tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5880626158230928093..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Brin on conspiracy theoriesEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6077898178408344742009-02-21T08:39:00.000-08:002009-02-21T08:39:00.000-08:00I haven't considered before the professor Feser's...I haven't considered before the professor Feser's arguments against conspiracies. While I tend to think some so-called conspiracies are probably factual (an example would be the 9/11 conspiracy), I think professor Feser's arguments put relevant questions that makes conspiracy theories, a priori, unplausible.<BR/><BR/>Probably, conspiracy theorists (some of them good philosophers, like David Ray Griffin) should to address these philosophical questions and problems.<BR/><BR/>Probably, a new field of philosophy is going to born: The philosophy of conspiracy theories.<BR/><BR/>Ben:<BR/><BR/>A very good defense of dualism may be found in philosopher Uwe Meixner's book "<I>Two sides of beign</I>". It's not easy to get a copy of it, because it has been published by a german publisher. A review of it is available:<BR/><BR/>http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1469<BR/><BR/>Another review of Meixner's book:<BR/><BR/>http://www.newdualism.org/papers/U.Meixner/Martin-review.htm<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that being "not religious" is compatible with dualism. In fact, I'm a secular (i.e. not religious) substance dualist.<BR/><BR/>An example of a contemporary secular philosopher who defends substance dualism is Robert Almeder, Professor of Philosophy at Georgia State University (see his book "<I>Death and Personal Survival</I>"). Hear an interview with him:<BR/><BR/>http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=23<BR/><BR/>Another one is Neal Grossman, Associate Professor of philosophy at University of Illinois at Chicago. An interview with him:<BR/><BR/>http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=21<BR/><BR/>But secular philosophers defenders of dualism are the exception, not the rule. Thus you should to read religious defenders of it too (see professor Feser's book <I>Philosophy of Mind</I> for excellent bibliography on dualism and other positions in contemporary philosophy of mind )<BR/><BR/>Hope it helps.Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20046992333733978682009-02-16T04:48:00.000-08:002009-02-16T04:48:00.000-08:00"the nature of modern bureaucracies makes it pract..."the nature of modern bureaucracies makes it practically impossible for would-be conspirators secretly and effectively to engineer anything on the scale of a 9/11 “inside job” or JFK assassination scenario"<BR/><BR/>Structure of modern beaucracies were built the conspirators. Cecil rhodes is an example, he had six wills, one of which was used to establish the council on foreign relations.Read "tragey and hope" by professor Caroll quigley, bill clinton's mentor.<BR/><BR/>A similar group called the trilateral commission was founded in 1970 by David Rockefellar and ZEbigniew Brezinski. There are 300 members worldwide and about 85 in North america. Of those 85 members 10 have been assigned senior positions the new Obama administration. It was the same in JImmy carter and bill clinton's cabinets.REad TRilaterals over washington by patrick wood and anthony sutton.<BR/><BR/>Groups like these are numerous and I hardly have the time or the space to explain to Dr. Feser the intrcacies of their machinations. <BR/><BR/>But another example is the 911 Comission. Webster Tarpley in his book "9/11 synthetic Terror" goes in to great detail on the backgrounds of the 9/11 comission. They were all so dirty and people in glsss houses don't throw rocks. <BR/><BR/>What we have is a large organized crime syndicate. Imagine the mafia got really big and infiltrated the police force and then the banks and then the media and then they just take over completely. Well, its kinda like that but its more like the masons got control of this institution, and communists got control of the democratic party and the Madoff crew got control of the Nasdaq and the SEC and Disney's run by the military industrial complex and sometimes they fight with each other but they know they got to keep the people in the dark so they keep to the script.<BR/><BR/>Oh and then there's the illegal Federal REserve Bank a private bank that creates money out of thin air and charges the government interest on it.<BR/><BR/>Then we have the "anchor men" who read of teleprompters. Oh I guess it would be real hard to manipulate thos teleprompters. <BR/><BR/>Or the voting machines which all kinds of programmers testified were easily hacked.<BR/><BR/>Oh and last but not least we have the Norad standing down on 911 because at the same time as the attacks were taking place there were drills taking place were planes were hijacked and flown into the world trade centre. The name of the drill was able danger and the story was published vanity fair.<BR/><BR/>Dr feser if you don't want to see the truth nothing anyone will say will convince you. ANy kid knows if you hit a tree with an axe it falls over, it doesn't disintigrate into microscopic dust.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you never took physics, or maybe you are a finger in the dike blocking the truth from coming out, who knows but your wrong on this issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46984411908599249042009-02-14T06:33:00.000-08:002009-02-14T06:33:00.000-08:00The conspiracy theory that I hate the most is the ...The conspiracy theory that I hate the most is the one where a guy named OBL masterminded an attack on the WTCs that undermined the billion dollar US defence forces from a cave in Afghanistan while on a liver dialysis machine.<BR/><BR/>I mean how did he get the jet fuel(basically karoseen) to melt the steel colemns in the building. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and how did he get that third building (WTC 7)to fall down which wasn't even hit by anything. <BR/><BR/>DR Feser is much too kind, I just want to kick my TV when I see those conspiracy theorists on there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82963365467816817132009-02-13T21:50:00.000-08:002009-02-13T21:50:00.000-08:00Hi Michael, the Counterknowledge site seems down a...Hi Michael, the Counterknowledge site seems down at the moment -- I'm sure it will be back soon. Anyway, scroll down the main page of my site and you'll see the same article posted here. (Look for the guy with the tinfoil hat.)Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81506915694117324002009-02-13T21:05:00.000-08:002009-02-13T21:05:00.000-08:00The counterknowledge link does not appear to be wo...The counterknowledge link does not appear to be working.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19957397026077958102009-02-13T16:27:00.000-08:002009-02-13T16:27:00.000-08:00Hello Ben, For a secular defense of dualism, see K...Hello Ben, <BR/><BR/>For a secular defense of dualism, see Karl Popper's half of The Self and its Brain (a book he co-wrote with John Eccles). You'll find extensive references to other contemporary defenses of dualism in my book Philosophy of Mind.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9198141907020548832009-02-13T16:15:00.000-08:002009-02-13T16:15:00.000-08:00Very good post Dr.Feser. Sorry for my following of...Very good post Dr.Feser. <BR/><BR/>Sorry for my following off-topic comment, but I'd like to ask you for recommended literature on contemporary philosophers defending substance dualism, or more specifically, contemporary defenses of substance dualism.<BR/><BR/>I've read that Swinburne's "The evolution of the soul" is a good one; and John foster's Immaterial self is good too. (I'm going to order both of them soon)<BR/><BR/>However, I'd like to know if there are contemporary secular philosophers who defend substance dualism, because some people say that only religious philosophers are dualists (secular ones would be materialists). However, I think it's possible to be a secular dualist.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com