tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5087138154465995199..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Thomas Aquinas, Henry Adams, Steve MartinEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67220294943215292842014-10-03T04:31:32.125-07:002014-10-03T04:31:32.125-07:00For the Verbum Mentis since it’s often linked in w...For the Verbum Mentis since it’s often linked in with Material and Formal Signs might the works of Semioticaly inclined Thomists John Deely be applicable? Anyone familiar with his writings on the subject if any?<br /><br />@Brandon,<br /><br />Well my face is certainly red! The translation of that volume I have goes under the title Sense and What Is Sensed and has been in plain sight on the bookcase for years. For some reason I took it as given that the reviewer must be talking about a contemporary volume on Thomas or at the very least on the mechanics of Perceptual Realism.<br /><br />It maybe arbitrary prejudice on my part but for various reasons I do not trust Pasnau…<br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70371772339546207692014-10-02T18:15:32.041-07:002014-10-02T18:15:32.041-07:00@Glenn,
That was really meant as a rhetorical que...<i>@Glenn,<br /><br />That was really meant as a rhetorical question...but thanks anyway.</i><br /><br />The anticipated chop is a gentle one; thank you. Here's another rhetorical question: how often does the term 'verbum mentis' come up on this blog? It's been said--and if it hasn't already been said then it ought to have been said by someone, somewhere, at sometime--that the rhetorical question is asked and having been asked is forgotten about; but perhaps 'verbum mentis' will now linger a bit in a few minds.<br />Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46850399135429592312014-10-02T16:40:36.396-07:002014-10-02T16:40:36.396-07:00Here's a link to Aquinas's commentary, for...Here's a link to Aquinas's commentary, for those interested:<br /><br />http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/SensuSensato.htmBrandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60762112508400823582014-10-02T16:34:10.260-07:002014-10-02T16:34:10.260-07:00I don't remember any details of that particula...I don't remember any details of that particular work at the moment, but Pasnau is very hit-and-miss. What the commenter means by "Sense and Sensation", I'm fairly sure, is Aquinas's Commentary on De Sensu et Sensato (In librum de sensu et sensato expositio).Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68232449952306356112014-10-02T14:52:34.992-07:002014-10-02T14:52:34.992-07:00On the subject of the Verbum Mentis and other such...On the subject of the Verbum Mentis and other such issues I was thinking of ordering Robert Pasnau’s Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages but the claim in the Amazon review that he was unconsciously reading Representationalism into the Scholastic thinkers put me off:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Theories-Cognition-Later-Middle-Ages/product-reviews/0521583683/ref=pd_ybh_5_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1<br /><br />(I’ve always wondered what the ‘Sense and Sensation’ book he recommends is – maybe Austin’s Sense and Sensibilia?)<br /><br /><br />On the subject of Thomism and the Ontological Argument the standard ‘question-begging’ objection is put forward by Joyce, Donceel, Philiphs and Garrigou-Lagrange amongst others (if I remember correctly Garrigou-Lagrange spends more pages on this in his The One God than all the criticisms of Gaunilo, Kant and Thomas combined). There are also ideas hanging around that chose to read Thomas objection as 'any proof of God's existence which proceeds from one of the Divine Attributes presupposes the existence of the deity'*, a remark, to put it bluntly, I find utter nonsense, or some more subtle point about Nominal and Real Definitions. <br /><br />*Philiphs’ mentions this but adds that Scotus’ and Leibniz’ Modal formulation of the argument is unaffected by this objection. <br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76459811969880809372014-10-02T14:16:46.524-07:002014-10-02T14:16:46.524-07:00@Glenn,
That was really meant as a rhetorical que...@Glenn,<br /><br />That was really meant as a rhetorical question (though it was a point which initially interested me in Thomas' epistemology) but thanks anyway. On my understanding as informed by Brennan and D.J.B. Hawkins books along with the relevant section in Stump's Aquinas volume is that that 'intelligible species' in fact covers both:<br /><br />A. The 'intelligible species impressa' which is the species informing the intellect, 'stamped' on the slate of the Possible Intellect by the Active, as you describe.<br /><br />B. The 'intelligible species empressa' which is our intentional direction towards an object as a result of the above. This is what is more frequently called the 'verbum mentis'.<br /><br />If anyone does know any more recent volumes where this aspect of Thomas thought is taken up in more detail please do share. It's an area I hope to revisit in more depth at some point in the future in view of a comparison with Edmund Husserl's distinction between (Idea) Content and Object of the noetic act. <br /><br /><br />@Rank,<br /><br />Thank you. I was really asking about what status they had in the era in which they were issued. <br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65145579878113888602014-10-02T13:05:34.705-07:002014-10-02T13:05:34.705-07:00Daniel,
Not one of the Thomistic Theses is consid...Daniel,<br /><br />Not one of the Thomistic Theses is considered binding in the strong sense. They were given a general, historically relative endorsement like the various liturgical calendars that have been declared in the past. The 24 Thomistic Theses were an attempted (and failed) pastoral solution to modernity that only hastened Catholicism's flight from tradition. Given the heavy debt that recent popes--particularly Benedict XVI--owe to nouvelle theologie, it could be argued that nouvelle theologie has more binding force now than the Theses.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72559357413379976122014-10-02T12:53:15.317-07:002014-10-02T12:53:15.317-07:00Daniel,
Let’s ask a standard reader of Thomas’ wh...Daniel,<br /><br /><i>Let’s ask a standard reader of Thomas’ what the exact nature and function of the ‘verbum mentis’ is and how it differs from the ‘intelligible species’.</i><br /><br />I'll leave it to others to address the <i>exact</i> nature and function of the 'verbum mentis'; and if the request for exactness is withdrawn, then I'll instead leave it to others to address its nature and function. Nonetheless, and simultaneous with finding a comfortable position for my neck on the chopping block, I will offer a little something to highlight the fact that there is a difference between the 'verbum mentis' and the 'intelligible species':<br /><br /><br />The intellible species informs the intellect, and the verbum mentis is, to some extent, because of, by way of, a result of or at least subsequent to that <i>inform</i>ation.<br /><br />That is:<br /><br />a) "[T]he reason why we actually feel or know a thing is because our intellect or sense is actually informed by the sensible or intelligible species." <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#article2" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> I Q 14 A 2</a><br /><br />b) "[T]hat which the intellect conceives from the thing understood, is called the word. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm#article4" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> I Q 28 A 4 ad. 1</a><br /><br />c) "In our way of understanding we use the word "conception" in order to signify that in the word of our intellect is found the likeness of the thing understood[.]" <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm#article2" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> I Q 27 A 2 ad 2</a>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70721455542239922112014-10-02T12:08:09.589-07:002014-10-02T12:08:09.589-07:00@Scott,
Re trolls I agree though it does somewhat...@Scott,<br /><br />Re trolls I agree though it does somewhat induce a horrible feeling of futility when the same old watered-down Positivist clap-trap* resurfaces yet again and is meet with a great volley of detailed responses. It also reinforces the very soon already immediately obvious fact that very few of the trolls/attackers actually know or care what professional atheist philosophers of Religion have had to say about these arguments. <br /><br />Ironically it was one of Kreeft's essays which provoked my irritability on that point (plus Oderberg's rushing to assure everyone that the Real Distinction did not imply the truth of that argument - I almost emailed him asking whether he ought to spend more time reassuring his readers that the theory of Act and Potency wouldn't entail a Prime Mover). I see there is an essay on this John F Wippel's The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas so I'll check that out once I come up for air from the phenomenology stuff. <br /><br />The other question could be reformulated I suppose as to what extent the Thomistic theses were considered binding. I was mainly raising the question in the context of what Ed said particularly in the paragraph that began ‘To be sure, the Church has not officially endorsed any specific formulation of any particular argument for God’s existence. ‘ <br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2604811196425548912014-10-02T11:36:24.397-07:002014-10-02T11:36:24.397-07:00@Daniel:
"I am willing to bet that the rando...@Daniel:<br /><br />"I am willing to bet that the random troll post is still going to attract more responses than all of the various sensible questions about Thomism and the Ontological Argument..."<br /><br />Unfortunately that's probably true, but it's just because the troll post is low-hanging fruit. I didn't reply to your question about the Ontological Argument because I didn't know the answer myself and a couple of Google searches didn't help.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57490167627602633442014-10-02T09:59:06.090-07:002014-10-02T09:59:06.090-07:00…and likewise Kreeft and the manualists.…and likewise Kreeft and the manualists.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5644896121845001932014-10-02T09:43:31.088-07:002014-10-02T09:43:31.088-07:00I don't want to be too hard on Kreeft, but in ...I don't want to be too hard on Kreeft, but in philosophical exposition he and Ed Feser are respectively milk and meat.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41701478478683863512014-10-02T08:53:04.961-07:002014-10-02T08:53:04.961-07:00‘I do hold the position that there are limitations...‘I do hold the position that there are limitations of reason to know God. Reason on its own is simply infirm. It is weak. It does seem incorrect to call it a limitation however. Reason simply cannot give you any guide to divine truth. That doesn't mean you can't get to it purely by reason, however, its only that reason cannot genuinely confirm this for you.’<br /><br />That's a philosophical stance though so if someone were to challenge it you would give arguments in favour of your position? If you argue, say, that by the human reason alone we can never experience alone that we can never experience God then that’s a valid argument though if you want to being in issues of Revelation then the validity of such has to be established independently beforehand. <br /><br />‘I think Kreeft's quote was, "Aquinas is easy enough to understand, it's Thomists who make him difficult."<br /><br />Let’s ask a standard reader of Thomas’ what the exact nature and function of the ‘verbum mentis’ is and how it differs from the ‘intelligible species’.<br /><br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48348798522276900222014-10-02T07:06:25.766-07:002014-10-02T07:06:25.766-07:00I think Kreeft's quote was, "Aquinas is e...I think Kreeft's quote was, "Aquinas is easy enough to understand, it's Thomists who make him difficult."Nolannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48404914846451597362014-10-02T04:36:39.222-07:002014-10-02T04:36:39.222-07:00Hi Daniel,
I do hold the position that there are ...Hi Daniel,<br /><br />I do hold the position that there are limitations of reason to know God. Reason on its own is simply infirm. It is weak. It does seem incorrect to call it a limitation however. Reason simply cannot give you any guide to divine truth. That doesn't mean you can't get to it purely by reason, however, its only that reason cannot genuinely confirm this for you.<br /><br />I did write in error with revelation. Wrong word completely. I was meaning that the only guidance that can be trusted must be divine. one can reason the belief in this guidance, but one cannot reason the truth of it. Reason is simply not equipped to show you a way out of Plato's cave so to speak.Billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14568484082656620402014-10-02T02:12:37.975-07:002014-10-02T02:12:37.975-07:00‘Unanswered prayers’ has to take the crown for the...‘Unanswered prayers’ has to take the crown for the Stupidest General Argument for Atheism besting even its contender ‘the Universe is too big’. I can’t remember the argument of Hawkins’ Quentin Smith previously awarded this accolade to but I doubt can hold a candle to this. <br /><br />To repeat something which I’ve already multiple times: to consider God as synonymous with ‘religion’ akin to inferring the existence of unicorns from that of living organisms. The existence of God is a Necessary Condition for a large number of religions but not a Sufficient one. The fact that so many pop-atheists make such a mistake not to mention persist in expecting certain moral reactions just shows that in the end they’re really just negative Christians. To butcher a Wittgenstein quote: a picture is holding them captive and its one of two lines intersecting.<br /><br />A couple of comments about Billy’s post:<br /><br />"Science starts with the idea that we do not know something and then tries to figure it out."<br /><br />Not to deny the correctness of his more in-depth reply to this but it seems one might just claim that the above is perfectly true only shifts in the meaning of certain words has meant that the term ‘science’ or ‘sciences’ has grown to have a more narrow connotation and thus we should instead employ the term ‘philosophy’ instead. I think I can remember some philosopher beginning one of their main works with a very similar remark.<br /><br />‘Not all knowledge, only knowledge of the transcendent, absolute and divine, which you cannot come to via reason. You can reasonably demonstrate God's existence, but without revelation to guide reason, you cannot really get much more. What is arrogant about it?’<br /><br />With all due respect isn’t this a presumption drawn from Revelation? Or should it be understood to mean that the direct intuition of the Divine Essence is superior to dialectical knowledge of it, in which case few would differ. Otherwise it gives the impression of placing arbitrary dogmatic limitations on Reason’s capacity to know God. <br /><br />Nolan said,<br /><br />‘This is almost exactly what I heard Peter Kreeft say in a podcast I had of his.<br />Saying something like, "you can never understand Aquinas by reading Thomists.... they all get him wrong." ‘<br /><br />Which is ironic considering Kreeft’s own activities.<br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41947258736445348162014-10-01T16:56:34.059-07:002014-10-01T16:56:34.059-07:00"For instance, during lunch at a conference s..."For instance, during lunch at a conference some time ago, a couple of well-meaning conservative Catholic academics matter-of-factly remarked how awful the Neo-Scholastic manuals were, how you couldn’t learn Aquinas from Thomists..."<br /><br />This is almost exactly what I heard Peter Kreeft say in a podcast I had of his.<br />Saying something like, "you can never understand Aquinas by reading Thomists.... they all get him wrong."Nolannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49119188268531993842014-10-01T15:27:32.272-07:002014-10-01T15:27:32.272-07:00A worthwhile counter to some of the nostalgia for ...A worthwhile counter to some of the nostalgia for the days of Scholasticism and neo-Scholasticism from Pascal-Emannuel Gobry (it's more general, but we don't have many Protestants or Nouvelle Theologie types around here): http://www.patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/09/the-idolatry-of-the-year-zero/Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-692451852127535752014-10-01T14:26:35.209-07:002014-10-01T14:26:35.209-07:00Anon said,
"Actuality." "Potential...Anon said,<br /><br />"Actuality." "Potentiality." Pure piffle. Lots of white philosophical noise designed in deliberate fashion to obscure the fact that religion has nothing going for it.<br /><br />Except actuality/potentiality isn't to do with religion directly really. It has to do with explaining change in the world. I'm assume you find nothing unreasonable in accepting that change occurs? How do you explain it? Unless you take the anti-intellectual stance that there is no explanation and its pointless to try.<br /><br />"However, it does have a method for obtaining answers, whereas religion simply claims answers without having ever done any of the work to get there."<br /><br />Theologians are putting in work, don't worry about that. They simply start with religious presuppositions. Science starts with presuppositions also in which you use as a starting point for their work.<br /><br />"Science starts with the idea that we do not know something and then tries to figure it out."<br /><br />Except that isn't true. Science first requires accepting a whole bunch of things without argument before science can saying anything with substance. If you took science on its own, all you are saying is that scientists use the scientific method to come to scientific conclusions within a scientific framework. Whether any theory or law that is proposed has anything to do with the real world, has anything to do with the truth, requires conclusions that science itself simply cannot provide. Are you saying you accept what science concludes are genuine truths about the world without justification? The actuality/potentiality dichotomy is argue for as a way of justifying the scientific method.<br /><br />"Religion starts with the arrogant assumption that we know God exists and therefore must base all our knowledge on that idea."<br /><br />Not all knowledge, only knowledge of the transcendent, absolute and divine, which you cannot come to via reason. You can reasonably demonstrate God's existence, but without revelation to guide reason, you cannot really get much more. What is arrogant about it? Billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39846159389387275742014-10-01T13:05:37.624-07:002014-10-01T13:05:37.624-07:00@ Anonymous
I used to say to the doubters “You ca...@ Anonymous<br /><br /><i>I used to say to the doubters “You can’t disprove God!” That’s true, but it’s true for one very important reason: you can’t disprove something you don’t have proof of. I can’t disprove leprechauns, or Bloody Mary, or ghosts, or Smurfs, or anything that I don’t first have proof of. You can only disprove something by showing how the proof of it is not valid.</i><br /><br />It's kind of funny how little of this is correct.<br /><br />You can disprove something you don't have proof of. I don't have any proof that there is a greatest prime number, but I can disprove it.<br /><br />Showing that the proof of something is not valid is not a disproof. If someone argues fallaciously that there is no greatest prime number, then pointing out the flaw in his argument doesn't show disprove his claim that there is no greatest prime number.<br /><br />One can disprove a claim by showing that it is inconsistent. For example, if the logical problem of evil were a sound argument, it would disprove God's existence, whether there is any evidence for God's existence or not.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64438965994083266142014-10-01T11:21:15.229-07:002014-10-01T11:21:15.229-07:00I am willing to bet that the random troll post is ...I am willing to bet that the random troll post is still going to attract more responses than all of the various sensible questions about Thomism and the Ontological Argument...<br /><br />The worst is that the Scarecrow's criticisms of Natural Theology weren't that much worse than the standard troll (hell, the Cycling-Mathematician one is way above the head of the standard troll). Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15092691429703194972014-10-01T10:07:02.374-07:002014-10-01T10:07:02.374-07:00Woops, meant to finish up #1.
...But instead of j...Woops, meant to finish up #1.<br /><br />...But instead of just being a nebulous other substance something actualizes (makes actual, that is causes to be) one of the potentialities for those cells and makes it a bone cell. I'm not as much of an expert on it as Dr. Feser but I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss a major school of thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75531859130239863912014-10-01T09:56:22.042-07:002014-10-01T09:56:22.042-07:00@ Anonymous:
Firstly, I'm the Anonymous who a...@ Anonymous:<br /><br />Firstly, I'm the Anonymous who asked the three tangental questions earlier, not the one who attempts to refute Aristotelian Catholicism. In response to his point, Just a couple of things:<br /><br />#1. I'm not sure the concept of "Potentiality" and "Actuality" are necessarily pure piffle or white noise. The point of potentiality and actuality is that they are alternative metaphysical ideas, one I might add that many early Quantum Physicists felt more accurately described their findings (I'm not talking about 'What the Bleep do we know' type Quantum Physics, I'm talking about the folks in the 1920s who discovered this); the idea is that all material things at a fundamental level have the potential to be a number of things (e.g. the cells in my body could be bone cells or they should be blood cells)<br /><br />#2. Nor is it fair to characterize the view that a "Sky God killed himself" since Christianity (at least all serious forms of it, to avoid making a No-True-Scotsman error I'll admit there might be a handful of examples however no Main Stream branch of Christianity) does not argue that Jesus was a "Sky God," the doctrine of incarnation is far more complex. <br /><br />#3. About the "visits us in a cracker" comment, Michael Dummett has an excellent article discussing this idea, I can't find a URL but look up "Michael Dummett+Eucharist defense," it's worth reading to get a different perspective.<br /><br />#4. Contrasting Science and Religion is a bit like contrasting Sociology and Art. They focus on different areas of knowledge; specifically, Art focuses on Aesthetic reality, while Sociology focuses on Industrial societal observations. Occasionally, there is overlap, but one cannot explain away the other. Similarly, I think Religion and Science do the same thing: Science does a good job describing the material realities of the world, Religion deals with metaphysical questions. <br /><br />#5. While I'll grant you that praying for certain things aren't answered, but the conception of Prayer is changing. Contemporary ideas hold that Praying isn't about asking for what you want so much as communing with Divinity. <br /><br />PS Thanks Scott and Glen earlier to giving me such excellent answers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23286599181146508142014-10-01T05:43:49.210-07:002014-10-01T05:43:49.210-07:00" "Actuality." "Potentiality.&...<br /><br />" "Actuality." "Potentiality." Pure piffle. Lots of white philosophical noise designed in deliberate fashion to obscure the fact that religion has nothing going for it. At the end of the day, you defend the view that a sky god killed himself and visits the true believer by way of a cracker. "<br /><br /><br />I have never heard such a devastating refutation of Aristotelianisn, or such a devastating refutation of Catholicism. Your ability to combine the two into a single paragrph absolutely blows my mind.<br /><br />Kudos, anonymous. Kudos.<br />Tynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44897590569261587232014-09-30T21:55:19.971-07:002014-09-30T21:55:19.971-07:00"Third, and most importantly, the First Way d..."<i>Third, and most importantly, the First Way doesn't ignore the "possibility" of a self-actualizing potency but quite expressly holds, on logical grounds, that it's an impossibility.<br /><br />The fundamental principle at work in the First Way is that a potency can be actualized only by something already actual, and this is surely self-evident. If a potency could actualize itself, it would never be a "potency" in the first place."</i><br /><br /><br />"Actuality." "Potentiality." Pure piffle. Lots of white philosophical noise designed in deliberate fashion to obscure the fact that religion has nothing going for it. At the end of the day, you defend the view that a sky god killed himself and visits the true believer by way of a cracker.<br /><br /><br />Not long before becoming an atheist, I came to the realization that if I prayed to God for a given number of things, and I prayed to a rock for that same number of things, the chances are very good that the rock and God would answer roughly the same number of times. Muslims pray to their God, Hindus to theirs, Catholics and Protestants to theirs, Wiccans to theirs… and after all is said and done, every God seems to answer in roughly the same proportion… unless of course for the 100% rate of failure for such requests as healing an amputee or “moving a mountain.”<br /><br />I used to say to the doubters “You can’t disprove God!” That’s true, but it’s true for one very important reason: you can’t disprove something you don’t have proof of. I can’t disprove leprechauns, or Bloody Mary, or ghosts, or Smurfs, or anything that I don’t first have proof of. You can only disprove something by showing how the proof of it is not valid. <br /><br />Now, science, it has been pointed out, is not perfect and doesn’t have all the answers. However, it does have a method for obtaining answers, whereas religion simply claims answers without having ever done any of the work to get there. Science starts with the idea that we do not know something and then tries to figure it out. Religion starts with the arrogant assumption that we know God exists and therefore must base all our knowledge on that idea.<br /><br /><br />Come on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com