tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8050526055169764881..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Word to the WiseEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31354634428851700372020-02-07T20:59:11.918-08:002020-02-07T20:59:11.918-08:00I read Dr. Feser’s book and was thoroughly puzzled...I read Dr. Feser’s book and was thoroughly puzzled and offended by Mr. Wise’s review in the Claremont Review of Books. I was interested in who this Wise was as his review was so completely off the mark and even illogical at points. From his employer’s website:<br /><br />“Mr. Wise is expert in junior capital and special situations financing structures. Mr. Wise also has extensive experience in Chapter 11 cases, and has been involved in numerous work-outs, rights offerings, recapitalizations, restructurings, and post-petition and exit financings, and distressed debt purchases and sales.“<br /><br />Perhaps that’s why his review seems particularly bankrupt when dealing with the content of Dr. Feser’s book.Peter Frommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12472073706053508197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69198985822793045172019-12-16T21:41:20.614-08:002019-12-16T21:41:20.614-08:00Straussians like Wise and Ellmers read Aristotle a...Straussians like Wise and Ellmers read Aristotle about as badly as they read Feser. The idea that the problem with them is that they're obsessively fixated on exegesis rather than philosophical substance is only half right at best; they're not really competent in either. That's not to say that Feser's 'Aristotelianism' is a finely accurate representation of Aristotle's texts after all. Rather, it's to say that Straussians are the last people we should ask for that accurate representation. djrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752946730851928276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18002045253622136962019-12-16T11:52:40.350-08:002019-12-16T11:52:40.350-08:00Honestly, who cares about labels. I happen to thin...Honestly, who cares about labels. I happen to think Ed's philosophy of nature is indeed broadly Aristotelian (or at least neo-Aristotelian) and therefore merits the title. But what's more important is whether the stuff he writes is TRUE.<br /><br />Who cares whether X said Y? We're not doing history, but philosophy. What matters is whether Y is true.<br /><br />If I were to be convinced that Aquinas contradicted Aristotle too much etc., I wouldn't care. I just care whether the metaphysics is correct; if the arguments are sound. <br /><br />Obsessive exegetical analysis is the bane of true reason. Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40044780602078604012019-12-16T08:35:22.091-08:002019-12-16T08:35:22.091-08:00Bertrand Russell was one of those people who tried...Bertrand Russell was one of those people who tried to describe Aristotle as an enemy of scientific progress; Russell wrote: <br />Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.<br /><br />But calling Aristotle an obstacle to science would be like calling Steve Jobs an obstacle to the development of the personal computer. Aristotle started empirical science. He invented the whole idea of observing nature and classifying things into natural categories. <br />Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26744160773331590442019-12-15T22:01:25.653-08:002019-12-15T22:01:25.653-08:00@Avraham
I work in STEM, in academia in fact, and...@Avraham<br /><br />I work in STEM, in academia in fact, and this made me smile.<br /><br />In STEM you have careful reviewers, but not all, of most, are careful. Many works published even in reputable journals are the kind of article you read and think "how did this get published".<br /><br />In addition STEM is riddled with cognitive biases as well. <br /><br />It's a big problem.FMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26448331709706704832019-12-15T11:54:36.732-08:002019-12-15T11:54:36.732-08:00I don't know what Ed what would say, but Jaffa...I don't know what Ed what would say, but Jaffa, while good for his day, is hopelessly outdated by this point. To take just two examples, Jaffa attributes Aquinas's differences from Aristotle on magnanimity to Christian theology because he does not realize (what is universally recognized now) that Aquinas is actually following Cicero; and Jaffa's argument against what he calls the 'principle of the ultimate' makes use of assumptions that were common in the middle of the twentieth century but not in the ancient period (e.g., the assumption that things can't participate in definitions to different degrees, or that virtue presupposes obligation).<br /><br />One of the things that has always really brought home to me the difference between Jaffa and Aquinas in their interpretive philosophy is that in certain cases in which Aristotle indicates uncertainty, Jaffa always assumes that Aristotle only means 'perhaps' when he explicitly says 'perhaps', while Aquinas (explicitly) takes Aristotle to be using adverbia dubitandit to indicate that he is uncertain and tentative about the broader topic. The result is that Jaffa thinks that to understand what Aristotle was saying in these cases, you only have to look at the text; Aquinas thinks that you also have to look at what Aristotle was trying to explain in order to see why he was uncertain about them.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73235571828623342552019-12-14T15:45:47.661-08:002019-12-14T15:45:47.661-08:00the goal is to separate the most renown ancient ph...<i> the goal is to separate the most renown ancient philosopher from the patrimony the Church.</i><br /><br />Well, whatever the motive, the question is whether Jaffa's argument is sound. I personally agree that Straussians in fact are overcommitted to Leo Strauss's believe that reason and revelation are inherently incompatible. But that is itself a point to be argued. <br /><br />(And yes, I too object to their constant claim that religious assumptions are unexamined, per se. That is a very modern fideist believe, not shared even by most early Protestants.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55774006051654062932019-12-14T11:15:15.457-08:002019-12-14T11:15:15.457-08:00Jaffa's book Thomism and Aristotelianism is th...Jaffa's book Thomism and Aristotelianism is the genesis of all this talk about the Scholatics like Ed mucking up Aristotle's philosophy by adding in unexamined religious assumptions. Jaffa purports to show that any difficulties a reason-alone reader has with Thomas' extension and synthesis of Aristotle's philosophy has to do with Thomas adding in ideas like particular providence, synderesis etc.<br /><br />Jaffa's argument is partially convicing and partially unconvicing, and he is said to have backtracked the intensity of his criticisms in older age. However, the Straussians still wish to wage war on the fact that the most cogent synthesis made of Aristotle's philosophy was done by arch-Catholics. There are a myriad ways this warfare is carried out (claimimg Thomas is esoteric and not a Catholic, etc.) but the goal is to separate the most renown ancient philosopher from the patrimony the Church. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13415526661976471302019-12-13T17:13:26.267-08:002019-12-13T17:13:26.267-08:00In STEM fields, they've convinced themselves t...In STEM fields, they've convinced themselves that their opinions and philosophical conclusions are actually as certain as mathematics--which makes them worse. T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61420696785271013672019-12-13T17:11:08.822-08:002019-12-13T17:11:08.822-08:00It's worse in STEM.It's worse in STEM.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39506527716776762882019-12-13T15:14:07.013-08:002019-12-13T15:14:07.013-08:00I asked this on the previous thread. Has Ed ever ...I asked this on the previous thread. Has Ed ever discussed Jaffa's book on Aquinas and Aristotle? I expect there'd be more meat in that, than in what his (Jaffa's) disciples have to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9312723440532301312019-12-13T07:45:46.665-08:002019-12-13T07:45:46.665-08:00Well, I suppose you could have titled your book To...Well, I suppose you could have titled your book <i>Topics in philosophy of nature and philosophy of science such as embodied cognition, epistemic structural realism, causal powers and laws of nature, the A- and B-theories of time, presentism, reductionism in chemistry and biology, essentialism... and more!</i>.<br /><br />I'm sure that would have cleared up all the confusion and certainly would have grabbed more people's attention than a pithy and witty title like <i>Aristotle's Revenge</i>.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06302131576186856435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33600636579701913102019-12-13T06:46:14.745-08:002019-12-13T06:46:14.745-08:00In STEM areas I think that people are more careful...In STEM areas I think that people are more careful in their critiques of ideas.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31794198758824128472019-12-13T04:06:18.618-08:002019-12-13T04:06:18.618-08:00Even the academics today don't feel any need t...Even the academics today don't feel any need to be academic in their criticism of ideas. They labor only to associate their opponent with "religion" and feel they have made the case. It's an appeal to authority of sorts--the authority (real or assumed) of the crowd. Conversely, spend several pages asserting that one's own views are "scientific", and they will be accepted as iron-clad truth without further examination. <br /><br />In a sense, given the above, you really can't blame Wise. He is, after all, merely following his training.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43915285940442104142019-12-13T03:08:39.749-08:002019-12-13T03:08:39.749-08:00What is it with this weird obsession with text exe...What is it with this weird obsession with text exegesis? Just because one is an Aristotelian one isn't forced to ascribe inerrancy to AristotleDominik Kowalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14634739012344612398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86231096078322585022019-12-13T01:31:30.272-08:002019-12-13T01:31:30.272-08:00Please don't tell me he also believes the sun ...Please don't tell me he also believes the sun is intelligent and proud because it's a <i>"bright and glowing star"</i>. JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53444027783955014082019-12-12T23:06:31.636-08:002019-12-12T23:06:31.636-08:00Sometimes it's just plain humiliating to refle...Sometimes it's just plain humiliating to reflect that we may be judged by the quality of our enemies.<br /><br />Wise is an imbecile.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66801002362767938362019-12-12T19:08:17.924-08:002019-12-12T19:08:17.924-08:00Tisk tisk Ed... really? Including the Google link?...Tisk tisk Ed... really? Including the Google link? You should *teach* a man to fish, not just give him a free meal: <br />http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=philosophy+of+natureSeeGeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033166940796515453noreply@blogger.com