tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7457067422959314440..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Whose pantheism? Which dualism? A Reply to David Bentley HartEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2608383699581284242022-10-24T19:49:19.354-07:002022-10-24T19:49:19.354-07:00Maybe "Christianity" is just following J...Maybe "Christianity" is just following Jesus in the best possible way to be human, and that looks different for different people....https://www.blogger.com/profile/05705988908602669771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19003472487323519052022-06-16T02:40:13.551-07:002022-06-16T02:40:13.551-07:00Adam is unique because he was made in the image of...Adam is unique because he was made in the image of God. Feser functionally denies this through his laptop example - it renders our imaging of the divine as some superaddition that would convert us into a different substance, as opposed to being our nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67938011761271361292022-06-12T12:15:30.497-07:002022-06-12T12:15:30.497-07:00Dianelos wrote, "When we follow Christ's...Dianelos wrote, <i> "When we follow Christ's way because of the fear of punishment or the desire for reward, then we are not moved by love for God and neighbour, but by love for ourselves. "</i><br /><br />Love, in the Christian sense, is desiring the good. It is written, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." So love of oneself and love of neighbour are compatible with one another, not mutually exclusive as you suggest. <br />Love of God is paramount, for He alone is Good.<br /><br />By contrast, egoism is to desire what seems good for oneself, to the exclusion of others.<br /><br />Desire for reward and fear of punishment, in the biblical context, is none other than desire for good and fear of evil. It does not exclude others from the good, but desires the good for all, as in justice for all. It is consistent with Love. This is why Jesus often speaks of reward and punishment in the Gospels. He also endured the cross for the reward set before Him, as it is written in Hebrews.<br /><br />Dianelos wrote, <i>"I would argue that my choice is the less risky one because it depends on many interlocking streams and thus protects me from deception that may be present in any one of them."</i><br /><br />What protects you from self-deception?Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86357899913790239112022-06-07T23:14:58.257-07:002022-06-07T23:14:58.257-07:00[continues from above]
"We have a choice to ...[continues from above]<br /><br />"We have a choice to obey or disobey authority, and we're responsible for recognizing and obeying legitimate authority, but we're not the authority."<br /><br />OK. So we agree it is us who are responsible for recognising the legitimate authority. Which means that, whether we like it or not, it is us who must make that fundamental choice. Now I understand the choice to consider the CC the legitimate authority; after all it is a thousands of years old institution that goes back to Christ Himself, and it is full of saints and doctors - so it is worthy of one's trust. But please understand that there are other reasonable choices too, so in my case: I will not give my ultimate trust to any institution (in my case the EOC) but only to the presence of Christ wherever I find Him: in my church, in prayer, in the gospels and in particular in Christ's commandments, in the image in whom I am made, in the fruits, in my experience of the good in my life, in the wisdom of religious traditions (in plural), in the sheer beauty of life. It's not like God is a miser - he reveals himself to us in a myriad ways. I would argue that my choice is the less risky one because it depends on many interlocking streams and thus protects me from deception that may be present in any one of them. But that's my choice and perhaps I am wrong. And even if I am not wrong, perhaps my choice would not be the best choice for others.<br /><br />- DianelosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4841356606578760822022-06-07T23:13:19.330-07:002022-06-07T23:13:19.330-07:00Nemo, you write:
"You are assuming fear of p...Nemo, you write:<br /><br />"You are assuming fear of punishment and desire for reward are incompatible with the way of Christ. What is the basis for that assumption?"<br /><br />The way of Christ - His call to repentance/metanoia/"change of mind" - is about our transformation into His likeness. "Be as I am" is perhaps the most concise way to describe Christ's teaching. So He said: Love as I have loved, and even, Be as perfect as your heavenly Father. God's Kingdom is not a place but a state of the soul; by becoming similar to Christ we move in spirit close to where He is. The CC speaks of filling our soul with charity, which is to say the same: To fill one's soul with charity is to become similar to Christ; to become similar to Christ is to fill one's soul with charity. <br /><br />Now here is the incompatibility of fearing punishment or desiring reward: When we follow Christ's way because of the fear of punishment or the desire for reward, then we are not moved by love for God and neighbour, but by love for ourselves. And love for oneself is egoism, which is in fact the opposite of our natural end of becoming similar to Christ. Not to mention that we don't read in the gospels Christ praying in the garden "Father I will do your will because I desire your great reward for me". <br /><br />Having said that, I think I understand the problem: <br /><br />First, we know that there is reward and punishment, and it is natural to desire to have the former and to desire to avoid the latter. This fact makes it easier for us to follow Christ, in the sense of the joy of knowing that all will be well. Still, following Christ *motivated* by the expectation of profit is self-defeating. In a sense only sacrificial love is true. <br /><br />Secondly, there are parts in the gospels where Christ speaks of profit, such as when He says "What profits you if you only love those who love you, don't the sinners do the same?" Or when He says "Make your treasure in heaven where it cannot rot or be stolen". Again, Christ here describes the truth about the salvific nature of creation; there is indeed profit in following Him. But we should not follow Him because of our desire for profit. Consider the concept of "charity" and how incoherent it is to say "fill your soul your charity because this is profitable for you"; charity for profit is not charity.<br /><br />Thirdly, there is the all-important practical matter of everyday life (for study and learning without change in our life is for naught). So in our fallen condition it is unnatural to not be moved by what we think profits us. Here I'd like to repeat the advice I've read in C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity": If you find it difficult to love your neighbour, do as if you loved them (pretend!) - and by doing so true love for them will grow in you. In other words: Egoism is part (perhaps the central part) of our fallen condition, so don't wait for egoism to go away; rather do what Christ asks and then egoism will start going away. <br />[continues]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32550514115518294222022-05-10T14:00:54.215-07:002022-05-10T14:00:54.215-07:00Anonymous/Dianelos wrote, "I remember we have...Anonymous/Dianelos wrote, <i>"I remember we have conversed several years ago."</i><br /><br />Yes, two years ago we had <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/07/review-of-hart.html" rel="nofollow">a discussion about universalism</a>. It wasn't particularly productive, and I'm not optimistic that it will be different this time around, but I'll respond to your comment above, for the sake of courtesy.<br /><br />Dianelos wrote, <i>" if we find ourselves obeying His commandments not because of fear of punishment or desire for reward but because of our love for Him– then surely we are following the way of Christ. </i><br /><br />You are assuming fear of punishment and desire for reward are incompatible with the way of Christ. What is the basis for that assumption?<br /><br />You wrote, <i>"As for considering myself being the authority, I don’t even know what this means"</i><br /><br />Fair enough. People who read this might have the same question. I'll explain as follows:<br /><br />When someone or something is an authority, others will check their own opinions against views expressed by said authority, and if their opinions agree wth the authority, their opinions are validated, otherwise, they are invalidated.<br /><br />If someone seldom or never checks his own opinions against an authority, but constantly asserts his own views are correct, it shows that he accepts no authority other than himself.<br /><br />You wrote, <i>"Actually the talk about “authority” sounds to me like trying to hide from ourselves the fact that it is ultimately we who make a choice.</i><br /><br />There is a difference between choice, responsibility and authority. We have a choice to obey or disobey authority, and we're responsible for recognizing and obeying legitimate authority, but we're not the authority.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88763870888038268992022-05-09T09:50:13.272-07:002022-05-09T09:50:13.272-07:00Nemo and Tony, sorry for being late but for some r...Nemo and Tony, sorry for being late but for some reason I can't anymore sign with my name, and couldn't know that you had commented. I am Dianelos, and I remember we have conversed several years ago. <br /><br />You are right of course that what seems to be the experience of God might come from deception. On the other hand without the actual experience of God all theology becomes epistemically ungrounded. So the experience of God is fundamental. <br /><br />I happen to distinguish between the experience of God (which is caused by God) and our sense of the divine which I take is a faculty we have and by which we have a sense of perfection, and indeed of good and evil. Our sense of the divine, I take it, is entailed in our being made in the image of God. (As is our capacity to experience God of course.) It is by our sense of the divine that we realise that when we listen to Christ’s voice in the gospels we are listening to the voice of God. <br /><br />Now our good Lord made us so that we can’t have certainty. But, I say, all the interlocking guides I described can give us plenty of warrant for believing in God. Especially the fruits are a very reliable guide. If one finds oneself loving one’s neighbours with the universality and unselfishness that Christ embodied in His earthly life, if we find ourselves obeying His commandments not because of fear of punishment or desire for reward but because of our love for Him – then surely we are following the way of Christ. And any belief that inspires us to follow Christ cannot come from deception. <br /><br />As for considering myself being the authority, I don’t even know what this means. The process by which we come to embrace any belief is a process in which we partake. For example to embrace the belief that scripture is authoritative is something one does (as is to accept as authoritative one’s church’s interpretation of scripture, etc). We are made in such a way that we cannot absolve ourselves from spiritual responsibility. And whether one describes this fact as considering oneself the authority or not, is only semantics. Actually the talk about “authority” sounds to me like trying to hide from ourselves the fact that it is ultimately we who make a choice. Ultimately, God – whether as a living personal presence or as the source of all that is good and true and beautiful – reveals himself in our lives in a myriad ways, and desires and prods us to *choose* him. God comes to us so that we may go to him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51112094527735381102022-05-04T20:45:10.614-07:002022-05-04T20:45:10.614-07:00Which at minimum means he should be more clear.Which at minimum means he should be more clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46159832287263549822022-05-04T14:21:17.116-07:002022-05-04T14:21:17.116-07:00Dbh has a problem with people not understanding hi...Dbh has a problem with people not understanding his positions, attributing to him something irrelevant that they can understand, and then attacking those positions with all the righteous fury they can muster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37321931723946339192022-05-02T15:23:04.663-07:002022-05-02T15:23:04.663-07:00@ gurugeorge,
You are called to be an image of in...@ gurugeorge,<br /><br />You are called to be an image of infinite love and infinite truth. How you answer that call to perfect your own nature is your own free choice, a spark with which you have been graced through the mystical infinite power of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />May you be God blessed in your search.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80730182289823767502022-05-02T04:25:48.840-07:002022-05-02T04:25:48.840-07:00Yes, as I understand it, it's the purported re...Yes, as I understand it, it's the purported revelation and singular historical avatarhood of Jesus that makes Christianity distinct - both of which "fill in" more detail than can be achieved by intellectual apprehension.<br /><br />I "hae ma doots" about that ofc, but you pays your money and you takes your choice :) <br /><br />I used to be a barefoot atheist many years ago - snickered along with the best of them - but I'm much more friendly to Christianity these days. The more you know the real history of the past couple of thousand years, the more you understand that a lot of what you believed as a rationalist was bunk :)gurugeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06597737189350957927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6549690282720912442022-05-01T20:25:39.018-07:002022-05-01T20:25:39.018-07:00You are welcome!
Aways good to see that on these ...You are welcome!<br /><br />Aways good to see that on these diferent systems there are some agreements here and there, for we gain knowledge of both and of the theme. Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73214962211442001032022-04-30T11:41:00.096-07:002022-04-30T11:41:00.096-07:00Reed,
Let's look at Feser's remark in its...Reed,<br /><br />Let's look at Feser's remark in its own context:<br /><br /><i>"As you know, I admire your own books Atheist Delusions and The Experience of God, and I know that they have meant a lot to some of my own readers. It is where we get into matters of more specific Christian concern that we, and our readers, begin to diverge. That is regrettable, but there it is."</i><br /><br />I think Feser made it clear he enjoyed Hart's earlier books <i>not</i>for the specifically "Christian" content in them, but in spite of them - for the defence of theism against atheism. Moreover, one can enjoy a book even if s/he disagree strongly with some or all of its views, as Feser enjoyed Hart's response to his review of <i>You are Gods</i>. <br /><br />You wrote, <i>"But he dislikes these other books precisely for the content that he didn’t seem much bothered by in Hart’s earlier works"</i><br /><br />Yes, Hart's recent works bothered Feser--even drove him to exhibit symptoms of Tourette Syndrome, but it doesn't follow that he agrees with everything Hart wrote in his earlier works. <br /><br />Even if two books express the same views, it is not uncommon for some readers to like the one and dislike the other. For example, one book may be filled with logical fallacies, and the other not; one book may be attacking a specific group of readers directly, and the other not.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73921331121379340092022-04-30T11:39:16.822-07:002022-04-30T11:39:16.822-07:00@ gurugeorge,
God's comprehension is unlimite...@ gurugeorge,<br /><br />God's comprehension is unlimited. Any way you can think of that it might be limited is therefore wrong. But our human comprehension is limited. It is like being unable to see the individual needles on a pine tree when it is too distant.<br /><br />A famous Catholic mystic who is consistent with Aquinas is Saint Teresa of Avila, founder of the Discalced Carmelites (c. 1562) and Doctor of the Church. She wrote several books, which you would probably find quite interesting, as she goes into her mystical experiences quite extensively. I recommend "The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila by Herself" as I have read it and it is available translated into many languages.<br /><br />I would think that Eastern mysticism would be in some ways similar to Christian mysticism, but it couldn't be identical because Jesus makes Christianity unique.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89002670681809689952022-04-30T08:33:39.965-07:002022-04-30T08:33:39.965-07:00So "comprehension" here means not just a...So "comprehension" here means not just a thorough intellectual apprehension, but also a felt understanding of "what it's like to be" every aspect of the creation.<br /><br />That makes sense - so then couldn't the mystic say that's exactly what's being accessed in mystical experience? i.e. God's comprehension of what it's like to be you?<br /><br />(Which would make sense from the way Eastern systems talk about it too: it's not that you're causing a change of state, rather it's that you're clearing away the clouds so you can see the sky - IOW, God being you - the "what it's like to be" part of you - is what's always there, but the ordinary sense of self is what's beclouding that indwelling presence, so to speak.)gurugeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06597737189350957927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8915730395040927302022-04-30T08:25:13.260-07:002022-04-30T08:25:13.260-07:00Excellent, thoughtful response, thank you Talmid!Excellent, thoughtful response, thank you Talmid!gurugeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06597737189350957927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60231010394369127642022-04-29T21:53:18.432-07:002022-04-29T21:53:18.432-07:00@gurugeorge
Somehow i missed your answer. That ha...@gurugeorge<br /><br />Somehow i missed your answer. That happens, i guess!<br /><br />"Re. the first point, wouldn't that be begging the question from the (for want of a better term) mystical point of view?"<br /><br />Not really, for St. Thomas and the mystics are not in disagreement here. Aquinas is threating of:<br /><br />1. How the human mind normally knows things.<br /><br />2. How the implications of 1. Affect our ways of knowing God by way of reason. <br /><br />It is not that St. Thomas is saying that mysticism is bs, he was one himself, but he is discussing philosophy and so the normal frame of mind that philosophy and any other science(on the medieval meaning) has to use to get knowledge. We can know the immaterial by philosophy, but it is a quite indirect knowledge, it is only knowledge of what He is not.<br /><br />Seeing how the mystics, at least the ones i know, defend that direct knowledge of God can only come on a diferent frame of mind and that this knowledge can't be easily, if it even can, be passed to the normal frame of mind, it seems that there is agreement here.<br /><br />As a disciple of Pseudo-Dionysius, Aquinas would agrer that the mystic way is better. After what he saw them...<br /><br />But when limiting himself to the way of reason, as he does in his writings, he is just not talking about that.<br /><br />". the second point. Generally I think the idea with mysticism is not that you are God (like an inflation of the ordinary you), but rather that God is (also) you (something like "kenosis"). Obviously the Big Kahuna is way beyond the comprehension of the any finite mind, but if there's some part or aspect of God that indwells, that's a "chip off the old block," so to speak, then it makes sense that it should be possible to know that aspect or part."<br /><br />That is... actually closer to St. Thomas that you realize. Since God is Being-Itself, completely pure <br />, self-suficient and unlimited, He is not part of any category. To be of a category is to be "this", to be limited to certain characteristics, to be imperfect. Since our intellects know a thing by knowing what it is(its form or nature), them there is pretty much nothing to know, no form of God, so the intellect is just worthless here.<br /><br />But by this radical separation there is a big dependence. Creation is keeped in being by God and it is a sort of imitation of Him. For instance, every thing has a certain degree of power,it affect other things. By this everything is participating on God omnipotence, kinda pointing towards His power.<br /><br />This is St. Thomas doctrine of analogy: every thing is sorta of a bad copy of God, so by knowing things we can know that God is in a way like they,even if we don't know exactly how He is. So, He truly has a bit of He in everything and this is how we understand Him.<br /><br />This only talking about the way of reason, of course.Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6558221564803826152022-04-29T20:44:23.538-07:002022-04-29T20:44:23.538-07:00“To me, Feser is saying Hart continues to move awa...“To me, Feser is saying Hart continues to move away from historical Christianity, without implying that he started with it. Hart could be miles apart from the historical position to begin with, but his recent works have made it progressively clear, like a comet moving away from the Earth.”<br /><br />But that’s ignoring Feser’s other quote I originally paired with that one: “As you know, I admire your own books Atheist Delusions and The Experience of God.”<br /><br />The context of what I’m speaking towards is this: by his own admission, Feser enjoyed Atheist Delusions and The Experience of God.<br /><br />And by his own admission, he did not enjoy That All Shall Be Saved nor You Are Gods.<br /><br />What I’m pointing out is that Atheist Delusions had a few pages in it discarding eternal torment and speaking on the topic of universalism, and the Experience of God had much to say about Vedanta. Feser enjoyed both books.<br /><br />But he dislikes these other books precisely for the content that he didn’t seem much bothered by in Hart’s earlier works. The implication here is, again, that Feser enjoyed the earlier books precisely because he viewed Hart’s writings there as nearer to the tradition than he does now; which is nonsensical, because Hart’s views haven’t changed.<br /><br />I find that odd and that’s what I’m pointing out. Reednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75113101882568114112022-04-29T16:35:54.077-07:002022-04-29T16:35:54.077-07:00Reed,
Thanks for the quotes. My interpretation i...Reed, <br /><br />Thanks for the quotes. My interpretation is different from yours:<br /><i>"this line by Feser, “This latest book [You Are Gods] continues the trajectory away from historical Christianity evident in Hart’s RECENT work,”</i><br /><br />To me, Feser is saying Hart continues to move away from historical Christianity, without implying that he started with it. Hart could be miles apart from the historical position to begin with, but his recent works have made it progressively clear, like a comet moving away from the Earth.<br /><br />As for MyClymond's comment about Hart "no longer countering unbelief", I take it to mean that he is disappointed Hart no longer attacks the common enemy of theists, i.e., the New Atheists, but is now turning his formidable weapons against fellow theists. <br /><br />To use myself as an example, I've been defending the traditional teaching alongside Roman Catholics at this blog. But I'm not one, and if I begin to attack Catholicism at some point, I suspect people who follow my comments would say the same thing about me.<br /><br />Anyway, my point is that the same comments/books can be interpreted differently. It people disagree, it is better not to presume we're right, but test our views in the furnace of cross-examination.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27151829013951262522022-04-29T15:38:51.038-07:002022-04-29T15:38:51.038-07:00@ gurugeorge,
We can understand why we _can't...@ gurugeorge,<br /><br />We can understand why we _can't_ know what it is like to be a bat, so how could we expect to be able to know what it's like to be something infinitely greater, ie, God?<br /><br />Let me put it a little differently:<br /><br />By "comprehension" in the God side of the analogy that you asked for, I mean "perfectly complete understanding - nothing lacking - no limits". In this sense, God comprehends bats. If our comprehension were the same rather than just analagous, we would comprehend bats perfectly, and it would follow that we would have perfectly complete understanding of bats, with nothing lacking from that understanding. This perfect understanding would include a bat's experience of its sensations.<br /><br />But on our side of the analogy, "comprehension" is finite, limited, and imperfect in nature. These imperfections mean that knowing or comprehending a bat's sensations as experienced by the bat is not possible for us - as you pointed out.<br /><br />Therefore "comprehension" actually is the thing that is analogous.<br /><br />We lack God's kind of comprehension.<br /><br />It follows that we cannot know His essence. Indeed, God's essence is infinitely greater than the essence of any of His creatures, so it should be obvious that since we cannot even know the essence of a bat we certainly cannot know the essence of God.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33774681580094909222022-04-29T10:53:53.086-07:002022-04-29T10:53:53.086-07:00Nemo,
Do you interpret this line by Feser, “This ...Nemo,<br /><br />Do you interpret this line by Feser, “This latest book [You Are Gods] continues the trajectory away from historical Christianity evident in Hart’s RECENT work,” (emphasis added) as meaning something other than staking a claim that Hart was a part of historical Christianity in the past but recently has departed, or at the very least, is in the process of departing?<br /><br />I don’t know if any formal critic has literally stated that Hart has “abandoned orthodoxy,” but I think that intent is fairly clear in so many words.<br /><br />For example, McClymond has stated:<br /><br />“The language of rude dismissal was something of a guilty pleasure when he deployed it against the ‘New Atheists’ more than a decade ago. Now he is denouncing Dante and everyone else who sustains the age-old tradition of the Church…Oddly, Hart now sounds very much like Richard Dawkins. No less than the aging atheist, Hart finds the two-thousand-year Christian tradition not just unbelievable but repugnant and inhuman…The Apostle Paul wrote that we know in part and see through a glass darkly. Hart labors under no such limitations: He fully knows the eschaton, transparently perceives it, and declares with assurance what will certainly happen. Hart thus affirms a total luminosity of human eschatological understanding, banishing all shadows of doubt regarding God’s future ways and works. This trait marks Hart not as Catholic or Orthodox but as an Enlightenment thinker.”<br /><br />McClymond again from a different review: “Adding to the disappointment for me, and I’m sure for many other readers, is that Hart is no longer countering unbelief—as in Atheist Delusions (2010)—but is now in all-out war with fellow Christians believers who hold to traditional views on heaven and hell…In its unbounded rage against historic Christian teaching, Hart’s book reads mostly like a ‘new atheist’ book by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. As for the atheist authors, so too for Hart, the ‘God’ preached and taught by the church through the centuries is ‘inventively sadistic’ (23), ‘theatrically grotesque’ (23), a ‘heartlessly capricious gamester’ (45–46), and so a ‘monstrous deity’ (167).”<br /><br />Since, again, Atheist Delusions itself rejects eternal torment, these sorts of statements seem to me to only indicate that the critics didn’t actually even read Hart’s earlier works. Reednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21214223831606435132022-04-29T10:35:56.527-07:002022-04-29T10:35:56.527-07:00Yes that sounds about right for the Thomist answer...Yes that sounds about right for the Thomist answer (so far as I understand it). <br /><br />Re. the first point, wouldn't that be begging the question from the (for want of a better term) mystical point of view? It seems premature to say we don't have access to the immaterial, since we have a bunch of testimony (specifically, from mystics) that says we do. The question is, are they wrong or right? Well, if one wants to know, it probably behooves one to try out their recommendations - only at that point would one have the ability to compare and contrast (normal frame of mind, state of being, etc., with the mystical) and decide whether the latter is bs or not.<br /><br />Re. the second point. Generally I think the idea with mysticism is not that you are God (like an inflation of the ordinary you), but rather that God is (also) you (something like "kenosis"). Obviously the Big Kahuna is way beyond the comprehension of the any finite mind, but if there's some part or aspect of God that indwells, that's a "chip off the old block," so to speak, then it makes sense that it should be possible to know that aspect or part.gurugeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06597737189350957927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68340129664012302332022-04-29T10:21:17.474-07:002022-04-29T10:21:17.474-07:00In the analogy, we didn't make bats but we can...In the analogy, we didn't make bats but we can still comprehend why we wouldn't be able to know what it's like to be a bat.gurugeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06597737189350957927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12443492794872257202022-04-29T08:31:42.577-07:002022-04-29T08:31:42.577-07:00Reed,
Could you post the link or quote the passa...Reed, <br /><br />Could you post the link or quote the passage where Dr. Feser, Michael McClymond or other published critics of Hart claim that he "used to be orthodox"?Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76653867324402628562022-04-28T23:22:31.154-07:002022-04-28T23:22:31.154-07:00"Best to let a troll fester alone. Your react...<i>"Best to let a troll fester alone. Your reaction is his food."</i><br /><br />As a general rule, that is a good one. However in the case of Linton an occasional challenge to him to either put up, or stand exposed as ignorant and shallow, is, in my estimation, worthwhile. <br /><br />Now, I admit that Linton's indignant jibes are largely directed at sensitive and religiously devout types, rather than at Feser's moderate realist and analytical philosophy aligned cohort. But, realists, religious or not - and perhaps most especially the " not" or the " not very" and the libertarian LEANING - have cause to now and again challenge the organisms of the left to.prove up on their claim structures, or to stand exposed as stinking intellectual frauds. <br /><br />I think Feser allows Linton to jabber and hector away here, because Linton's doing so is a reminder of what is potentially at stake for everyone, not just for the pious, if the ridiculous and ignorantly preening Karens of the world ever achieved complete dominance. <br /><br />Linton is an example of that philosophical incompetent who, masquerading as ethically superior, cannot even grasp the redounding, acidic, self-deconstructing implications of his own basic assumptions as revealed in those "progressive" judgments he pronounces.<br /><br />And sensitive Christians especially, seem unwilling to throw those acids of his back in his face.<br /><br />But I think that confronting him now and then with the fact that he is - among other things - comically posturing on behalf of a category , i.e., " humanity," that on his own assumptions has no universal identifying essence or telos, and probably has also - if he is like others striking the the same poses - no special or unified ontical status either, is worth the trouble of a few lines.<br /><br />As far as I am concerned then, he can mock religion, the Christian religion most especially, all he likes. <br /><br />If that activity eventually conduces him to Hell, he is welcome to go there as far as I am concerned. Which, I should hssten to mention, is a prospect for him which most Christians - believing him to be a meaningfully like-kind and a soul worth saving would find horrifying.<br /><br />But I wish him to instead understand that on his own foundational assumptions, his experiencing such a fate is not anything anyone who is not him, should concern themselves with in the least.<br /><br />If he finds that at all puzzling or objectionable, it might be the first step on his road to a greater understanding of the critical importance of the "problem of universals" for the claims he, like so many other leftist, appetite expressing things, is repeatedly staking.<br /><br />. DNWnoreply@blogger.com