tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6316416569206963705..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Long list o’ linksEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77545749056738819932015-11-25T00:45:53.292-08:002015-11-25T00:45:53.292-08:00@Anders: "Eloquently put! I can't help su...@Anders: "Eloquently put! I can't help suspecting you're actually Stephen Fry. Or at least, that's how I hear you (Jeeves, specifically). Do you write? If not, perhaps consider it?"<br /><br />Why, thank you. I used to write, when my literary faculties were precocious and my critical ones undeveloped. But then my critical faculties caught up, and I saw I was not so good a writer as I had thought I was, nor so good as I wished to be. And so I took Mencken's advice to aspiring authors: "Don't."<br /><br />(Which path left untaken I do not regret. I have aspiring writers in my family, and I fear terribly that the condition may be heritable.)<br /><br />Please do not let this quick reversion to marzipan and ganache prevent you from continuing your reply to Dr. Feser's previous arguments. You have only just started, and it looks promising. If it would prove welcoming, I will sheathe my jaggy sticks. If you also refrain from blowing sunshine up my ass, then we may find a happy medium.<br /><br />A Celt, eh? This may not be at all accurate, but now you have me picturing you as Frankie Boyle (of whom I am in fact quite fond, as you may imagine).<br /><br />"Better still, Sean Carroll."<br /><br />Ooh, that *would* be good! I don't know much about him, but I remember being intrigued after seeing him in conversation with Cara Santa Maria.<br /><br />"To Glenn: wanker."<br /><br />See? *That* was funny. There's hope for you yet. "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."--Mencken, "The New Poetry Movement"laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45305511486560065792015-11-24T17:38:17.988-08:002015-11-24T17:38:17.988-08:00To Laubadetriste: Eloquently put! I can't help...<b>To Laubadetriste:</b> Eloquently put! I can't help suspecting you're actually Stephen Fry. Or at least, that's how I hear you (Jeeves, specifically). Do you write? If not, perhaps consider it? On "My Swearing Is Viler Than Your Swearing" rutting: overall, I consider myself a well-mannered person, but I'm of Celtic descent, so swearing is more common among "my people" than the average. I think. I don't actually take it to be too correlated with mannerliness or gentleness.<br /><br /><b>To Gottfried:</b> well played. Your counterexamples ("white-washed sepulchers or a brood of vipers") to what could have been seen as my implicit exhortation of, "For fuck's sake Ed, Jesus wouldn't have been so nasty! Why don't you remove your head from your own arse and be more like Him!" were very damaging to my case. In fact I'd tried to concede as much in my recent discussion of Ed's article, but I was fighting a 4096 character limit.<br /><br /><b>To Ed:</b> since I think the chances of you modifying your style based on what I've been saying are effectively zero, let me try a different tack, in the spirit of not sinking the ship for a ha'penny of tar. If it could be arranged, how would you feel about debating one of the NA crowd? I think it would be next to impossible to get Dawkins, but Harris might consider it. Better still, Sean Carroll. It wasn't fun to watch, but I do think he kinda beat up old WLC. Based on everything of yours I've read and watched, I don't think he'd have laid a finger on you. Seriously, with the exception of (rarely) Haldane and maybe John Lennox, most of the theist side is ... well, punching well below its weight. No? Trash talk not only allowed, but enthusiastically encouraged.<br /><br /><b>To Glenn:</b> wanker. <br /><br /><b>Also to Glenn:</b> ;-)Andershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17900614848428330689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10703152731429544252015-11-24T16:21:30.407-08:002015-11-24T16:21:30.407-08:00@Anders: "Of the fact that, contrary to what ...@Anders: "Of the fact that, contrary to what laubadetriste suggested, whatever is behind my position -- 'gentleness', manifest as an apparent inability to say cuss words (e.g. 'bollox' as opposed to 'bollocks') -- isn't part of it."<br /><br />No, not an inability to *say* curse words; to *spell* them as prevailingly spelled (the inability, in one passing case, which I took to be indicative of an unfamiliarity with them, as representing a more general unfamiliarity with abuse). And while your run at cursing was indeed more pungent and inventive than before, I did not stipulate curse words as markers of competent polemics, and I doubt you would do so either. And so, after a bit of surprise--I do hope those expletives stay up there, given the context--it seems what I claimed, and Gottfried may have seconded, still stands. And I remain curious what you would say about notable broadsides of the past, especially ones which are no longer part of live disputes (and hence, which may now be seen with eyes less clouded by tribal feeling). For...<br /><br />"My worry is that when Ed says 'yah boo sucks' in response to Jerry calling him a poopy head..."<br /><br />...is very much not what was said, even given the license of caricature.<br /><br />"Btw, that is a demonstration, not an insult."<br /><br />Why yes, yes it was. You do not curse like the "persistent and argumentative b*st*rd" you claim to be. But as I have little riding on my ascription of gentleness, or upon my teasing urological example, let me concede for the sake of argument that on the contrary you are as vile as you please, and no doubt as we speak tying a buxom blonde to railroad tracks and twirling your waxed mustache. And also that at your bedside, instead of a Bible, you keep for practice copies of *Shakespeare's Bawdy,* *Trainspotting,* and *A Clockwork Orange.*laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67155515587624386392015-11-24T14:32:35.988-08:002015-11-24T14:32:35.988-08:00Oops, misplaced emdash.
"Of the fact that, c...Oops, misplaced emdash.<br /><br /><i>"Of the fact that, contrary to what laubadetriste suggested, whatever is behind my position -- "gentleness", manifest as an apparent inability to say cuss words (e.g. "bollox" as opposed to "bollocks") -- isn't part of it."</i><br /><br />should have been:<br /><br /><i>"Of the fact that, contrary to what laubadetriste suggested, whatever is behind my position, "gentleness" -- manifest as an apparent inability to say cuss words (e.g. "bollox" as opposed to "bollocks") -- isn't part of it.</i><br />Andershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17900614848428330689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83320610345280359712015-11-24T14:30:17.210-08:002015-11-24T14:30:17.210-08:00@Glenn said...
"[A demonstration of] what?&q...@Glenn said...<br /><br />"[A demonstration of] what?"<br /><br />Of the fact that, contrary to what laubadetriste suggested, whatever is behind my position -- "gentleness", manifest as an apparent inability to say cuss words (e.g. "bollox" as opposed to "bollocks") -- isn't part of it.<br />Andershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17900614848428330689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90415217242025690682015-11-24T14:22:11.775-08:002015-11-24T14:22:11.775-08:00(from previous)
3. Even when the Slagging form of...(from previous)<br /><br />3. Even when the Slagging form of SoS is justified, I see an argument for *attacking* immorality -- i.e. pointing out sin or whatever -- but I see no argument for using *abuse* per se to do that. In fact, I think there's a danger of abuse being misinterpreted. Despite several comments about, I'm not proposing gentleness, or softness. My concern is with rudeness, abusiveness, and so on. Calling a sin a sin is fair game. Let "yes" be "yes" etc.<br /><br />4. If a key reason for SoS is to avoid becoming "complicit in lending credibility to the making of such proposals.", there is an opposing concern for the effect that SoS may have on *bystanders*. My worry is that when Ed says "yah boo sucks" in response to Jerry calling him a poopy head, some poor civilian who has not read Anscombe misses *what* Ed is saying because of *how* he is saying it. Now obviously this is a judgement call and there may be a reverse effect from avoiding SoS. But plain old experience tells me that negativity in such things gets way more attention than positivity, such that if there is a *net* effect, it's going to be to push people away from Ed's position, not towards it. <br /><br />OK, turns out it took me more text than I thought for only the first point in Article #1 so I'll leave it there for now, and if it turns out I'm being given a second chance I can explore others. <br /><br />cheers,<br />Anders<br />Andershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17900614848428330689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81548720303084855472015-11-24T14:21:41.612-08:002015-11-24T14:21:41.612-08:00> I'll be right back...
So. Reminder: plea...> I'll be right back...<br /><br />So. Reminder: plea for mercy, or at least enough space to properly hang myself.<br /><br />OK, so to Ed's articles. Now, since we're in a combox I'm not going to cover every point, certainly not in one go. So I'll pick the first (or only if there is only one) point in each. I'll give a quote for each, to indicate which one, and then say my bit.<br /><br />Article #1:<br /><b>"G. E. M. Anscombe famously held that there are some positions in ethics that are so odious that in many cases the proper way to respond to someone who holds them is, not to discuss his error with him, but rather to refuse to discuss it."</b><br /><br />Ed develops that to argue that there may be situations where the depravity while not *so* bad as to make engaging a bad idea, is bad enough that you must not merely point out argumentation mistakes. Rather, polemics may be required to try to "shake people out of a complacent decadence". So the argument is that in certain situations, a "Shun Or Slag" (SoS) approach is warranted.<br /><br />I'm not sure that SoS is never warranted. Then again, I can see situations where it looks tempting but is a bad idea. Singer is an example. I used to think his "speciesism" arguments excellent. And although I didn't *like* the lemmas condoning bestiality, I couldn't see why they were wrong. But *now* I see why he's wrong, but only because I've seen counter argumentation. Had everyone used SoS I may have been left unable to argue when the inevitable arises and there's a push for "Same Number Of Legs" marriage.<br /><br />What of Coyne? <br /><br />1. Most obviously, Coyne simply isn't promoting odious ethical positions. He's just saying stupid things of the form "well what caused God then?" So there's no case being made for the SoS approach with Coyne. <br /><br />But I'll look more generally at the argument in play.<br /><br />2. I have to weigh Anscombe's/Ed's position against the comment I heard from (my new BFF) John Haldane, when he was arguing a different point with Hitchens; viz the question, <i>"Who is the better friend of tolerance: the believer in absolute truth, or the believer in relativism?"</i> I think his answer also applies in this case, namely that if we value truth, then since we know we're fallible, we need to value debate.[1] This is not a slam dunk objection, but it means we need to take great care when deciding that SoS is warranted. Given how fallible we humans are, I'd think wisdom is on the side of erring very much away from SoS.<br /><br />(To be continued. Not sure why because I'm pretty sure the total character count is under 4096).<br /><br />[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pflU-nnY4MA&feature=youtu.be&t=55m43sAndershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17900614848428330689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23321579946449846102015-11-24T12:47:13.103-08:002015-11-24T12:47:13.103-08:00Soon not to be Anonymous,
Btw, that is a demonstr...Soon not to be Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>Btw, that is a demonstration,</i><br /><br />Of what? Of the "self-control [which] can constitute an important form of spiritual practice"? The passive agression of one who seeks to counsel another? A latent hostility which isn't dissipated by quoting from the Bible? That preaching is easier than practicing?<br /><br />You made a point. It's not the first time it's been made, and it's not likely it won't be made again. The point has been responded to. It's not the first time it has been responded to, and it's not likely it won't be responded to again. <br /><br />Oh well.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91816941241974402302015-11-24T12:28:11.360-08:002015-11-24T12:28:11.360-08:00Blogger Edward Feser said...
Look, let's cut t...Blogger Edward Feser said...<br /><i>Look, let's cut the crap. For the third time,...</i><br /><br />Indeed. Unusual to see you engage for so long so far down the combox. Again, thanks for taking the time.<br /><br />Now I wonder, is it possible for me to haul myself out of the pit into which I appear to have thrown myself, and plead for at least temporary respite from the jaggy sticks a bunch of y'all are poking me with?<br /><br />Let's see, shall we. Let me address those articles of Ed. <br /><br />Actually, since I seem to be getting more into discussion here than I'd originally intended, I should probably get an ID set up so I can dispense with the Anonymous crap.<br /><br />I'll be right back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35513794239865020272015-11-24T12:14:41.338-08:002015-11-24T12:14:41.338-08:00@laubadetriste said ...
"I can tell that this...@laubadetriste said ...<br /><i>"I can tell that this Anonymous is in fact a gentle person, because "bollox" is usually spelled "bollocks." He is unfamiliar with much abuse. :) </i><br /><br /><i>(Btw, that is a compliment, not an insult.)</i><br /><br />It's simply shorthand, in this case for <b>"What utter stale semen, you cunt-faced, wank-stained, fuck-witted nob-segment". But that's a bit longer than "bollox".</b> (Also, it's unclear, now as then, whether that'll get past any comment spam filtering.)<br /><br />Btw, that is a demonstration, not an insult.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42738642804817318702015-11-24T08:09:24.645-08:002015-11-24T08:09:24.645-08:00Anonymous,
There ya go again (though this time wi...Anonymous,<br /><br />There ya go again (though this time with brevity rather then verbosity):<br /><br /><i>Yes, most of what you write is not polemical. That's the shame,</i>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59231803568937268452015-11-24T06:00:22.858-08:002015-11-24T06:00:22.858-08:00Anon,
I'm guessing you would say that calling...Anon,<br /><br />I'm guessing you would say that calling your adversaries white-washed sepulchers or a brood of vipers would be waaay over the top?<br /><br />laubadetriste,<br /><br /><i>I note that Anonymous 6:31 PM did not reply to my query, what he thought of some notable past broadsides. The point of me bringing them up is that the negative/positive, sweet/hot dichotomy misses what is truly important, which is whether anyone's allegedly excessive polemics are competent *as polemics.* One can be as "negative" as can be, without demerit, so long as one is in fact also being (e.g.) insightful, witty, revealing, and so on. And of course this takes both genuine intelligence and command of language. I said once, on another post, that I was disappointed in TLS, not because it was "negative" in tone--although of course it sometimes was--but because I thought the jokes could have been better. I added that Dr. Feser has since improved (and I did *not* mean by that that he has gotten more positive or some such silliness).</i><br /><br />For what it's worth, I completely agree. TLS changed my perspective on the world in a way that few books have, but I thought the jokes sometimes fell a bit flat. Dr. Feser has written things since that are both much funnier and much more pointed.Gottfriednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1912562784013101412015-11-24T01:03:14.723-08:002015-11-24T01:03:14.723-08:00Now, that Anonymous will likely agree with me that...Now, that Anonymous will likely agree with me that "the plural of anecdote is not evidence." Who is to say whether his friends are more representative, or mine? But Dr. Feser is right to reply, that "*You* don't go for polemics, and neither do some other readers of similar temperament. Fine. What you don't take account of are all the readers who do respond well to that approach. And judging from the feedback I've gotten over the years, there are quite a lot of them." For Dr. Feser has in fact demonstrated that genuine intelligence and command of language I spoke of. And so--even when I disagree with him--I listen, *the more so* when he is being "negative" or *polemical* or *abusive.*<br /><br />"Bollox. What a brain-dead, arse-headed piece of nonsense [...] you cannot see that you are dealing with other p-e-o-p-l-e."<br /><br />I can tell that this Anonymous is in fact a gentle person, because "bollox" is usually spelled "bollocks." He is unfamiliar with much abuse. :) <br /><br />(Btw, that is a compliment, not an insult.)<br /><br />This is an example of what I spoke of. For of course, it is not competent *as polemic.* Dr. Feser would have written much better abuse. As did Twain, France, Paine, Swift, de Maistre, Mencken, Tynan, Jarrell, Kraus, Amis, Jonson, Johnson, Nietzsche, Shaw, Vidal, Hitchens, Mill, Waugh, Voltaire, Bierce, Cyril Connolly...<br /><br />"Bile is in the eye of the beholder and I'm pretty sure that Ed's opponents would disagree with you."<br /><br />What? Here we are on a *philosophy* blog, and Anonymous tries to reduce something to mere individual taste? Why, that's like taking one's toys home from the sandbox...laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50658912231257740292015-11-24T01:02:49.285-08:002015-11-24T01:02:49.285-08:00@Mr. Green: "In terms of the condimental meta...@Mr. Green: "In terms of the condimental metaphor, some people (despite the trend in packaged foods of ever-increasing salt and sugar) do not like dinner to taste like dessert. A good chef does not drown the dish in hot sauce, but nor does he turn every meal into candy."<br /><br />Yup. Dr. Feser of course doesn't need my help here, but I'll throw in a few more pennies anyway, as I think my perspective is rather outnumbered on this blog, and so may prove interesting.<br /><br />I note that Anonymous 6:31 PM did not reply to my query, what he thought of some notable past broadsides. The point of me bringing them up is that the negative/positive, sweet/hot dichotomy misses what is truly important, which is whether anyone's allegedly excessive polemics are competent *as polemics.* One can be as "negative" as can be, without demerit, so long as one is in fact also being (e.g.) insightful, witty, revealing, and so on. And of course this takes both genuine intelligence and command of language. I said once, on another post, that I was disappointed in TLS, not because it was "negative" in tone--although of course it sometimes was--but because I thought the jokes could have been better. I added that Dr. Feser has since improved (and I did *not* mean by that that he has gotten more positive or some such silliness).<br /><br />(Let me add that TLS had much delightful history and argument in it which was not only not disappointing, but really every bit as exciting and suggestive as, say, Popkin's *History of Scepticism from Savanarola to Bayle.* Which is high praise, for those who have not read it.)<br /><br />Anonymous 6:31 PM adds, "Abuse (not polemics per se): do you really think that *abuse* shows anyone needing convinced that your opponents are fools? I can answer that because I was that person needing convinced. Your abuse absolutely undermined *your* arguments for me." Well, as someone else who was "that person needing [convincing]", I can only rejoin that Dr. Feser's (mild) abuse did no such thing for me. In fact, I quite relished it, even when it was deployed against--how shall I say--*my side.* In fact, in my immediate circle of friends I can identify three atheists, one Protestant, and one Greek Orthodox person, who have each been to one degree or another moved by Dr. Feser, polemics and all. None of us bother about his abuse. All of us rather enjoy the performance, *and* find it illuminating.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37113056120789643742015-11-23T23:25:10.615-08:002015-11-23T23:25:10.615-08:00Mellow out; a drink; a sense of humour; don't ...<i>Mellow out; a drink; a sense of humour; don't "go on about" it...</i><br /><br /><i>So when push comes to abusive shove, apparently you're not that much different from Coyne, Dennet, Harris and the rest after all, are you? </i><br /><br />Sure, 'cause saying "Mellow out, have a drink etc." is just really, really nasty stuff. Positively Coyne-like, that.<br /><br /><i>Sigh. I hate it when yet another hero's vulnerability is revealed. Dang. :-(</i><br /><br />Mmmm, yes, and said more in sorrow than in anger, of course. We all know this routine, Anon. Next you'll tell me to cancel your subscription or some such.<br /><br />Look, let's cut the crap. For the third time, I've given <i>arguments</i>, in the posts linked to above, for why polemics are in some cases justified. You say you have read them, but you have yet actually to respond to any of them. Until you do, then all this "Please stop the polemics, and stick to the arguments" stuff is just blowing smoke. I've been asking you to stick to the arguments, and you refuse to do that.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56183547586203972792015-11-23T22:58:04.065-08:002015-11-23T22:58:04.065-08:00Mellow out; a drink; a sense of humour; don't ...Mellow out; a drink; a sense of humour; don't "go on about" it. Ah the good old Kenneth Clarke rebuttal (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/may/13/criminal-justice#S6CV0224P0_19930513_HOC_149)<br /><br />So when push comes to abusive shove, apparently you're not that much different from Coyne, Dennet, Harris and the rest after all, are you? <br /><br />Sigh. I hate it when yet another hero's vulnerability is revealed. Dang. :-(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51957466981311179672015-11-23T21:45:17.908-08:002015-11-23T21:45:17.908-08:00Anonymous writes:
do you really think that *abuse...Anonymous writes:<br /><br /><i>do you really think that *abuse* shows anyone needing convinced that your opponents are fools? I can answer that because I was that person needing convinced. Your abuse absolutely undermined *your* arguments for me.</i><br /><br />Etc. etc.<br /><br />First point: You don't really answer the arguments of the posts I linked to, but just repeat here your dislike of the polemical style. Again, not a good use of time.<br /><br />Second, the key words in the sentence of yours quoted above are "for me." <i>You</i> don't go for polemics, and neither do some other readers of similar temperament. Fine. What you don't take account of are all the readers who <i>do</i> respond well to that approach. And judging from the feedback I've gotten over the years, there are quite a lot of them.<br /><br />You need to stop projecting your own circumstances onto the whole readership. Not everyone is in your situation, has your background and tastes and sensitivities, etc. You also need to keep in mind that there is simply no one style or approach that works for everyone. <i>Any</i> approach is going to appeal to some people and turn others off. That's just human nature. It's a good thing that not everyone approaches things the way I do, and it's also a good thing that some people do approach things the way I do. Thousand flowers blooming, and all that.<br /><br />But third, your claim that the polemics "absolutely undermined" my arguments for you does ring somewhat hollow given that... well, here you are, reading the blog and mostly praising it. Evidently it can't have been all <i>that</i> traumatic for you.<br /><br />I think what you need is to mellow out, have a good stiff drink, and try to have more of a sense of humor about these things. That you've been going on about this now for <i>five days</i> here in the combox does rather suggest a bit of over-sensitivity on your part, no?Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39913516003573824622015-11-23T19:07:06.762-08:002015-11-23T19:07:06.762-08:00Incidentally, I had read those posts. I was intrig...Incidentally, I had read those posts. I was intrigued by Briggs' comparison of you with Patton. I'd offer a different one.<br /><br />If John Haldane is Royce Gracie, then Edward Feser is Tank Abbott. I wouldn't choose to meet either on a dark street, but for honed fighting ability, technical precision, and overall combat effectiveness, Royce has the edge. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60337629830517858142015-11-23T18:31:06.184-08:002015-11-23T18:31:06.184-08:00@Ed, thanks for the reply.
Yes, most of what you ...@Ed, thanks for the reply.<br /><br />Yes, most of what you write is not polemical. That's the shame, because the abusive stuff gets more attention that it's volume suggests it should. But you *know* this Ed. Good grief, it's Human Communication 101. It's a form of availability heuristic and your being held back by it.<br /><br /><em>"The point of abusing them as I do is not to convince them, but rather to show other people what fools they are."</em><br /><br />Abuse (not polemics per se): do you really think that *abuse* shows anyone needing convinced that your opponents are fools? I can answer that because I was that person needing convinced. Your abuse absolutely undermined *your* arguments for me. Now for my part, I am a persistent and argumentative b*st*rd and so could do the work to see past the abuse, but many others do not. You lose them at the first "buffoon!"<br /><br /><em>"If you treat a buffoon like Coyne as anything other than a buffoon, then you dignify his ridiculous arguments and lend them a credibility they don't deserve. Nothing less than a polemical tone will effectively convey that point."</em><br /><br />I'm not saying you have to treat him like an philosophical equal. I think it would be impossible to engage his arguments at all without him quickly looking silly. But your counter arguments are sufficient. They don't *need* the abuse, and in fact are hurt by it. At least acknowledge that you pay some rhetorical cost when you treat him like a buffoon. There exist New Atheist civilians out there who you are making *less* receptive to your ideas because of your style. <br /><br /><em>"Of course people like Coyne, Krauss, Dawkins, et al. are not going to be convinced by polemical pieces. But they aren't going to be convinced by non-polemical pieces either. They aren't going to be convinced by anything, because they aren't rational, don't want a serious debate in the first place, etc."</em><br /><br /><b>Bollox. What a brain-dead, arse-headed piece of nonsense, especially from a so-called philosopher. No wonder you are still only at a Community College. Dawkins may be well be a lost cause to you, but hundreds of thousands are listening to him, while you rant in an obscure corner of the web, supported only by sycophantic yes men who hover around your blog comboxes to try to be first with another dollop of "Oooh, wonderful article. We lurvv you Professor Eddie". And Krauss is not a lost cause, and neither is Coyne. But no doubt that won't get through your boney skull because you are so in love with your own cutting wit and logic that you cannot see that you are dealing with other p-e-o-p-l-e.</b><br /><br />See? Were you more or less likely to give the above the time of day, given its abusive tone?<br /><br />One of the best examples I've seen of what I'm talking about in action was a televised dispute between a British supporter of Palestinian rights, and an Israeli ambassador. I began listening fully in support of the Palestinian case, and with little sympathy for the Israeli one. The Brit began and was eloquent and had an armful of powerful arguments, but he spiced them with abuse and vitriol. Then it was the Israeli lady's turn. Within a sentence of her rebuttal, focusing on the facts only and gently steering around her opponents barbs, she had me on the edge of my seat. I realized I was in the (virtual -- it was TV) presence of a master of rhetoric and diplomacy. Nothing the angry Brit threw at her stuck, precisely because of her dignity. He threw an insult. She declined to retaliate in kind, relying only on her calm, consistent presentation of the facts and interconnection logic. In fact I was reminded of her when I listened to John Haldane against Christopher "Mr Angry Drunk" Hitchens. Both the Israeli lady (I wish I knew her name) and Haldane <b>*make their opponents listen to them*</b>.<br /><br />You could learn a thing or two from either of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21013621767145220602015-11-23T16:01:48.171-08:002015-11-23T16:01:48.171-08:00Anonymous,
I have to say that whenever I hear thi...Anonymous,<br /><br />I have to say that whenever I hear this "Gee whiz Ed, why be so mean, you will turn people off" stuff, I have to roll my eyes, for three reasons:<br /><br />First, <i>by far</i> most of what I write is <i>not</i> polemical. Of all the books I've written or edited, exactly one, The Last Superstition, is polemical. My academic articles are not polemical. Most blog posts here are not polemical. Anyone who's really worried about whether to give something I've written to some bed-wetting-hyper-sensitive-devoid-of-a-sense-of-humor atheist or Christian can easily find something inoffensive of mine to use. Don't want to give someone The Last Superstition? Fine, give them my book Aquinas instead. No polemics in that one. Something for everyone.<br /><br />Second, your objection seems to presuppose that polemics are never called for, are always merely a matter of indulging some base impulse, are always incompatible with charity, etc. And that is simply false. Certainly it begs the question, because I have, many times, given <i>arguments</i> for the legitimacy and even necessity of polemics in some (not all, but some) cases. Maybe you haven't seen those arguments, but until you have and have come up with some response to them, your comments here are not a good use of time (yours or others'). You can find therm here:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/can-philosophy-be-polemical.html<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/walters-on-tls.html<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/02/tone-deaf.html<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/briggs-on-tls-and-tone.html<br /><br />Third, and related to the first two points, if you are worried that posts like (say) my recent posts on Jerry Coyne are not likely to change the minds of their targets -- Coyne in this case -- then you are right, but you are also entirely missing the point. Of course people like Coyne, Krauss, Dawkins, et al. are not going to be convinced by polemical pieces. But they aren't going to be convinced by non-polemical pieces either. They aren't going to be convinced by <i>anything</i>, because they aren't rational, don't want a serious debate in the first place, etc. They are thugs and blowhards, who get whatever hearing they have entirely because of their eminence in other fields (biology and physics, in these cases) coupled with their supreme self-confidence. The point of abusing them as I do is not to convince <i>them</i>, but rather to show <i>other</i> people what fools they are. If you treat a buffoon like Coyne as anything other than a buffoon, then you dignify his ridiculous arguments and lend them a credibility they don't deserve. Nothing less than a polemical tone will effectively convey that point.<br /><br />But anyway, as I say, I've defended the use of polemics in the posts linked to, so take a look.<br />Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75360384180016964872015-11-23T13:28:37.031-08:002015-11-23T13:28:37.031-08:00@Mr. Green,
Bile is in the eye of the beholder an...@Mr. Green,<br /><br />Bile is in the eye of the beholder and I'm pretty sure that Ed's opponents would disagree with you.<br /><br />But 'nuff said on this by me, Mr. I-Want-You-On-That-Wall-I-Need-You-On-That-Wall.<br />Ed, bile or no bile, keep up the excellent work. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80223968370229345522015-11-23T13:12:36.871-08:002015-11-23T13:12:36.871-08:00Anonymous: because Ed contaminates his brilliance ...Anonymous: <i>because Ed contaminates his brilliance with bile.</i><br /><br />But Ed isn't remotely bilious. He is sometimes witty and sarcastic, but he'll attack something one said infrequently and only if it's really daft. Sure, some people who have a thin skin or no sense of humour or harbour anti-intellectual tendencies about positions they don't like will easily be put off by this... but those very people are the least likely to be genuinely interested in the arguments in the first place. And even if there are a few people who are intellectually honest but cannot get past a bit of mockery, there are at least as many people who are sympathetic to Ed's arguments but would be put off if he were to be undeservedly gentle, being led to suspect that his arguments were so weak that he dare not call an obvious spade a spade.<br /><br />In terms of the condimental metaphor, some people (despite the trend in packaged foods of ever-increasing salt and sugar) do not like dinner to taste like dessert. A good chef does not drown the dish in hot sauce, but nor does he turn every meal into candy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55933822210019625432015-11-23T11:45:07.186-08:002015-11-23T11:45:07.186-08:00@laubadetriste, you're pretty much summarizing... @laubadetriste, you're pretty much summarizing my view in your final statement about argument sometimes needing more than logic. An important consideration then is to understand what constitutes "cayenne" and how often should it be used.<br /><br />For a start I think 2 Tim 2:24-25 is apt:<br /><em>"...a servant of the Lord must not engage in quarrels, but must be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He must be gentle when he corrects people who oppose him, in the hope that God may give them a change of mind so that they recognise the truth..."</em><br /><br />I think that applies pretty much 100% to situations such as public debate with quarrelsome and unkind opponents, and is effectively stipulating an argumentation diet high in sugar and low in cayenne.<br /><br />That notwithstanding, where I'd agree there is scope for cayenne is in the context of a relationship in which one has first built the rapport and trust to allow such tough love to work. Raising children is one example. Coaching -- e.g. in sports, or even in business. In a pastoral context, among Christian brothers is another. But even there, cayenne, or tough love or whatever we call it, is *still* love. Patient, kind, holding no record of wrong, and so on.<br /><br />Of course, one of the problems in raising this kind of thing is precisely that I do not have, with Ed, the kind of rapport and trust that would allow me to say:<br /><br /><em>"Ed, you have a brilliant mind brother, and you are doing sterling work to help people understand the Truth. But sometimes you can be a bit of an arse-head."</em><br /><br />So I won't. :-)<br /><br />There is one other angle on this which I find useful to bear in mind. When participating in the kind of public debate Ed does, and with the kind of opponents involved, it can require a formidable level of self-control to stay positive when those opponents quite frankly walk right into some things. Developing such self-control can constitute an important form of spiritual practice.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22907925752471308592015-11-21T17:47:59.409-08:002015-11-21T17:47:59.409-08:00@Anonymous 8:32 PM: "Clearly his manner actua...@Anonymous 8:32 PM: "Clearly his manner actually has nothing to do with the force of his arguments. But it appears to, in just the same way that Hitchens' bravado fools some people into thinking his 'arguments' were sound."<br /><br />Ah, I think I see. Since you mentioned *soundness,* perhaps I may seem to have said that Dr. Feser's manner adds to the *logical* force of his arguments. Of course you are right to say it does not. But that is not what I meant.<br /><br />I am earnestly curious about your opinion on this point, as it seems so singular. Perhaps you regard my opinion with a like puzzledness. :)<br /><br />"...by excessive sarcasm, snide comments directed towards an opponent..."<br /><br />Of course whether the sarcasm is *excessive* is precisely what I would question. So too whether Dr. Feser's manner becomes *snide.* (I would deny that it does, at least since TLS.) But set those particular cases aside for the moment. For my curiosity, let me depart the subjects of religion and philosophy and ask, if you consider some of the great broadsides of the past--*J'Accuse* or *Common Sense* or *A Modest Proposal* or *Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses*, as you will--does it seem to you similarly that their manner weakens their arguments?<br /><br />It has been my experience that we all have a sort of inertia of opinion that is not always strictly logical, and that a good argument sometimes needs an extra something to be swallowed. Sometimes that is sugar. Sometimes it is cayenne pepper.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85618514088196402792015-11-21T02:05:32.215-08:002015-11-21T02:05:32.215-08:00Anonymous,
Fewer people than otherwise would hear...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>Fewer people than otherwise would hear the valuable things he is saying, or return to Catholicism or recover from atheism and the like, and more people than otherwise would are driven from unnecessarily-shaky theistic positions into the open arms of the New Atheists, all because Ed contaminates his brilliance with bile....<br /><br />All that said, he's still doing a lot more good in this area than I am, so I'll shut up now.</i><br /><br />Does that mean that he's driving fewer people into the warm, fuzzy and pacific embrace of the New Atheists than you are?<br /><br />;)Glennnoreply@blogger.com