tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4493745619355475823..comments2024-03-28T10:15:27.193-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: E. J. Lowe (1950 - 2014)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35471564946686611592014-07-19T00:51:09.061-07:002014-07-19T00:51:09.061-07:00I missed this sad news. I read two or three of his...I missed this sad news. I read two or three of his books (four category metaphysics etc.) and heard him speak at a conference in 2012. Very sad to hear of his passing.JRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342993408695554146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11801873367608635282014-01-12T20:06:02.745-08:002014-01-12T20:06:02.745-08:00He does indeed. It's quite good. (The top help...He <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Mind-Cambridge-Introductions/dp/0521654289" rel="nofollow">does indeed</a>. It's quite good. (The top helpful review, from almost fourteen years ago, is mine; Scott is my middle name.)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27671132094399123752014-01-12T19:44:22.314-08:002014-01-12T19:44:22.314-08:00From what I hear, he also has a good introduction ...From what I hear, he also has a good introduction out on the philosophy of mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29586401791579161372014-01-12T19:06:27.257-08:002014-01-12T19:06:27.257-08:00@Hidden One:
Probably the single most important o...@Hidden One:<br /><br />Probably the single most important one is <i>The Four-Category Ontology</i>, in which he gives the clearest and fullest statement of his own approach to metaphysics.<br /><br />The book is a bit pricey, but the gist of it is that he argues for an ontology in which there are two opposing pairs: substances and non-substances, and universals and particulars. The four titular "categories" are thus substantial universals (which are basically natural kinds), substantial particulars (which are pretty much Aristotelian substances), non-substantial universals (which are basically attributes), and non-substantial particulars (modes).Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3788174534259153352014-01-12T17:14:59.758-08:002014-01-12T17:14:59.758-08:00Other than (apparently) the "Survey", wh...Other than (apparently) the "Survey", what are the works of Lowe's that one most ought to read?Hidden Onenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74009042248909820532014-01-08T20:46:32.584-08:002014-01-08T20:46:32.584-08:00Way to hijack, guys. Where are your manners?Way to hijack, guys. Where are your manners?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57119634187232329012014-01-08T15:03:22.012-08:002014-01-08T15:03:22.012-08:00Over at the American Conservative, Noah Millman we...<i>Over at the American Conservative, Noah Millman weighs in and states that science has proven that Aristotelean teleology has no empirical basis. </i><br /><br />That was a pretty disappointing piece by Millman. One particularly iffy moment:<br /><br /><i>There are materialist mysterians and materialist panpsychists – Roger Penrose, for example.</i><br /><br />'Materialist mysterian' isn't a materialist with an answer, by definition. And 'materialist panpsychist'? Nevermind that calling materialists panpsychists just shows the ridiculous flexibility of the former word - Douthat explicitly mentioned panpsychists in his own response.<br /><br />And he sidesteps Douthat's question about the denial of the self, which is really where the bulk of the response was going. I think what's happening here is Millman is confusing what Douthat is saying with another, probably more common argument, and getting distracted as a result.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53199640991740036542014-01-08T10:53:04.453-08:002014-01-08T10:53:04.453-08:00Scott,
I greatly appreciate those links.Scott,<br /><br />I greatly appreciate those links.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26987843613030460902014-01-08T10:17:12.863-08:002014-01-08T10:17:12.863-08:00You'll find several useful links in the first ...You'll find several useful links in the first couple of sections of <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>. And see also <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-return-of-final-causality.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/09/teleology-revisited.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> for a couple of other posts that seem to me to be pretty directly on point.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17491668690767054242014-01-08T09:53:29.701-08:002014-01-08T09:53:29.701-08:00I was hesitant to hijack this thread, particularly...I was hesitant to hijack this thread, particularly since it marks the passing of someone (may he rest in peace), but I have the same question as Crude. Over at the American Conservative, Noah Millman weighs in and states that science has proven that Aristotelean teleology has no empirical basis. <br /><br />http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/ross-douthat-please-argue-with-better-atheists/<br /><br />I have read this claim before, and I'd be very interested to read what others think about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40245804839892888872014-01-07T16:25:28.681-08:002014-01-07T16:25:28.681-08:00RIP. That is one of the more impressively producti...RIP. That is one of the more impressively productive lives that I have known of.<br /><br />Also, for all that Professor Feser might have tired of critiquing new atheists, I second Crude (who was right about the initial spelling).BenSixhttp://bensix.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50280161281263331802014-01-07T14:07:59.020-08:002014-01-07T14:07:59.020-08:00Wow, that's so weird. I'm in the middle of...Wow, that's so weird. I'm in the middle of of his Survey of Metaphysics. What a shame. Steven Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753917037685188540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43201918040063189572014-01-07T11:04:59.173-08:002014-01-07T11:04:59.173-08:00Oops, apparently I misspelled his name. Douhat?Oops, apparently I misspelled his name. Douhat?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59737891240844294542014-01-07T10:59:11.195-08:002014-01-07T10:59:11.195-08:00A pity to hear. Ah well, RIP.
And Ed, I hope you ...A pity to hear. Ah well, RIP.<br /><br />And Ed, I hope you have plans to comment on the Coyne-Douthat exchange. I think Coyne could use a little more fire under his feet about what Douthat was zeroing in on.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14279998827037537752014-01-07T10:51:11.692-08:002014-01-07T10:51:11.692-08:00Sad news. His "Survey" introduced me to ...Sad news. His "Survey" introduced me to metaphysics, and a very fine introduction it was.Borysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45266900367778234852014-01-07T10:37:18.996-08:002014-01-07T10:37:18.996-08:00Oh, no. R.I.P. indeed.Oh, no. R.I.P. indeed.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.com