tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post408929526196485819..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Sex and metaphysicsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19039933371789734072022-05-09T13:09:40.144-07:002022-05-09T13:09:40.144-07:00If I may... Could you, Professor Feser, share the ...If I may... Could you, Professor Feser, share the list of the books that according to you constitute the better philosophical defense of the unlawfulness of abortion? Thank you so much, <br /><br />JoséJGBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289399332658603739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64123777382930714602022-03-05T01:59:01.751-08:002022-03-05T01:59:01.751-08:00I hope I lay hands on it and get a copy for my lib...I hope I lay hands on it and get a copy for my library. I recommend anyone interested in philosophy to buy books written authored by Dr Feser he is a phenomenal professor and writer writes with clarity and precision<br />C.T.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63058997669057008332022-02-27T20:32:03.204-08:002022-02-27T20:32:03.204-08:00@Tony
I would say that the scenario of rape which ...@Tony<br />I would say that the scenario of rape which you gave, represents a defective instance of reproduction from which one cannot conclude that the biological reality is not significant to loving the child.<br />The fact that a man does not love the child that he conceived with his victim means that there is something lacking in the man. It doesn't undermine the biological reality.<br />In fact one might say that it's a privation that he doesn't love his child precisely because of the fact that it is "his" child and he ought to love it.<br />Now there might be other circumstances which one might have to account for like, even if the man comes to love his child, he won't be able to play a role in its upbringing cause of his abusive proclivities. Nevertheless he ought to love it and that dictate stems from the biological reality. If a particular couple decide to abort their child. What makes it especially grave is not that they are just killing a human being, they are killing their "own child". That's what makes it particularly gruesome.<br />You say that "love of the child" gives rise to the will to procreate. It seems impossible for me to conceptualize how one can love a child that does not yet exist. I think it's more like "The desire to have a child" gives rise to the will to procreate and not just any child, one's "own" child. That's really significant. An infertile couple's immense pain and sadness is precisely because they couldn't have their "own" child. Adoption is usually done only after the infertile couple has tried to have their own child through all possible means (And hopefully moral, cause I don't see IVF etc as moral). If the biological reality wasn't significant, adoption wouldn't be looked upon as the last option or the lesser of the ways of having a child.<br />I think in mentioning the wonders of reproduction you forgot to mention one key aspect, that couples also want "their own" child of their own flesh and blood. That's a very primary motivation for having a child.<br /><br />Given human history, I don't think it's outlandish, And it doesn't have to be in the way I mentioned. Brother-Sister couples themselves could come forward and demand that they be able to marry because the bio-siblings were allowed to. In fact there are already campaigns to legtimize it, that too without the motivation of any bio sibling scenario. If an actual biological brother and sister were granted an exemption that could further the cause of incest by a mile.<br />Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29300293962308917622022-02-27T14:10:12.548-08:002022-02-27T14:10:12.548-08:00What if by allowing the bio siblings to be married...<i>What if by allowing the bio siblings to be married because they were seperated at birth,familes deliberately start plotting to raise their children seperately so that they can eventually marry them in the future and consolidate their power.</i> <br /><br />In addition to that being an incredibly outlandish a social condition, the <i>very fact</i> of the family <b>arranging</b> it would provide the potential pathway to it being discovered and reprobated. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21781028402183359712022-02-27T14:07:30.909-08:002022-02-27T14:07:30.909-08:00In fact the biological relationship is the very fo...<i>In fact the biological relationship is the very foundation of parental love. The fact that he or she is "your" son(this person is literally from you and your spouse) is what causes you to love them in the first place. </i> <br /><br />A soldier raping a young maiden and leaving her with a child (never to see either again) hardly illustrates a situation in which the bio reality <i>engenders</i> love. And in the act of making love <i>properly rendered</i>, it is the love of the child that comes first (or ought to), which gives rise to the will to procreate, and not the biological inheritance. The latter is meaningful <i>for this life</i>, but the former is meaningful <i>forever</i>. Thus the rightful act of procreation is, first, an act of cooperating <i>with God</i> to make a new future member of God's family, to be part of that family for all eternity. The wonder the parents have, at the birth of a child, is (in part) the wonder that God has produced a new one that is like them <i>as well as</i> one that is "in His image". <br /><br />But the desire to assist God in the creation of a new member of God's family is not present in rape - even if the rapist intends to reproduce his own bloodline (which sometimes has been the case in semi-wars of conquest.) And even that is clearly irrelevant to the rapist who simply doesn't care if a child is produced, and who might treat such child as either an irritant or as a furniture to be used, with no more regard for biologic connection than his regard for his toenails. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59701437720008564612022-02-27T11:59:07.252-08:002022-02-27T11:59:07.252-08:00With regards to your second point,I think it signi...With regards to your second point,I think it significantly downplays how important biological components are to relationships.Adoptive parents do have a real "parental relationship" with their child. <br />But I wouldn't grant that Parenthood is "more properly found in the conscious act of love".In fact the biological relationship is the very foundation of parental love.The fact that he or she is "your" son(this person is literally from you and your spouse) is what causes you to love them in the first place. We have the relevant responsibilities because of the biological relationship.This is different from adoption where parenthood is taken on in it's psychological sense.I would say that the adoption relationship is based on the template set by the biological relationship.The adoption relationship tries to approximate that relationship.And even in the adoption relationship,a general awareness of the fact that they are not biologically related seems key,Hence adopted parents will often say,"I know I am not your real dad etc".That's why finding out that one is adopted tends to be painful.If you never got to meet a biological parent it very often leave a hole in one's heart.And it's usually not because the adopted parent wasn't great but just because your biological parents are your "biological" parents. So biology is very significant.Having said that,I agree incest can apply to adopted siblings raised in the same family.I think being raised in the same family and biology are both relevant.And biology necessarily makes one your family.My point in the bio siblings case would be that at the end of the day,it is biological.And the fact that it is biological wouldn't escape society's eyes.Broader applications would be that biology entitles one to legal inheritance,that's why people go lengths to prove the biological relationship in many cases.In the bio sibling's case,an unusually significant portion of their biological parents inheritance would technically get concentrated within themselves,if there was any inheritance,just based on the biological relationship even though they were raised in different familes.Other families would take note of that or the possibility of that.With regards to your God analogy,Prof Feser himself stated some very biological reasons for why we use the male pronouns in a 2010 blog post titled God and Masculinity.Those are my thoughts for now:)<br />Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1126799343596843022022-02-27T11:58:53.908-08:002022-02-27T11:58:53.908-08:00Hello @Tony With respect to your first point,I ten...Hello @Tony With respect to your first point,I tend to put less emphasis on them being raised together and the concerns of whether they might have been forced by the family etc.There are certain scenarios that might question that line of reasoning.Imagine a family (family 1) with two children, one boy and one girl who are of the same age,And their neighbouring family (family 2) with one daughter who is of the same age as the other two children,who live very close to them,in the adjacent apartment.Let's say,the three children grew up practically doing everything together,were in the same class,were there in each others house all the time,had lunch in each others house frequently spent the night in each others homes when their respective parents went on a holiday etc.All three children had a wonderful childhood close to each other.Let's say when they grow up,the boy of family 1 falls in love with the girl of family 2 and they get married.It would be a legitimate marriage.But when you look at their upbringing, you would find very little to distinguish the way they were raised together from the way he and his sister were raised together in fact,the only relevant marker distinguishing them would be the fact that he is related by blood to his sister.Now would you say that just because he and his neighbour had a very "sibling" upbringing,it would be wrong for them to get married? No right.But it would still be wrong to marry his sister.I think this illustrates,it's very hard to always say that there is abuse of power etc.With regards to your retort that "society can see the difference",Power and Wealth are great motivators,And families go to great lengths to sustain it.What if by allowing the bio siblings to be married because they were seperated at birth,familes deliberately start plotting to raise their children seperately so that they can eventually marry them in the future and consolidate their power.Allowing that sentiment to fester itself would be wrong by allowing for the provision of bio siblings.Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23885283956196793302022-02-26T16:29:27.969-08:002022-02-26T16:29:27.969-08:00Apart from that,it might be worthwhile to note tha...<i>Apart from that,it might be worthwhile to note that if they were brother and sister, there was never any marriage in the first place. In order for close relatives like first cousins to marry, the church has to provide a dispensation. In the case you mentioned they were brother and sister, And with regards to that it's unclear if the Church can ever give a dispensation because there seems to have been debate as to whether the prohibition is based on natural law or positive law. I think that it is based on natural law so that dispensation doesn't exist</i> <br /><br />Norm, I was arguing that it IS NOT based on natural law, for the reason that Adam and Eve's kids had to marry each other. Given that, there could not be something inherent to human nature itself that makes such marriage <b>invalid</b>, (or one would have to argue that God making all mankind originate in Adam and Eve <i>forced</i> them into intrinsically sinful acts). And if not invalid of itself, then there is room for the possibility of societal permission for it in certain situations. <br /><br /><i>Since it is now public knowledge and the Church knows that the couple are brother and sister. Allowing them to continue their marriage would signal public acceptance for incest and eventually families falling for their tribalistic tendencies.</i> <br /><br />Two problems with this approach. (1) The laws against brother-sister marriage are written <b>for the context</b> of brothers and sisters raised in the same household, the same family. For OTHER situations, the same context does not create the same disorder (if they marry), so there is <i> absolutely no problem with having different laws</i> for those different situations. The principle is that of <i>similarly situated persons</i> similarly under the law. It is quite obvious that if the social disorder being dealt with comes not from the <i>biological</i> relationship (of having the same bio-parents) but the SOCIAL difficulty from being raised together, then the adopted-out bio-siblings are <i>not similarly situated</i> with siblings raised together. Law can (easily) distinguish the cases. So can society. <br /><br />(2) And this last point (that society can tell the difference) is really significant: when adoptive parents take on a baby they did not procreate, out of love, in a very real sense they <b>become the baby's parents</b>. Parenthood is <i>more properly</i> found in the conscious act of permanent, unconditional love for offspring, than it is in the sexual act which conveys genes to the child. (God is called "Father" not because of a sexual act of procreation.) It is for this reason that social rules about adoptive parents are not <i>merely</i> in the sense of "treating them AS IF" they were "parents" (a legal fiction) but <i>recognizing that</i> they are parents through their act of permanent love of the child (yes, with some measure of qualification). Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to provide that the reprobation for, and even the <i>meaning of</i> the term "incest" applies to brother-sister where they were raised in the same family, and NOT when bio-siblings were raised in completely separate families. <br /><br />Also, if the two families were in fact completely separate, and the bio-sibs found each other accidentally and without knowledge of their bio-relationship, any "tribalistic" tendencies from such a situation would be precluded - there is simply no motivational basis for it to lead to inappropriate tribalism from that situation. They would retain their familial relationships to each of their (adoptive) families. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67924801663883994462022-02-25T19:57:48.704-08:002022-02-25T19:57:48.704-08:00@Norm
Hi again too! St. Thomas does explain what ...@Norm<br /><br />Hi again too! St. Thomas does explain what he means by natural shame here: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3151.htm#article4<br /><br />It is a interesting argument that do seems to find some evidence on reality. Acts too "bodily" like sex or going at the bathroom do seems to have taboos on most cultures. <br /><br />Your argument is also interesting, very phenomenological. Ihad not thought of it before but i like it. I can see how a family relation, that so much involves trusting, bonding etc is not compatible with a type of relation that by itself leads to this tension between the participants.<br /><br /> I can't trust myself to judge the argument but it is worth thinking about. At minimum it seems to make us think of interesting features of sex and of family.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28124605431500402602022-02-25T19:40:56.004-08:002022-02-25T19:40:56.004-08:00Hello @Tony
Thank You for your humble engagement ...Hello @Tony<br /><br />Thank You for your humble engagement with the topic. I appreciate it :)<br /><br />Yes, I agree with the point you made about a certain kind of equality that is required for Marriage. Aquinas also points to that and says that children are always subject to their parents so that excludes any incestous marriage between them. I would also add that this unequality always ought be present in the parent-child relationship. If a parent has never excersised their righteous authority as a parent over their child then that person has failed in that regard as a parent.<br /><br />With regards to your point about the brother and sister who were seperated during adoption, if you read my initial post on the subject, I specifically account for the scenario in which a particular brother- sister couple manages to be stable and not display tribalistic tendencies etc.The reason I give for it being wrong is that even if this particular incestous couple remain stable , by publically approving their relationship, which is what happens in marriage, you are signalling acceptance for incestous relationships and there is no guarantee that other families would be able to resist their tribalistic tendencies. Actually you could say that they definitely would not be able to resist given our fallen nature.<br /><br />A helpful analogy would be drug laws. It is a well known fact that not everyone would suffer adverse effects if they ingest a illegal substance like heroine or whatever. For some people it might not have any effect and may have just been a once in a lifetime thing. But it would still be wrong to consume or promote it because on a societal level it could have devastating effects even if it doesn't affect that particular person.<br /><br />The same basic reasoning applies to the case you described. Since it is now public knowledge and the Church knows that the couple are brother and sister. Allowing them to continue their marriage would signal public acceptance for incest and eventually families falling for their tribalistic tendencies.<br /><br />Apart from that,it might be worthwhile to note that if they were brother and sister, there was never any marriage in the first place. In order for close relatives like first cousins to marry, the church has to provide a dispensation. In the case you mentioned they were brother and sister, And with regards to that it's unclear if the Church can ever give a dispensation because there seems to have been debate as to whether the prohibition is based on natural law or positive law. I think that it is based on natural law so that dispensation doesn't exist and the Church has never been known to give such a dispensation.Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7807659314409507302022-02-25T13:45:06.130-08:002022-02-25T13:45:06.130-08:00Is it really true that academic books go through &...Is it really true that academic books go through "a much more rigorous process of copy-editing, proof-reading, checking references, and so on" than others? I ask because I not long ago saw a comment that the authors of an academic work of naval history (in Britain, BTW) found they had to do their own editing as the publishers couldn't handle doing it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40655636224424247202022-02-25T09:31:18.144-08:002022-02-25T09:31:18.144-08:00@The Deuce:
The rise of "wokeness" is ,...@The Deuce:<br /><br />The rise of "wokeness" is , paradoxically as it may sound, a return to the existence of universals. So, after all, they ARE real. There's something like "humanity", and there's something like "blackness", and there's something like "whiteness", universals that are instantiated by particular human beings.<br /><br />If only <i> Wil' </i> of Ockham had knew... That little s.o.b...UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13478830377532720352022-02-25T05:33:55.002-08:002022-02-25T05:33:55.002-08:00Yes, of course, good people care about the consequ...Yes, of course, good people care about the consequences of sin. I seem to not be making myself clear. I read Ed's article as making a claim that opponents on the issues of sexual sins are "talking past" each other due to incompatible metaphysics. I think he is right in part, but that he and other natural law ethicists fail to address two complaints from their opponents. One of those complaints is that proving the frustration of a natural end, BY ITSELF as a metaphysical principle, does not give people sufficient reason to change their minds regarding, e.g., monogamous homosexual acts, masturbation, contraception in an otherwise fruitful marriage, or whatever the specific act may be. Good people will of course be motivated to change their views IF it can be demonstrated that those sexual acts lead to evil consequences - and for many of those acts, I agree that it can! But then the "talking past each other on metaphysics" is less important than the genuine disputes regarding whether or not specific sex acts do in fact have evil consequences. To editorialize, I think natural law folks WISH it were merely a question of metaphysics, because then their argument is strong. When they have to prove out specific harms in concrete cases, their arguments suffer, and so the debates persist.<br />And yes, I agree that there is sexual difference. However, I disagree that there are different "gendered psychologies." There is no way to study generalized "psychological" differences between men and women which could separate those men and women from their particular place in history and a culture. This would be like studying "black" psychology during reconstruction and making universal generalizations from that. The error would perhaps not be immediately apparent, but it is certainly apparent now, when historical and cultural circumstances have changed.Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82156759349709071072022-02-25T02:40:34.530-08:002022-02-25T02:40:34.530-08:00Hello there again
@talmid
I appreciate your willin...Hello there again<br />@talmid<br />I appreciate your willingness to engage in discourse on this subject :)<br />Yes,Thomas Aquinas does talk about a "natural shame" that is always present in the marital act even when the act is performed in a way that isn't sinful. He then posits that this natural shame is not compatible with the respect that is owed towards family.It's an interesting line of thought thought but I have thought very deeply about this line of reasoning and it just seems unclear to me what exactly is the nature of the "natural shame" in question and how does it relate to the family. The best explanation I could come up with after examining the relevant moral and empirical aspects of sexual relations is that sex always involves a very high level of vulnerability (that means you are opening yourself up to the other person in a very deep way, perhaps the most profound way known to man). Given this, there is always a certain tension which exists between Husband and Wife. A tension that is defined by the fact that the other person "could" always choose to betray you even after you have opened yourself to them in that profound way, the possibility exists, but you "trust" them not to betray you. We need the "trust" precisely because of this tension or uncertainty. Now once we establish that, One could argue that sibling relationship shouldn't be mixed with this tension, because a sibling ought to be more light hearted and less serious then the romantic one. The sibling relationship is the one which we turn to inorder to lighten up or "chill out". So you could say that the sibling relationship has this end as one of its natural functions and we as human beings need this outlet. Hence to introduce the tension into it would be wrong.<br />But this is a rather new sort of argument and it's open to objections. That's why infact I was hoping someone like Prof.Feser if he has the time of course could way in on the nature of this natural shame that Aquinas speaks off.<br /><br />Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11561526052876064805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16581653692762267682022-02-24T20:22:23.845-08:002022-02-24T20:22:23.845-08:00"Parents" was the wrong word, but one of..."Parents" was the wrong word, but one of Aquinas arguments against incest seems to rule out something like brother-sister relation. Check out the article i linked, i think it is his first argument against incest. <br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23090908661836508402022-02-24T20:18:43.445-08:002022-02-24T20:18:43.445-08:00That is a good point, you are right that our mater...That is a good point, you are right that our material constitution gives us certain limits, even if they can not be deduced by someone on a arm-chair. <br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23378532417165225132022-02-24T16:59:14.280-08:002022-02-24T16:59:14.280-08:00Talmid, to my (hazy) recollection, the issue of pa...Talmid, to my (hazy) recollection, the issue of parents is different. Suppose a father's wife dies, and he wants to marry his daughter. The problem is that the daughter already has (and will always have) a relationship of honor and respect that bears on non-equals: a daughter owes her existence to her father. Marriage, however, requires a relation of equality - which is incompatible with the already existing inequality of the father-daughter relation. <br /><br />As far as I can see, nothing about this bears on the problem case of two bio-siblings who were adopted out and raised in completely different (unrelated) families. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48427978594920556032022-02-24T16:49:10.431-08:002022-02-24T16:49:10.431-08:00Not necessarily. Although I do not know if you cou...Not necessarily. Although I do not know if you could rule it out on pure metaphysics. We know for example that no human can ever be one billion feet tall (no matter how far technology advances). It is a physical impossibility to change ones height by that amount even if it is possible to change one’s height by some amount. The metaphysics will not tell you that a person who is one billion feet tall is impossible, but the physics will.<br /><br />Sex may be the same way (and that is my view). I do not believe we will ever be able to genuinely change a human’s sex anymore than we will ever be able to transplant a human brain into a cow and thus have a human with a healthy functioning cow body. But again, these things will be decided by the physics, not the metaphysics.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481589239954065668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10524109099313001812022-02-24T15:18:22.673-08:002022-02-24T15:18:22.673-08:00Who cares? Good people. Maybe it’s a bit too abstr...Who cares? Good people. Maybe it’s a bit too abstract when considered as metaphysics, but let it sink in a bit and you’ll see that these concepts connect to the life you experience. So, again, it’ll be good people that care and hopelessly lost in vice who don’t. Aristotle begins his ethics by stating that you already need virtue to begin learning ethics. Sorry if it’s not immediately able to convert one away from specific actions, but one needs to be open to pursuing virtue in the first place and willing to consider arguments he’s listening to. <br /><br />Further, I find it quite disheartening how far from the truth is society’s notion that anyone can raise a boy and anyone can raise a girl. Men and women have unique characteristics bound up in their biological sexual differences that foster different desires and different roles. The boy looks to his father in a unique way that a mother can never fully mimic though some try. It, further, is the good of the father to raise his son. So to abandon ones son is evil. This cannot be so explicitly seen in our physical properties, but becomes evident in studies of psychology. It may be that purely mental facts of humanity point to something in human nature, rather than solely reference to organs. Journey 516https://www.blogger.com/profile/02672507879326467173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60719978131164275922022-02-24T13:05:10.948-08:002022-02-24T13:05:10.948-08:00@The Deuce:
Regarding the "random" mut...@The Deuce: <br /><br />Regarding the "random" mutations approach: <br /><br />1. <a href="https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/evolution-is-true-but-are-mutations.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">Evolution is True, but are Mutations Really Random?</a> <br /><i> "However, an extra idea is often conflated with the foregoing: whereas natural selection is demonstrably not a random process, the mutations underlying the process are consistently <b>assumed to be.</b> The problem is that evidence for natural selection is not evidence for random mutations: <b> nature will select for survival fitness whether the mutations themselves follow a trend or not." </b> </i> <br /><br />2. <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2022/02/new-study-in-nature-showing-non-random-mutation-spells-trouble-for-neo-darwinism/" rel="nofollow"> New Study in Nature Showing “Non-Random” Mutation Spells Trouble for Neo-Darwinism </a> <br /><i> “Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana.” They show that “epigenome-associated mutation bias reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, <b>challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.” </b> </i> UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70858248674960114312022-02-24T11:53:44.890-08:002022-02-24T11:53:44.890-08:00While maybe not impossible in a strict logical sen...<i> While maybe not impossible in a strict logical sense, this position is deeply incongruent with itself. For one thing, you couldn't infuse a rational soul into a can opener or a lima bean, obviously. The existence of a body that could have a rational soul infused into it in the first place implies that God very tightly directed evolution towards an ultimate purpose. </i> <br /><br />I have always asked myself why the naturalist makes the assertion that "evolution could have gone so many other ways" and that we are an "unintended" result of it. <br /><br />Before making such an assertion, should not the naturalist have an accurate description of how the first living cell was? Because only if we had an scientifically irrefutable characterization of that primitive cell from which all other organisms were derived, would then we be able to reach a sound conclusion. <br /><br />Maybe that first cell was constrained in such a manner that only a certain amount of mutations were possible. Maybe it could have only undergone <b>a single mutation.</b> Maybe the environment in which it started to "evolve" was such-and-such as to make impossible any other outcome. <br /><br />How can the naturalist "know" that the present outcome wasn't the only one possible without first <i> having accuraterly characterized</i> both the first living organism and its environmental conditions? <br /><br />It amounts to just speculation in my opinion. Isn't that information a secret forever buried in an unreachable past?<br />UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77536895250286130732022-02-24T11:42:39.018-08:002022-02-24T11:42:39.018-08:00Given the amount of broken families, inceldom, and...Given the amount of broken families, inceldom, and loneliness left in the wake of the sexual revolution, I think it's pretty clear that the "who cares" objection isn't that strong. Terilienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01880471962653749943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79700342410226169842022-02-24T11:25:37.858-08:002022-02-24T11:25:37.858-08:00@Tony
Aquinas does argue in the Summa that there ...@Tony<br /><br />Aquinas does argue in the Summa that there is a kinda of respect that must be given to parents that makes sex with they wrong, this would cover your case, i guess. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29940950730473752162022-02-24T11:23:40.086-08:002022-02-24T11:23:40.086-08:00Correction: A corollary of the aspect of awareness...Correction: <i>A corollary of the aspect of awareness of future happiness as an element of future happiness</i> <br /><br />should have been: <i>A corollary of the aspect of awareness of future happiness as an element of <b>present</b> happiness</i>Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25288047336758512892022-02-24T11:20:22.199-08:002022-02-24T11:20:22.199-08:00"Just as, having size (within a certain range..."Just as, having size (within a certain range of limits) is part of the substantial form of a human, but no particular size is (that is attributed to the matter), having a sex is part of the substantial form of a human, but having a particular sex is attributed to the matter."<br /><br />Could not a certain person sex be changed them? <br /><br />Notice that a "yes" does not mean that we can do it now or that we will be capable of doing it someday. I'am asking because saying "yes" sounds so strange, sex seems more permanent that other acidents. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.com