tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4618217154482133089..comments2024-03-28T10:15:27.193-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Aquinas, Vanilla Sky, and Nozick’s experience machineEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83403387814766670912016-05-17T01:56:57.392-07:002016-05-17T01:56:57.392-07:00Does anyone know of any good literature which expa...Does anyone know of any good literature which expands on the distinction between happiness and pleasure?The Ramblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564688882211354683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76881495237495769562016-04-28T03:34:03.641-07:002016-04-28T03:34:03.641-07:00i found myself focusing on the very persistent con...i found myself focusing on the very persistent conjunction, "pornography and masturbation."<br /><br />knowing what a wordsmith you are, Ed, might a reader infer that, separately, either of the conjoined entities may have a 'good purpose' within NL?<br /><br />are you intending to leave the door open to, in some common circumstances:<br /><br />perhaps pornographic materials could be useful in building a healthier/more-fulfilling sexual experience?<br /><br />perhaps masturbation is a natural means for a creature to resolve a frustratingly urgent impulse to orgasm?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66243011880696896122016-03-01T07:58:40.780-08:002016-03-01T07:58:40.780-08:00The original movie contains a great line that is n...The original movie contains a great line that is not in vanilla sky. The manager of the virtual world says to the hero<br />..you created your own hell ..<br />The torments he suffered were a punishment he inflicted on himself. He knew he was living a wicked and shallow life so his own feeling of guilt shaped his world.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737669131729186321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13086684986992318742016-02-17T19:43:52.682-08:002016-02-17T19:43:52.682-08:00@Sil Rayman: "I think the term 'atheism&#...@Sil Rayman: "I think the term 'atheism' is being equivocated here:"<br /><br />Yes, it is.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58511446527338779752016-02-17T12:04:12.199-08:002016-02-17T12:04:12.199-08:00Much good content in the original post and subsequ...Much good content in the original post and subsequent comments. Just for the record, the original movie, Open Your Eyes, was much better than the remake.JFBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13768228592005498023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3338369852381296222016-02-17T08:54:25.771-08:002016-02-17T08:54:25.771-08:00Sil Rayman:
Well, it sure doesn't look like i...Sil Rayman:<br /><br />Well, it sure doesn't look like it's about "atheism" in the specific sense the term has today (disbelief in theism). By the standard(s) it seems to be employing, the early Christians were atheists (as indeed they were called by the Romans).<br /><br />But you're right that this is off-topic, so I won't comment further here.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63450295823417733362016-02-17T08:24:32.508-08:002016-02-17T08:24:32.508-08:00OOff topic but what do you make of this? I think t...OOff topic but what do you make of this? I think the term 'atheism' is being equivocated here:<br /><br />http://phys.org/news/2016-02-disbelieve-ancient-history-atheism-natural.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025148823781079734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3610180843028562642016-02-16T09:59:26.873-08:002016-02-16T09:59:26.873-08:00DavidM, nice post and good point. Here's a lin...DavidM, nice post and good point. <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html" rel="nofollow">Here's a link</a> to <i>Fides et Ratio</i>.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23415931771457807492016-02-16T09:48:53.920-08:002016-02-16T09:48:53.920-08:00Is genuine happiness (i.e., the beatific vision - ...Is genuine happiness (i.e., the beatific vision - cf. Ed's link to Summa th. I-II.2.8) forever out of reach? Yes, it is beyond our reach in this life. That is why faith and hope are necessary. But that this is so is something that we can understand with sufficient certainty. So we both understand in order to believe, and believe in order to understand (see Fides et ratio, chapters 2 and 3). <br /><br />'And the devil said to him, "Speak to these stones that they become bread."'<br /><br />Origenes in Lucam. "The father being asked by his son for bread, and not giving him a stone in place of bread, he [the devil], however, as adversary and deceiver, in place of bread gave a stone." Basilius. "He was urging him to quiet his appetite through stones; that is, to change his desire from natural food to an existence beyond nature." Origen also says that the devil continues to offer lying words and heretical dogmas ('stones') to individuals, inviting them to 'say to this stone, "become bread."' <br /><br />An alternate formulation, then, of the devil's temptation: 'say to this pleasure, "become happiness."'DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47906186264043878212016-02-16T07:53:44.227-08:002016-02-16T07:53:44.227-08:00(More briefly: "Trust in the LORD, and lean n...(More briefly: "Trust in the LORD, and lean not on your own understanding." Generally, your understanding will follow.)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45657705768987114142016-02-16T07:24:05.026-08:002016-02-16T07:24:05.026-08:00Manoj:
I'm assuming from your comment that we...Manoj:<br /><br />I'm assuming from your comment that we're talking here about intellectual doubt. If so, then perhaps it will help to bear in mind that there's nothing <i>wrong</i> with taking (e.g.) the existence of God on faith; in fact that's how most of us come to believe in the first place, and the intellectual foundations come later. (In my case a <i>lot</i> later!) It's important that it's <i>possible</i> to demonstrate that God exists (and in fact that's a <i>de fide</i> teaching of the Church), but it's not terribly important that any single one of us be constantly able to summon up 100% intellectual assent to such demonstrations (though of course we should try our best to achieve what understanding we can, both for the sake of our own souls and so that we can assist others—and if we love God, we'll <i>want</i> to understand Him as well as we can!).<br /><br />The pattern is faith seeking understanding, not understanding seeking faith. And if faith itself is faltering, then I suppose the proper response is <i>Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief</i>.<br /><br />And of course we can live our lives <i>in accordance</i> with objective reality even without complete certainty. If I drink a glass of water, it will satisfy my thirst even if I'm not subjectively certain to begin with that it's water. It <i>is</i> objectively water, after all.<br /><br />At any rate, short of the loss of heaven, genuine happiness is <i>never</i> out of reach.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18972291874118503042016-02-16T05:52:42.759-08:002016-02-16T05:52:42.759-08:00How does uncertainty tie into happiness? For exam...How does uncertainty tie into happiness? For example, if we are not 100% certain that God exists, that there are moral truths, that Christ was who he said he was, etc., can we truly be happy, with that worm of doubt about life-altering matters always coursing around in our heads? If happiness is the result of living one's life in accordance with objective reality (and at least for some personality types, the result of *knowingly* living one's life in accordance with reality), whereas our minds are always short of completely certainty about objective reality, is genuine happiness forever out of reach? (This is an intellectual/personal problem I've been struggling with for a while now, one that's been robbing me of a lot of motivation.)Manojnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4952689930931552762016-02-13T21:56:15.066-08:002016-02-13T21:56:15.066-08:00P.S.
This is why pure art must be part of a lived...P.S.<br /><br />This is why pure art must be part of a lived experience and must even go beyond its status as art. Art goes beyond its status through MEANING and meaning reconnects man to the greater whole of nature and the possibility of new concepts which are not virtual expressions of another man, but of God as Author of nature. Thus meaning, through art and towards nature, reaches its full end in supernature and the understanding of nature as God's synthesis. The concept, as God knows it, is like the concept which the human artist knows before he uses it to inform some material, but more true. You know how these analogies are of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85059701786896077682016-02-13T21:44:22.380-08:002016-02-13T21:44:22.380-08:00Art is an extension of human nature. Human nature ...Art is an extension of human nature. Human nature is finite. Art is therefore finite. The 'virtue' of the experience machine does not eliminate the consequent fact that man is simply restricting himself by plugging in since he separates himself from the greater whole of nature. No matter how much man extends his nature via technology/art he still does not encompass other natures. Man only encompasses another nature through knowing it and in art another nature, through its concept, is only used to inform some materials. No matter how much 'virtue' is in the machine I can only know the concepts informing it, but my authentic knowledge of other natures is simply limited by plugging in because only the greater whole provides me with the possibility of going beyond myself in principle. God is the greatest whole (transcending all parts!) and therefore even an implicit theological knowledge should make any Christian jump back from that experience machine in horror.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88688095861686239982016-02-13T15:53:42.380-08:002016-02-13T15:53:42.380-08:00"the “onanization” of sex..."
Onan was ...<br /><br />"<i>the “onanization” of sex</i>..."<br /><br />Onan was trying to steal his brother's inheritance (a constant theme in the scripture and one that the Gospels make quite plain) and have it bequeathed to his son. It was still, of course, completely selfish of him; further, he seemed to believe he could get away with it (somewhat ironically) exactly because of God's promise - I mean, Onan seems to have thought that God could not possibly execute against him the due penalty for the crime of effectively (in lineage) killing his brother and removing his name from the earth (by denying him heirs). But then that other word in Gospels comes to mind about God raising up sons from stones if He pleased. The story of Onan in that light is really about vain attempts of virtually blackmailing God: we need Him not the other way round, and insofar as He needs us that is ultimately His own will and choosing. He shows again later in Christ something of the vanity of human power - even our ultimate weapon, death or killing.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68869039071877259012016-02-13T15:53:11.067-08:002016-02-13T15:53:11.067-08:00"Each error tends to feed off the other, whic..."<i>Each error tends to feed off the other, which is why individuals and societies sometimes veer wildly between hedonism and puritanism, falsely supposing that to reject the one requires embracing the other.</i>"<br /><br />This and the history of the United States I think are closely related. These two extremes tend to almost envelope whole societies and social movements. The United States from her founding already clearly showed in the thinking of the fathers a tendency to one or the other extreme. Benjamin 'beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy' Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made for some odd bedfellows, so to speak. Jefferson was almost puritanical in his understanding of liberty sometimes. For example, his thinking almost seemed to at least tend to in practice a belief that if you were happy you were probably disregarding some fundamental duty to liberty which demanded your absolute attention always. Patriots have no time for pleasure or happiness. Liberty was a goddess who could only be appeased by the sweat, blood and tears of her sons.<br /><br />Of course, the USA was formed in a highly Protestant cultural context, which tended of course to puritanism. Purgatory in the Protestant scheme was replaced by work - and only work you didn't enjoy doing. Guilt was expiated by work (a rather shocking practice realized by a belief that based itself partly on a strident denial of salvation by works!). This of course tended to make work look like a curse (just look at Genesis, after all) while at the same time being a massive boon to capitalism and the tendency towards industrialization, which naturally took off in Protestant nations. But of course work is not necessarily a curse nor does it actually expiate guilt. Inside the psyche of so many Americans there really was a conflict raging and I think it basically exploded in the '60s, flying into the other extreme; that is, into hedonism. It's probably not surprising that the cultural shape of the '60s was largely formed in London/the UK - herself also, of course, a very Protestant English country. Hedonism, however, just denies guilt - hence the psychological shift also that had its own independent origins and was also noted to be largely embraced and dominated by Protestants. Of course, guilt is extremely real and unfortunately unless the underlying errors or confusions are healed it is likely either to be destructive or, if turned around, more likely by a return to the other extreme. Naughty us - says the blue-blooded Anglo-American - we are destroying the very foundations that provide us with the optional of living so hedonistically. Back to work and sacrifice. But of course, hedonism seems so enthralling one has reason to worry that people might not even see the doom it leads into even as the barbarians march on the gates of Rome herself. I think you agree with me on that aspect of hedonism, Dr. Feser, when you conclude by noting that the hedonist seems unlikely to repent because of the blinding power of hedonism itself. It also feeds back into the great narrative that Saint Augustine so masterfully described about the nature of the two cities, who's saying in that regard is so famous I hardly need to quote it.<br /><br />The twin cities are also reducible to the stories about the two brothers in the Bible, which leads me to my next comment...Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83960418026078518842016-02-13T14:32:23.724-08:002016-02-13T14:32:23.724-08:00Professor Feser, I am glad that this article broug...Professor Feser, I am glad that this article brought up proper accidents and accidents in general. I have been personally struggling to understand in what sense quantity is only an accident of body. Saint Thomas somewhere (I think in the Summa Contra) defined body as that in which three dimensions <i><b>can</b> be</i> posited. That is of course perfectly true; however, common sense would actually normally or at least probably define a body at that in which three dimensions <b>are</b> (i.e., necessarily) posited; that is, its length, depth and breadth would not be merely a potency ("can") of body. Of course, Faith does urge us to this conclusion; I would have normally taken or accepted this possibility as a matter of faith and, probably, would have retained it as a strictly miraculous thing (i.e. a body retaining substantial being and being bodily absent any actual or determinant dimensions, such as presumably necessarily the Virgin Mary's body and the Lord's have "in Heaven" but even perhaps men like Enoch).<br /><br />Still, I think such a thing really does require cashing-out for the average person who, I think, can most definitely be forgiven for not thinking or believing that something can be a body absent actual determined dimensions (at least minimally - he probably is willing to entertain the idea of a body that is constantly fluctuating in all of its dimensions but, notwithstanding, at least always have dimension or length, breadth and depth). May I ask if your Scholastic Metaphysics goes into the accidental nature of quantity?<br /><br />Thanks! And great article as usual!<br />TimoTimocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16433241652083143492016-02-13T13:42:16.342-08:002016-02-13T13:42:16.342-08:00I'm posting only because I want to get onto th...I'm posting only because I want to get onto the e-mail list for comments and don't know any other way of doing so.<br /><br />jjJohn Thayer Jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511440643740805165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83804568480507618302016-02-13T12:28:59.074-08:002016-02-13T12:28:59.074-08:00Many Dawkinsian atheists exhibit a sort of simmeri...Many Dawkinsian atheists exhibit a sort of simmering rage at Christianity for telling them that living like a horse (to use the aristotelian version of the experience machine) is wrong. I think this will only intensify as the anti-teleological nature of Dawkinsian atheism becomes better understood. (In their view, all pleasure is a misuse of something "designed" to make surviving ancestors.) given this anti-teleology, it seems likely that experience machines will be argued for as ideal on the basis of minimizing harm to others. Chris Lansdownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04528778422746685923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75265915694713181892016-02-13T10:45:19.765-08:002016-02-13T10:45:19.765-08:00ralspaugh:
"Christian art…aims to connect us...ralspaugh:<br /><br />"Christian art…aims to connect us to higher realities we are wont to forget."<br /><br />Thank you. That's an important point and you've made it succinctly.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77255543211308233442016-02-13T08:13:26.121-08:002016-02-13T08:13:26.121-08:00Anon @2:01
That's a neat objection, but like ...Anon @2:01<br /><br />That's a neat objection, but like Scott I think it's answerable. It seems to me that art aims to immerse us in this world by a kind of exit-and-return. I don't get lost in the rage of Achilles as if it were my own; I come to a deeper appreciation of rage and loss and sorrow in this world. The tragedians didn't want to severe the audience from civic life but connect them to it more deeply. Christian art (the real stuff, not the cottage industry crap of the 20th century) aims to connect us to higher realities we are wont to forget.<br /><br />Cool question though. Thanks for that. And I'm a real Philistine; some real artiste is going to really go places with it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1723000150431742052016-02-13T07:56:54.093-08:002016-02-13T07:56:54.093-08:00I am sitting at my desk working on a "Valenti...I am sitting at my desk working on a "Valentine's Day" sermon on the proper relationship of the intellect, will, and emotion in marriage, and decided to pop over to my fav contemporary philosopher's page for a quick break, only to read an article that perfectly summarizes the main point of the sermon! Happiness is not the basis of a godly marriage, but it is the sure result of a godly marriage. And the same is true with our life in God in general. "Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart" (Psalm 37:4).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11755755261816998269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1487667954903230582016-02-13T06:42:02.117-08:002016-02-13T06:42:02.117-08:00I also think the view I've just expressed is c...I also think the view I've just expressed is consistent with even the most extreme view of art as "world-building." Even Tolkien himself wouldn't take such "world-building" to be the creation of an actual alternate world that we could literally enter by leaving our own. The "world" in question is still at bottom an actual work of art in our world, <i>even if</i> the artist is engaging in (the human analogue of) "creation."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7212838083475940382016-02-13T06:36:09.448-08:002016-02-13T06:36:09.448-08:00"Wouldn't your line of reasoning here aga..."Wouldn't your line of reasoning here against the experience-machine prove too much, in that various art-forms (cinema, theater, music, TV shows, etc.) also aim to immerse us in alternate worlds?"<br /><br />I would say not. First of all, I don't think music (<i>qua</i> music) aims to immerse us in an alternate world. As for the rest, when I enjoy any of those various art forms, I don't take them for "realities" in their own right, beyond whatever reality they have as art in this world. (When I watch an old episode of "Star Trek," I don't really believe that I'm watching actual events unfold on the U.S.S. <i>Enterprise</i>, much less that I'm standing there on board myself.) And if I did, I think there <i>would</i> be a problem.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84848457012246066112016-02-13T05:10:07.183-08:002016-02-13T05:10:07.183-08:00Considering she can fulfil all bodily functions re...<i>Considering she can fulfil all bodily functions required for thriving on an NL basis and provide the right actions we analogise as mental stimulation would it be immoral for Aames to accept such a creature? </i><br /><br />I don't see that the antecedent is in any way the case in this example; "bodily functions required for thriving" are not at all detachable from rational context, and the social requirements of reason are not met by treating something that is not a person as if it were. But even if that were ignored, it is a precept of natural law, associated with the virtues of prudence and temperance, to avoid the unnecessary appearance of evil, and the action would raise all sorts of questions about the appearance or symbolic character of doing something like that, and what it could suggest, and how appropriate such an outward expression would be to a genuine respect for Sofia, even before we got into more substantive matters.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.com