tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5050029146175030728..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Around the webEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44857145162423313642018-07-17T04:54:16.802-07:002018-07-17T04:54:16.802-07:00Yes. Makes one wonder under such framework what do...Yes. Makes one wonder under such framework what does make homosexuality intrinaically evil if it may happen that it may be yielding humam babies in some unforeseen future or given a plausible hypothetical scenario (like genetic engineering)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57746549582651111602018-07-05T02:22:19.411-07:002018-07-05T02:22:19.411-07:00Re Disqus - don’t do it ! Disqus is just another e...Re Disqus - don’t do it ! Disqus is just another element of surveillance capitalism.Nervous in Seattlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58431039826005826422018-07-05T02:19:39.260-07:002018-07-05T02:19:39.260-07:00The Fifty-Fifty Martini is back, declares Punch
5...The Fifty-Fifty Martini is back, declares Punch<br /><br />50-50 ?! That *is* punch.White Whinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91655004928572187862018-07-02T23:00:45.630-07:002018-07-02T23:00:45.630-07:00Dr. Feser, posting via Disqus is much, MUCH easier...Dr. Feser, posting via Disqus is much, MUCH easier. Have you considered making the change?Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11675970415347240062018-07-02T02:11:21.706-07:002018-07-02T02:11:21.706-07:00Noted. To put it differently, provided that the hu...Noted. To put it differently, provided that the human nature is the added ability to reason (compared with other animals), could there be a possibility, according to Thomistic or natural law morality, in which human nature is compatible with homosexual coupling (for example), where homosexual coupling is considered intrinsically good, provided that it might happen (say, with genetic engineering or trans-humanism tools or a "theoretical possible world") that such coupling results in baby production?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74189340500063262362018-07-02T01:44:46.441-07:002018-07-02T01:44:46.441-07:00I think the Left can be thought of as socialist in...I think the Left can be thought of as socialist in terms of the actual meaning of the term. It was Marx that made the socialist agenda to be mainly to gain political power and only then to worry about other issues. But originally socialists were directed in the same way as the Democratic party is now in the USA. See Billington-- Fire in the Minds of Men.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43480741372589617622018-07-01T20:30:17.876-07:002018-07-01T20:30:17.876-07:00A quick look at the blog leads me to believe he mi...A quick look at the blog leads me to believe he misunderstands the doctrine of divine conservation, but I too would be interested in a response from Dr. Feser. Spencer Meadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90796042037936648932018-07-01T19:31:14.235-07:002018-07-01T19:31:14.235-07:00Eh. Dennis had it coming as he's a white supre...Eh. Dennis had it coming as he's a white supremacist pet who has defended racial profiling. No regrets.<br /><br />As for you, you didn't respond to a single argument I made besides arrogantly asserting despite not being an expert in social sciences, your personal experience is enough to cast suspicion on certain fields and conclusions from the social sciences(AKA the ones which go against your personal) and instead you rely on right-wingers who have no understanding of these fields to talk about said fields. Your arrogance, pretentiousness, and sophistry is off the charts and nauseating. I'm curious as how you can be so intellectually dishonest. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79290195989105844702018-07-01T18:14:16.850-07:002018-07-01T18:14:16.850-07:00Hello Dr. Feser,
I recently came across a philoso...Hello Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I recently came across a philosopher's post that presents respectable criticisms of your Aristotelian Argument for God's Existence. I would humbly ask that you read the post and hopefully respond to it on your website here! The URL is below:<br /><br />naturalisticallyinclined.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/evaluating-the-aristotelian-argument-for-gods-existence-jh-sobel-sustaining-causes-and-pure-actuality/<br /><br />Thanks!Caleb Kurlichhttp://naturalisticallyinclined.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/evaluating-the-aristotelian-argument-for-gods-existence-jh-sobel-sustaining-causes-and-pure-actuality/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31896152030363698552018-07-01T17:54:15.071-07:002018-07-01T17:54:15.071-07:00@Miguel I realized I was being accusatory so I del...@Miguel I realized I was being accusatory so I deleted the comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54911770478869892062018-07-01T13:42:32.577-07:002018-07-01T13:42:32.577-07:00You're a liar. You forgot the bit where you we...You're a liar. You forgot the bit where you were harassing forum members through private messages, emails, and the like, not to mention you only post baiting, trolling rants. Literally you seem to be obsessed with this argument. Seek help.<br /><br />Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58265322556283879642018-07-01T10:09:30.087-07:002018-07-01T10:09:30.087-07:00Anon, your question requires two or three courses ...Anon, your question requires two or three courses in basic philosophy / philosophy of nature. Maybe when Professor Feser comes out with a book on the philosophy of nature. For the moment, let it suffice that in the teaching of Plato and Aristotle, the "nature" of a thing is given by its form, the form is not material, and thus is incapable of change with respect to its kind. Asking what makes human nature unchangeable is similar to asking what makes triangularity unchangeable. Triangle-ness may be present in this object or not present in this object, but <b>triangle-ness</b> cannot morph into some other kind or type of -ness. Similarly, humans may cease to exist, and perhaps some other beings with some other nature may come to inhabit a similar ecological niche, but human-ness cannot become some other sort of thing. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76603819721661130862018-07-01T10:02:05.943-07:002018-07-01T10:02:05.943-07:00Because indeed he is a well respected scholar in h...<i>Because indeed he is a well respected scholar in his field of expertise and agrees with a fair share of its mainstream views. But I would in fact say that secular/liberal mainstream biblical studies are intellectually bankrupt... to an unbelievably extreme level.</i> <br /><br />Like you, I believe that vast swathes of modern (and mainstream) biblical studies are bankrupt - but that this extends even to so-called "conservative" and "evangelical" scholarship, because they espouse much of the drivel of modern liberal scholars, without any intellectual reason for it. See arguments for same by Lydia McGrew, here: <br /><br />http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/09/flowchart_on_alleged_literary.html<br /><br />which is just one in a series of about 30 articles outlining unnecessary errors by so-called conservative scholars. <br /><br />From the dozen or so articles and video clips I have seen of Ehrman, he combines the intellectual bankruptcy of the vast majority of his "peers" in the mainstream modern biblical scholarship with a more-or-less intentional disregard for honest methods of dispute and debate: because he feels that people who hold that the gospels are straight-forward reporting of what people saw and heard are gravely wrong, he seems to be perfectly content with mis-stating their views or scoring emotionally driven "points" against their positions even when he ought to know that his points are unsupportable. So, yes, he is well within the mainstream of modern scholarship, because he buys into their errors wholesale. But he is a hack in using unreasonable debate tactics in support of those errors. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90819507245231860302018-07-01T06:02:40.379-07:002018-07-01T06:02:40.379-07:00@Tony,
In that case, I take back my accusation on...@Tony,<br /><br />In that case, I take back my accusation on the race/IQ thing. I apologize.<br /><br />As for the rest of your comment, I still think you're wrong. I mean this exactly what Alexander Rosenberg does with regards to believing science will explain everything eventually. "Science has explained a bunch of stuff in the past like biology". "Therefore in the future science will explain everything like consciousness". Seem like a leap of logic and it is a way for him to dismiss non-reductionist and non-materialistic philosophy of the mind without actually reading their work. The same applies to your argument. Also if "psychology and sociology" today are "bilge" for the most part where do you get your knowledge on sociological and psychological topics?<br /><br />Also nice to see Jeremy you went the cowards route, and just deleted my post without ever giving a proper response and just incoherent ranting under the guise "intellectual skepticism". I really backed you down into a corner didn't I? You're a grade A sophist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30992813948961237152018-06-30T22:06:42.059-07:002018-06-30T22:06:42.059-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91301131932548638082018-06-30T19:26:16.632-07:002018-06-30T19:26:16.632-07:00Thanks, Red. That makes a lot of sense! Thanks, Red. That makes a lot of sense! JohnDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068881068162920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56176743886161215822018-06-30T16:07:04.219-07:002018-06-30T16:07:04.219-07:00I was wondering myself.I was wondering myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44087637689239928052018-06-30T13:55:23.320-07:002018-06-30T13:55:23.320-07:00Here's what I think,
Here Steven French is di...Here's what I think,<br /><br />Here Steven French is discussing a point Dr.Feser made in his paper in the book, he says that as a philosophy of science, he accepts the sort of scientific realism called 'Epistemic' structural realism. very roughly it says that science doesn't reveal the complete nature of "things" , it doesn't reveal the knowledge of "objects" only of structures, in short. Structures are all we can scientifically know. knowing the rest requires further "metaphysical" inquiry. <br /><br />Now Steven French is a defender of rival version of Structural Realism called 'ontic' Structural realism, roughly the view that Structures are all that <i>exist</i>. <br /><br />He takes Feser to be saying that true metaphysics can't be directly read of our best scientific theories and his objection to this is that given such unresolved issued with such a view (questions like <i> why this kind of metaphysics and not some other? Or why any such extra metaphysics at all in this particular case</i>) This view is objectionable. Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89802034250799099502018-06-30T08:41:29.716-07:002018-06-30T08:41:29.716-07:00You strike me as the frequent 'angry tradition...You strike me as the frequent 'angry traditionalist' type I have come across. Why are so many traditionalists so angry all the time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89301513748825422642018-06-30T06:32:52.317-07:002018-06-30T06:32:52.317-07:00Can anyone explain what this means from the Notre ...Can anyone explain what this means from the Notre Dame book review? <br /><br /><b> "Once again structure makes an appearance, as Feser declares his allegiance to 'epistemic' structural realism, with the true nature of things remaining hidden behind what we can know. Leaving aside the worry that allowing room for these metaphysical speculations is indicative of just what's wrong with this version of structuralism (and Feser's rejection of the ontic version -- which he takes, rightly, to be a potential obstacle - can be contested, in the light of more recent developments), an obvious question can be asked -- why this kind of metaphysics and not some other? Or why any such extra metaphysics at all in this particular case, given that various accounts of how the impression of temporal passage can be reconciled with relativity theory are currently 'on the table'?"</b>JohnDhttp://www.classicaltheism.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87313634330703816432018-06-30T06:06:38.561-07:002018-06-30T06:06:38.561-07:00nd it's funny you accuse me of nonsense yet pr...<i>nd it's funny you accuse me of nonsense yet probably believe and follow this race/IQ junk among other pseudo-intellectual fields.</i> <br /><br />AKG, I <b>don't</b> follow the race-IQ stuff because 9/10 of it is bilge and worse, and I can't stand the pseudo-intellectual nonsense I have seen in the few times I dipped into articles on it. So, you're wrong right off the bat. <br /><br />9/10ths of the qualified psychologists (at least) consider Freud's so-called "science" not much better than ditch-water - even the psycho-analysts out there (not even close to a majority of psychologists) admit he had major problems. I am confident that in 50 to 100 years an equal number of scientists will look back on the psychology and sociology of today with barely veiled sneers. Indeed, I have heard medical doctors say almost the same thing about their own fields: "half of what we teach today will turn out to be wrong", and that it will be overturned by future science. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90888902176764886682018-06-30T01:42:30.517-07:002018-06-30T01:42:30.517-07:00When was the last time humans stopped being humans...When was the last time humans stopped being humans?Ivan Knezovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02295701842135894524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65462241451122285142018-06-29T21:51:51.709-07:002018-06-29T21:51:51.709-07:00Clear. I think we are getting to the core of the i...Clear. I think we are getting to the core of the issue; you seem to hold that the human nature is unchangeable or absolute, can you please explain that belief or give reasons for it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51186743239651699402018-06-29T17:26:38.635-07:002018-06-29T17:26:38.635-07:00AKG, here's a book you might benefit from:
ht...AKG, here's a book you might benefit from:<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logical-Fallacies-Brief-Guide-ebook/dp/B009D0XG04/ref=mp_s_a_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1530318302&sr=8-9&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=fallacies&dpPl=1&dpID=41IXZO39w5L&ref=plSrchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44819618867078210812018-06-29T13:04:04.698-07:002018-06-29T13:04:04.698-07:00I wouldn't say Ehrman is a total hack. Because...I wouldn't say Ehrman is a total hack. Because indeed he is a well respected scholar in his field of expertise and agrees with a fair share of its mainstream views. But I <i>would</i> in fact say that secular/liberal mainstream biblical studies are intellectually bankrupt... to an unbelievably extreme level.<br /><br />The problem with contemporary academic biblical studies is that they quite unashamedly beg the question in favour of naturalism. You see, it's not as if people have actually analysed the New Testament with an honest mind and reached the inescapable conclusion that Christianity is just so obviously the end result of a centuries-long telephone game that the only possible way you can still believe it is to consciously descend into a pathological case of cognitive dissonance, like so many of these so called scholars want to convince you of.<br /><br />On the contrary, what they do is simply to build upon the preconceptions and paradigms of nineteenth century German Protestant theologians, who, led by the usual modern philosophical errors, gave rise to their project of "demythologising" the Bible. So, in short, if Scripture affirms some miracle occurred, what these scholars do is nothing more and nothing less than to reject that claim right from the start. That's it. They of course do this with every supernatural event and as a consequence merely assume someone must have invented the respective stories. No wonder, then, you're left at the end with the unspeakably incoherent mess that happens to be the modern academic field of secular biblical studies.<br /><br />As it stands, it is nothing short of remarkable how when one starts from a classical philosophical framework (such as the one Prof. Feser so eloquently defends) and then reads the New Testament into its proper historical context, namely from the perspective of first century Jews from Palestine, literally every single detail agrees perfectly what Catholic Tradition has always maintained.<br /><br />For this purpose, I couldn't recommend Brant Pitre's work highly enough, and in particular his <i>The Case for Jesus</i> is especially relevant to this matter. There he shows convincingly that scriptural support for Jesus' claim of divinity is beyond overwhelming (which, by the way, remains true even if you only consider the Synoptic Gospels).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com