tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5458330460116163100..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: A world of pure imaginationEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3217813626757853972014-02-15T12:38:15.006-08:002014-02-15T12:38:15.006-08:00I misspoke; sorry. That s/b "Hume's centu...I misspoke; sorry. That s/b "Hume's <i>centuries-old</i> materialism." <br /><br />But it should be acknowledge that, yes, it is true -- contemporary secular people do love to revert to centuries-old hokum.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87231809992769021952014-02-15T12:30:05.356-08:002014-02-15T12:30:05.356-08:00IOW, The popularity of [say, Feser] is not just be...IOW, <i>The popularity of [say, Feser] is not just because of his writing ability. He appeals to modern people because he is an iconoclast, which literally means a "destroyer of idols[", such as those of, say, Hume's materialism].</i>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57496239239773966742014-02-15T12:05:42.502-08:002014-02-15T12:05:42.502-08:00The popularity of Hume is not just because of his ...The popularity of Hume is not just because of his writing ability. He appeals to modern people because he is an iconoclast, which literally means a "destroyer of idols." Most philosophers would build some kind of system, but Hume preferred to tear systems apart and then leave them in ruins. Many twentieth century philosophers are destructive in this way. Contemporary secular people love to be revolutionary. They have that "everything we've ever believed is wrong" attitude. Hume is a sort of intellectual demolitionist - attacking every theory and then telling us that the whole quest for knowledge is hopeless. This goes beyond scepticism and into nihilism. No wonder so many modern people like it.Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51181388918819538472014-02-12T09:33:11.492-08:002014-02-12T09:33:11.492-08:00I decided to look for the definitions of 'look...I decided to look for the definitions of 'look out' and 'look up' over at <a href="http://www.collinsdictionary.com/" rel="nofollow">Collins Dictionary</a>.<br /><br />One can choose either "British English" or "American English":<br /><br />1. British English<br /><br />a) 'look out' has four entries under "Verb", one of which is: "8. (transitive) to search for and find ⇒ I'll look out some curtains for your new house". <br /><br />(There are five prior entries under "Noun"; thus '8.' is found amongst the four subsequent entries under "Verb".) <br /><br />Another legitimate example might be: "⇒ I'll look out that word in the dictionary". <br /><br />b) 'look up' also has four entries under "Verb", one of which is: "1. (transitive) to discover (something required to be known) by resorting to a work of reference, such as a dictionary". <br /><br />Though no examples are provided, one example might be: "⇒ I'll look up that word in the dictionary".<br /><br />2. American English<br /><br />a) 'look out' has a single entry: "to be on the watch; be careful". <br /><br />Though no examples are provided, it is not hard to imagine that one might be: "⇒ Be careful, Americans don't look out words in the dictionary".<br /><br />b) 'look up' has three entries, one of which is: "1. to search for in a book of reference, etc."<br /><br />No examples are provided, and no imagination is needed in order to fashion one (such as "⇒ Look up that word in the dictionary").<br /><br />It now seems clear that, although the British do kindly acknowledge it, it is the Americans who have taken up -- i.e., who have been taken in by -- the Scotticism.<br /><br /><br />I also looked for the definitions of said terms in <a href="https://archive.org/stream/con00ciseoxforddicfowlrich#page/484/mode/2up" rel="nofollow">The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English</a>, 1919 (7th impression), and found the following:<br /><br />1. 'look out' (p 484, slightly below midpoint of left column):<br /><br /><i>l.-out</i>, watch, looking out, (<i>keep a good l.-o.; on the l.-o., for </i>or<i> to</i> do), post of observation, man or party or boat stationed to l. out, view over landscape, prospect of luck (<i>it's a bad l.o. for him</i>), he must see to that himself). <br /><br />2. 'look up' (p 484, top of right column):<br /><br /><i>l. up</i>, (esp. commerc.) improve in price or prosperity, search for (esp. word in dictionary or facts in book of reference), call on (person), raise eyes (<i>l. up to</i>, respect, venerate), <i>l.</i> one <i>up & down</i>, scrutinize him keenly or contemptuously.<br /><br />And now it seems clear that as late as 1919 the British had yet to realize that they had been taken in.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85981058901073848612014-02-11T11:06:11.328-08:002014-02-11T11:06:11.328-08:00(s/b "comments")(s/b "comments")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72130015681471022132014-02-11T11:04:33.798-08:002014-02-11T11:04:33.798-08:00Brandon,
Thanks for the additional comment regard...Brandon,<br /><br />Thanks for the additional comment regarding Hume. Your earlier comment about him was also welcomed; amongst other things, it made clear to me that I have underappreciated him.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69603369757879984232014-02-11T10:55:48.664-08:002014-02-11T10:55:48.664-08:00Walter Bagehot on Hume's English style, as lat...Walter Bagehot on Hume's English style, as late as 1876:<br /><br /><i>Hume is always idiomatic, but his idioms are constantly wrong; many of his best passages are on that account curiously grating and puzzling; you feel that they are very like what an Englishman would say, but yet that, after all, somehow or other they are what he never would say;—there is a minute seasoning of imperceptible difference which distracts your attention, and which you are for ever stopping to analyse. </i>Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73620981117156959522014-02-11T10:52:45.720-08:002014-02-11T10:52:45.720-08:00Scott,
Yes, well. Hmm. I'm not so sure that t...Scott,<br /><br />Yes, well. Hmm. I'm not so sure that that counts as a <i>legitimate</i> usage of the locution. In fact, I think it more likely that the author was just putting words into the character's mouth. ;)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73638974126185261502014-02-11T10:33:23.195-08:002014-02-11T10:33:23.195-08:00Scott & Glenn,
Thanks for the references. I&#...Scott & Glenn,<br /><br />Thanks for the references. I'll do some more digging.<br /><br />Paxmonk68https://www.blogger.com/profile/02718257273640738688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90882676752528719542014-02-11T10:24:13.332-08:002014-02-11T10:24:13.332-08:00Monk68,
I also poked around a bit, before posting...Monk68,<br /><br />I also poked around a bit, before posting above (on the premise that dinner precedes dessert). I came across many instances of the term 'wayfarer', two of which are:<br /><br />1. From "Whether the beatified angels advance in beatitude?""<br /><br /><i>On the contrary, Merit and progress belong to this present condition of life. But angels are not wayfarers travelling towards beatitude, they are already in possession of beatitude. Consequently the beatified angels can neither merit nor advance in beatitude.</i><br /><br />2. And from "Whether angels are appointed to the guardianship of all men?":<br /><br /><i>I answer that, Man while in this state of life, is, as it were, on a road by which he should journey towards heaven. On this road man is threatened by many dangers both from within and from without, according to Ps. 159:4: "In this way wherein I walked, they have hidden a snare for me." And therefore as guardians are appointed for men who have to pass by an unsafe road, so an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as he is a wayfarer. When, however, he arrives at the and of life he no longer has a guardian angel; but in the kingdom he will have an angel to reign with him, in hell a demon to punish him.</i><br /><br />While neither goes to "whether (or why) it was <i>necessary</i> that man or the universe proceed through a path of becoming or traveling", I offer them in case they should help to jog your memory in some unexpected way.<br /><br />Also, PDF versions of the Summa are available on the internet; makes searching and poking around that much easier. I think it was from <a href="http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas-Summa%20Theologica.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> that I downloaded the copy I have.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48372966036434098732014-02-11T10:19:30.141-08:002014-02-11T10:19:30.141-08:00Glenn,
It's interesting, although not surpris...Glenn,<br /><br />It's interesting, although not surprising, that it was still going on in 1811. Usually the convergence of Scots and English is seen as English taking over Scots, but the list of Scotticisms you link to does a good job of showing that the English also started allowing expressions that were Scottish in origin. (Although Americans have to be careful, because in some cases it is American English that took up the Scotticism.)<br /><br /><br />A fact that's not often known: David Hume was born David Home. He deliberately changed the spelling of his name so that the English would pronounce it correctly. There are some amusing letters between him and his favorite cousin, John Home, in which the latter rejects something David says, saying that David doesn't even know how to spell his own name.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18913640580949257752014-02-11T10:11:00.564-08:002014-02-11T10:11:00.564-08:00@Glenn:
There's also this, from one of Charle...@Glenn:<br /><br />There's also <a href="http://www.pdf-repo.com/pdf_1a/153cg3o93m9528e9cce.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, from one of Charles Hamilton's ("Frank Richards'") Greyfriars novels: <i>'Better look out that word in the "C"s, not in the "K"s, Bunter!' said Harry Wharton, laughing.</i>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85185610441060109912014-02-11T09:54:58.424-08:002014-02-11T09:54:58.424-08:00@monk68:
I've failed to find the passage myse...@monk68:<br /><br />I've failed to find the passage myself, but here's a search suggestion.<br /><br />Google allows you to search specific sites. To search the ST, for example, you can run a Google search and, after your search terms, add <b>site:http://www.newadvent.org/summa/</b>.<br /><br />You may be aware of this and perhaps it's how you've already been searching. If not, though, it's something new to try, and you're more likely than I am to recall an exact phrase or significant/unique word from the passage you're looking for. I've tried nearly everything I can think of based on your post, without success.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22497553863835249872014-02-11T09:48:54.373-08:002014-02-11T09:48:54.373-08:00Which of the following two statements is a Scottic...<i>Which of the following two statements is a Scotticism:<br /><br />a) "Look up that word in the dictionary"; or,<br /><br />b) "Look out that word in the dictionary".</i><br /><br />I came across, "Look up that word in the dictionary" while reading a chapter on Scotticism's in the 1811 edition of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=j24EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR69&lpg=PR69&dq=Hume+Scotticism+to+avoid&source=bl&ots=voITDS0RXm&sig=H-zGO4UblLoE-tgKa1aG1RbiYyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XrX5UvXHF6z20wGZ7IHACg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Hume%20Scotticism%20to%20avoid&f=false" rel="nofollow">The Edinburgh Annual Register</a>. <br /><br />"Look up that word in the dictionary" is listed as a Scotticism, and is said to be properly rendered in English as, "Look out that word in the dictionary."<br /><br />Hmm [1]. <br /><br />So I look up "look out that word" on the internet, and what do I find? This (from Robert Littell's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ebIxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA758&lpg=PA758&dq=%22look+out+that+word%22&source=bl&ots=gYV3PM5l50&sig=jw2kD0XPc7ZgUDTujTo0GlMHHtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=80z6UuerOqe-0gGev4HICQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22look%20out%20that%20word%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">The Living Age</a>nt):<br /><br /><i>"Did you look out that word, Jones?"<br /><br />"No, sir; please, sir, I thought ----"<br /><br />"Never think till you are in the sixth form -- till then, look out </i>every<i> word."</i><br /><br />I am, apparently, more Scottish than English, for I do look up words in dictionaries, locations on maps, and Scotticisms in antiquated registers. <br /><br />When I look up 'lookup table' on the internet (via google), I discover that it is the computer science / programming thingamajig I have I have always thought it was [2]. <br /><br />And when I look up 'lookout tables' on the internet (via google again), many of the first results returned have to do with tide tables for Cape Lookout or point Lookout.<br /><br />So which phrasing is correct -- "look up that word"? or "look out that word"? <br /><br />Well, the tide has turned.<br /><br />Whereas during an earlier time the latter was in vogue, 'tis the former that seems to be currently correct.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />[1] Imagine the following conversation:<br /><br />Scotsman: "Look out that word in the dictionary." <br /><br />Englishman: "My dear fellow, I think it likely you mean to say, 'Be watchful of that word in the dictionary'."<br /><br />Scotsman: "No, sir, it's 'transformable' I mean."<br /><br />[2] Naturally, if one is going to have a lookup <i>table</i>, then one needs to be able to use a table lookup <i>instruction</i>; see, e.g., <a href="http://www.jaist.ac.jp/iscenter-new/mpc/altix/altixdata/opt/intel/vtune/doc/users_guide/mergedProjects/analyzer_ec/mergedProjects/reference_olh/mergedProjects/instructions/instruct32_hh/vc327.htm" rel="nofollow">XLAT</a>.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1811438976555538882014-02-11T08:57:42.442-08:002014-02-11T08:57:42.442-08:00Excellent article. I have no wish to hijack this t...Excellent article. I have no wish to hijack this thread, but I thought someone here might help me with a Summa reference.<br /><br />I am looking for a passage in the Summa which I came across a few years ago, but failed to note the reference at that time. The passage, as I recall, involved the response of St. Thomas to the question whether (or why) it was necessary that man or the universe proceed through a path of becoming or traveling (homo viator), rather than coming forth in perfection from inception. STA’s response was something along the lines that it was fitting for man to proceed as a wayfarer toward his final end, since in this way he is enabled to participate or act as a source of good for himself and others (which is more according to the likeness of God), rather than simply being the recipient of an already perfected state.<br /><br />I have spent several hours trying to find the passage in all the sections of the ST where it would seem most obvious to look, but to no avail. Any thoughts?<br /><br />Pax<br />monk68https://www.blogger.com/profile/02718257273640738688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68152597958514189232014-02-11T08:32:40.573-08:002014-02-11T08:32:40.573-08:00This is of course even less realistic than Willy W...<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKCAVJWFewI" rel="nofollow">This</a> is of course even less realistic than <i>Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory</i>; dinosaurs were extinct before the first Humeans appeared.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91710213101393896782014-02-11T07:19:18.406-08:002014-02-11T07:19:18.406-08:00Love the comparison between Hume and Willy Wonka.
...Love the comparison between Hume and Willy Wonka.<br /><br />I still say -and I think Dr. Feser you pointed this out in TLS- that it was Hume's hatchet job on causality that really did the most damage and not only his scepticism in regards to the evidence of the senses. <br /><br />But as regards the imagination, what bothers me about confusing the imagination with concepts or the operation of the intellect simply, is that it doesn't take much effort or reflection to realize that whenever I am actively employing my imagination and using it to the height of its powers (imagining an elaborate sci-fi world to rival that of anything seen in Star Trek or Star Wars, for example, which is much more easily <b>imagined</b> than given life in art) is that everything going into the construct is itself clearly based on something else.<br /><br />This becomes obviously true when I reflect on triangles. Now almost immediately when I think about triangles a triangle is produced in my imagination; however, I know my imagination is itself subject to something less particular than the similitudes of things produced by it, because I can manipulate the triangle by changing certain accidents (color, e.g.) while still very much thinking of or reflecting on the nature of triangles. In other words, there's something more basic that is the foundation of what my imagination produces. It is not my imagination that manipulates the triangle, it is some underlying understanding or knowledge that is the blueprint for the visible structures (as it were) in my imagination.<br /><br />Is that what you are also in effect saying Dr. Feser in your article but in different words?<br /><br />(Of course I am only talking about our imagination here while we are awake and healthy and excluding it when we are sick, dreaming or under the influence of drugs).Will Dunkirkhttp://catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37388213830205234862014-02-11T03:30:06.643-08:002014-02-11T03:30:06.643-08:00Great article Dr. Feser! Mortimer Adler, in his bo...Great article Dr. Feser! Mortimer Adler, in his book Ten Philosophical Mistakes, says this particular mistake of Hume rests on a failure to understand the conceptual difference between THAT WHICH and THAT BY WHICH. It is the dog THAT we see - our sense of sight is THAT BY WHICH we see the dog. ~ MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6303638208989324582014-02-11T01:13:15.068-08:002014-02-11T01:13:15.068-08:00I like this quote by G.K.Chesterton:
Since the mo...I like this quote by G.K.Chesterton:<br /><i><br />Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody's sense of reality; to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense. Each started with a paradox; a peculiar point of view demanding the sacrifice of what they would call a sane point of view. That is the one thing common to Hobbes and Hegel, to Kant and Bergson, to Berkeley and William James. A man had to believe something that no normal man would believe, if it were suddenly propounded to his simplicity; as that law is above right, or right is outside reason, or things are only as we think them, or everything is relative to a reality that is not there. The modern philosopher claims, like a sort of confidence man, that if we will grant him this, the rest will be easy; he will straighten out the world, if he is allowed to give this one twist to the mind...<br /></i><br /><br />Seems to me that you can add Hume to the list.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10960064301660316972014-02-10T22:10:34.601-08:002014-02-10T22:10:34.601-08:00Which of the following two statements is a Scottic...Which of the following two statements is a Scotticism:<br /><br /><i>a)</i> "Look up that word in the dictionary"; or,<br /><br /><i>b)</i> "Look out that word in the dictionary".<br /><br />(Note: "I dunna know" is not an acceptable answer.)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28524307184626028802014-02-10T18:50:11.257-08:002014-02-10T18:50:11.257-08:00I love how these people always call themselves sce...I love how these people always call themselves sceptics. Mostly they just seem sceptical of what contradicts scientistic naturalism, however.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56698764973103983702014-02-10T18:37:13.013-08:002014-02-10T18:37:13.013-08:00Ismael,
Not that Pigliucci offers very smart argu...Ismael,<br /><br /><i>Not that Pigliucci offers very smart arguments at all, but his god-worship (yes it's ironics) of Hume and Kant that often transpires in his works, is a sympton of a disease that plagues atheism in general I'd say...</i><br /><br />Pigliucci reasons a lot more than the New Atheists. He's got a very relaxed approach and tone, and he likes to give arguments for what he believes in (or doesn't believe in), at least in my experience. But also in my experience is that his anti-religious/anti-theist arguments are weak, and I get the impression he operates largely from the position of taking it for granted that theism/religion is disproven, rather than arguing for it himself.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45922401917108743502014-02-10T11:51:57.342-08:002014-02-10T11:51:57.342-08:00@ccmnxc:
"My teacher didn't take kindly ...@ccmnxc:<br /><br />"My teacher didn't take kindly to me laughing out loud in class."<br /><br />Excellent. My work here is done.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10282478016185440272014-02-10T11:45:52.167-08:002014-02-10T11:45:52.167-08:00I also have to wonder whether Hume was especially ...<i>I also have to wonder whether Hume was especially fond of Everlasting God Stoppers.</i><br /><br />My teacher didn't take kindly to me laughing out loud in class.ccmnxchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00774441668248552892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14790444982367625392014-02-10T11:34:28.931-08:002014-02-10T11:34:28.931-08:00[bows humbly] Thank you, thank you.
I also have t...[bows humbly] Thank you, thank you.<br /><br />I also have to wonder whether Hume was especially fond of Everlasting God Stoppers.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.com