought up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39139366336671287412018-02-19T18:14:21.956-08:002018-02-19T18:14:21.956-08:00AKG, Who said anything about him being moderate or...AKG, Who said anything about him being moderate or reasonable? Do you know what far right means? Horowitz is a partisan hack, sure, but are many leftwing journalists politicians, such as Elizabeth Warren. These folks too are often neither moderate nor reasonable. That doesn't make one far right or far left. As suspected this is all just leftists attacking a rightist for not being a leftist. Yawn!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49145352257899732862018-02-19T16:21:45.849-08:002018-02-19T16:21:45.849-08:00Yeah, seems like a pretty reasonable guy: https://...Yeah, seems like a pretty reasonable guy: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-captive-mind-of-trump-true-believer-david-horowitzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35460906822072323212018-02-19T16:19:08.258-08:002018-02-19T16:19:08.258-08:00Wait, it is your opinion that Horowitz is a modera...Wait, it is your opinion that Horowitz is a moderate figure in American politics? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31425320761277937702018-02-19T12:37:43.735-08:002018-02-19T12:37:43.735-08:00So in fact, not far right figures at all then. Thi...So in fact, not far right figures at all then. This is looking more and more like partisan whining.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21822930425354501272018-02-19T10:04:20.925-08:002018-02-19T10:04:20.925-08:00FWIW, he often calls David Horowitz "his man&...FWIW, he often calls David Horowitz "his man" because he agrees with him so often. Pretty hard to get more incendiary than that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58127798608015878642018-02-19T00:08:18.605-08:002018-02-19T00:08:18.605-08:00The use of terms like far right to characterize wh...The use of terms like far right to characterize what are pretty mainstream right-wing views doesn't fill me with confidence that this isn't all partisans attacking someone of a different, if outspoken, opinions. Can you name these far rightists he takes long quotes from? The only long quote I recall was from a National Review columnist. I really hope that isn't what is meant by far right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74546199281647406962018-02-18T21:40:58.088-08:002018-02-18T21:40:58.088-08:00I have also been surprised at the tone Vallicella&...I have also been surprised at the tone Vallicella's blog has taken over the past year or so. If someone didn't know who he was and happened to read his partisan political posts one could easily guess that he sat around watching Hannity every day and listened to Limbaugh and formed his opinions from them. Apparently his gripe is with the "bow-tide" brigade who "scribble" all day but do nothing -- those on the right opposed to Trump (as any Conservative, as opposed to populist or nationalist, should be). He often posts, approvingly, long quotes littered with insults from far right writers whose characterization of the left is so overstated that it borders on the absurd. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53965978306220566002018-02-18T21:38:09.517-08:002018-02-18T21:38:09.517-08:00My understanding of the AT position is that mathem...My understanding of the AT position is that mathematical truths are true (or "exist") only insofar as they are realized by actual existing things.<br /><br />So, 2+2=4 is true only if there are two actual things, and also two other actual things, which together make four things.<br /><br />On this view, if God had not elected to create anything, then 2+2=4 would not have been true, because it would not have been about anything. That is, there would have been no numbers, and hence nothing about which it could be saying something truthful.Tyrrell McAllisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742116091097551615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3013063026501831532018-02-18T21:28:07.318-08:002018-02-18T21:28:07.318-08:00Feser wrote, "Aristotelian-Thomistic philosop...Feser wrote, "<i>Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of nature does not take an absolutist position (though it does not exactly take a relationalist position either).</i>"<br /><br />I hope that you'll describe the AT position on space at some point.<br /><br />Discussions of time tend to get bogged down in tired A/B-theory disputes. But space seems like it would be a more interesting topic, one which might raise really novel issues for most modern readers.<br /><br />From what I remember, Aristotle's conception of space is different from any of the standard modern alternatives. As I recall, it's something like this: A region of space is identified by the inner surface of whatever encloses it. Without an enclosure to serve this purpose, there is no space.<br /><br />Thus, the space occupied by the water in a fish tank is identified by the inner surface of the tank enclosing it. Suppose that you remove the water from the tank, leaving it empty. You would like to be able to speak of "the space that the water formerly occupied." You would like to treat this space as if it were something that had been there while the water was also there, coextensive with the water and yet separate from it. Furthermore, you would like to say that this space remained in that location, retaining its identity, before, during, and after the water was removed. And you <i>can</i> speak this way. But this is only because the <i>inner surface of the tank</i> is still there, giving identity to the space that persists now that the water is no more.<br /><br />Suppose now that the tank itself is removed, even annihilated. Then the space it formerly occupied could still be identified with reference to the inner surface of the air that used to bound it. And if in turn the air were removed, then the space that it used to occupy could be identified by the inner surface of the celestial sphere that formerly contained the air. And so on, working outward, container by container, to the outermost celestial sphere.<br /><br />But, suppose finally that this last celestial sphere were annihilated, so that no container remained. Then, contra Kant, one would not be left with empty unoccupied space. There would be no space at all, for there would be no inner surface of an enclosure with reference to which any such space could be identified.<br /><br />Or, at any rate, that was how I understood Aristotle's position. Is that remotely right?<br /><br />If that is right, how much of it is retained in contemporary AT natural philosophy? Aristotle could make sense of a unified cosmic space in this way because he thought that everything was enclosed in a literal solid outermost celestial sphere. The common cosmic space that we all occupy could then be identified with the inner surface of this outermost celestial sphere.<br /><br />Does AT natural philosophy retain this conception of space? Does AT still posit some outermost material enclosure to give this space definition?<br /><br />I look forward to your characteristically lucid explanation of the AT account of space.Tyrrell McAllisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742116091097551615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71151384232970212432018-02-18T18:18:44.068-08:002018-02-18T18:18:44.068-08:00I haven't been to Bill's blog in a while, ...I haven't been to Bill's blog in a while, so I went over to see what all the fuss was about. I looked at the first page and the characterizations here seem over blown. There's partisanship, sure, and the occasional put down, and not all might be as insightful or interesting as you might hope for, but it hardly looks like he has descended into inlo throwing vulgar insults. If the original anon was indeed AKG, Bill is still far above him and his SJW subreddit mates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63961424604704983542018-02-18T16:22:02.587-08:002018-02-18T16:22:02.587-08:00You forget ‘crap-weasels’
I have to concur re Bil...You forget ‘crap-weasels’<br /><br />I have to concur re Bill’s blog. I have nothing against his arguing against in favour of the Trumo administration or Trump man should he wish, but the tone has descended to little more than vulgar name calling (whilst the Logical Positivists were wrong in their linguistic attack on Metaphysics the emotivist account perfectly captures B V’s insults - pejoratives such as ‘crap-weasel’ have no intellectual content being merely the bellowing of an animal in enraged).<br /><br />I find the man’s whole world view monstrously hypocritical. Everything attempt to arrive at truth through rational means ends in fist-banging ‘meta-philosophical scepticism’, yet we are constantly ear-bashed over why we have to enforce X political decisions. He attempts to defend this by appeal to practical reasons in that only conservatism provides an environment in which philosophy can flourish (there which one might respond ‘how’ and ‘why ought one to care’ - if reason can achieve nothing why not just push a dagger to an opponent’s throat and claim ‘this my argument for X philosophical position).<br /><br />Further sins of the Maverick can be provided. His secular deification of America being one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52146996275861980202018-02-18T16:05:14.099-08:002018-02-18T16:05:14.099-08:00Why would you think a charlatan like Peterson shou...Why would you think a charlatan like Peterson should talk with Ed? Peterson would actually have to learn some philosophy to make that talk marginally useful. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29514604790430215202018-02-18T16:02:59.269-08:002018-02-18T16:02:59.269-08:00Just type Trump into his search engine and see the...Just type Trump into his search engine and see the dozens of post on Trump, mostly defenses of him, while calling the anti-Trump Republicans "pussies". Cute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4150351261654199592018-02-18T13:10:33.862-08:002018-02-18T13:10:33.862-08:00AKG again? The Maverick Philosopher has made a few...AKG again? The Maverick Philosopher has made a few pieces on Trump. Big wow? Most of what he has been discussing is the genuinely worrying acts of the FBI, which you don't have to be a Trump supporter to be concerned about.<br /><br />If there's anything worse than a rabid Trump supporter, its a rabid anti-Trumper. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37046002730533029582018-02-18T09:23:56.323-08:002018-02-18T09:23:56.323-08:00I think that would only work with a series of talk...I think that would only work with a series of talks. Much as I like Peterson, it would take a while to clear up the underlying philosophy. He's got some base assumptions which would lead to a single talk going nowhere.<br /><br />If I could add a third, I suggest Scruton. (Ed and Roger would be my dream podcast. Or should I say Sir Roger.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90079483595849596592018-02-18T01:18:04.051-08:002018-02-18T01:18:04.051-08:00We need to get Feser in the same room as Peterson
...We need to get Feser in the same room as Peterson<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtf4FDlpPZ8Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059024654575399857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23185678216872205982018-02-17T18:01:55.300-08:002018-02-17T18:01:55.300-08:00Yup. Extremely sick of that fox.Yup. Extremely sick of that fox.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77119826145925420412018-02-17T17:26:41.225-08:002018-02-17T17:26:41.225-08:00Do you mean Maverick Philosopher? Do you mean Maverick Philosopher? ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52633108119424201152018-02-17T17:07:49.911-08:002018-02-17T17:07:49.911-08:00I thank Feser for not turning his blog into an apo...I thank Feser for not turning his blog into an apology for Trump rather than a philosophy blog like the Maverick Man has done. I can't believe he has concluded Trump is the man to defend so enthusiastically and righteously. Finally deleted the Maverick Man's blog from by bookmarks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92022511222638130812018-02-16T21:57:11.202-08:002018-02-16T21:57:11.202-08:00Well if all the ideas exists only within a mind th...Well if all the ideas exists only within a mind this means that are real only in a mind. Thus i.e. my idea of number is not the same as yours because my mind is not yours. What exists in our minds I call it "concepts", a concept is a "idea created by a mind". We can say that extra-mind ideas exists outside our minds (the Ideas) as concepts in God's mind but this, imho, means that we can't know the Ideas. Moreover if the Ideas are real only in God's mind then there's no real metaphysical object, therefore the reality is not ordered by the Principles, like the principle of identity or the PSR.Theophiliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950090517602251638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88443347774264963492018-02-16T18:36:27.651-08:002018-02-16T18:36:27.651-08:00What would it mean for reality to be an "idea...What would it mean for reality to be an "idea" though? Aren't ideas by definition existent only within a mind and in no other sense?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613627123506607663noreply@blogger.com