tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8420048589470173671..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Reading Rosenberg, Part IXEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66452334936512966922015-11-15T23:28:13.713-08:002015-11-15T23:28:13.713-08:00Atheism has a 17% retention rate because the cost ...Atheism has a 17% retention rate because the cost is so high. People reach a point of frustration with life, their failures or sins, ....many reasons......and give up and spout out there is no God. But as soon as any healthy mind confronts the lunacy of what you must accept if you're atheism is to be honest, most people see that not only is it utterly incoherent but its the domain of crazy people.<br /><br />Its like drug addicts that Refuse to confront the truth or a parent who refuses to honestly confront the evidence that their child committed a murder. That a conversation is even taking place questioning whether we have Free Will when we could not possibly reason without it is so mind blowing that how the world doesn't just laugh these weirdos into stupidity is a testament to the patience of mankind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22440186481038833232012-04-25T03:31:10.928-07:002012-04-25T03:31:10.928-07:00@ Codgitator
Thanks for your comments. You've...@ Codgitator<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. You've helped me to clarify my thinking. What I missed was the distinction between original and derivative intentionality (and dr. Feser wrote about it some posts back, my bad). Obviously, if you cannot point to an originator of a "code" that is supposed to convey "information", then (if you are a materialist) you cannot without falling into homunculus fallacy (or some other fallacy) claim that the word "information" means what it means. You have to radically redefine this whole concept. <br />By the way, I would be curious what dr. Feser thinks about Stephen C. Meyer's argument that the DNA code is so obviously an information that it has to point to some mind behind it. I think that this whole ID argument is based on a misconception of taking a metapher (DNA is a code) and reading it too literally. But, on the other hand, if you are an aristotelian-thomist then everything in the material world is some kind of information, right?<br /><br />I myself after reading dr. Feser's Philosophy of Mind (those parts which I could understand) am inclined to think that some kind of occasionalism is the most rational idea. After all, the way that Christian aristotelianism resolves the so called "interaction problem" is to me no resolution at all. Souls can still exist independently of the body (unless you are a 7th Day Adventist). If they can exist on their own after death, they are something different of the body before death, too. Yes, materialism is false, but how can christian aristotelianism escape the problems that Cartesianism have? Maybe non-christian (without soul's life after body's death) hylemorphism could do the trick. However for me, as a Christian this is unacceptable. At this point I find even Leibniz's monadology more acceptable than AT.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1086828598486056392012-04-23T08:01:00.115-07:002012-04-23T08:01:00.115-07:00In the wake of this discussion, I thought this lin...In the wake of this discussion, I thought this link was ironically apt. Remember how gip called Rosenberg's views a caricature, even though Feser explicitly declined going for the obvious "the idea of EM is that there are no ideas"? Well, it turns out the ovarian Churchland agree *that* would be a caricature, but then denies EM has anything to do with metaphysics. I'm dying to read a Churchland's review of Rosenberg OR VICE VERSA. <br /><br />http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4828<br /><br />"‘It’s a position most people know only in caricature, and so they take the straw man version and attack that,’ she argues. The view gets dismissed as something silly like the belief that there are no beliefs, or the denial of the existence of consciousness, but Churchland claims that really nothing is eliminated — the view is about explanation, about conceptual re-organization, not metaphysics. So why call it ‘eliminative materialism’?"Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76523893629055837452012-04-16T15:41:41.876-07:002012-04-16T15:41:41.876-07:00A. R. Diaz,
As it happens, the paper I presented ...A. R. Diaz,<br /><br />As it happens, the paper I presented (excerpts from) in D.C. this weekend is in large part a response to Dillard. I'll announce when it appears in print.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18781061771564511822012-04-16T14:57:19.867-07:002012-04-16T14:57:19.867-07:00Prof. Feser,
This is quite off topic, have you th...Prof. Feser,<br /><br />This is quite off topic, have you thought about replying to Peter S. Dillard's paper against Ross' argument for the immaterial aspects of thought? Dillard's paper seems to me a really but really weak case against Ross. Would still like to know what you think of it.A. R. Diazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12261209970933947071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45256480547211789222012-04-16T08:38:39.953-07:002012-04-16T08:38:39.953-07:00@machinephilosophy:
Shut up, Krang, and get back...@machinephilosophy: <br /><br />Shut up, Krang, and get back in yer meatbox! My neurons can't be refuted, cuz Science, like, works, batches!Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58923268322212671862012-04-16T08:36:20.343-07:002012-04-16T08:36:20.343-07:00To the Anon who's interested in semiotics, etc...To the Anon who's interested in semiotics, etc., I've been having gads of fun with my newborn and family, so please email me if you want to converse. This thread is Squaresville. jk fidescogtiactio AT gmail DOT comCodgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23512309326642538082012-04-16T07:50:04.042-07:002012-04-16T07:50:04.042-07:00Last Monday there was a debate between Cardinal Ge...Last Monday there was a debate between Cardinal George Pell and Richard Dawkins.<br />I thought you guys may be interested.<br /><br />http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htmMichele Arpaiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661675460259077845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57482164095550017782012-04-16T06:55:25.777-07:002012-04-16T06:55:25.777-07:00Notice that there is never any mention of the corr...Notice that there is never any mention of the correlates in the brain for such correlations themselves.<br /><br />Just as liberalism is the view that you're a bigot and I'm not, so reductionism is the view that your views are reducible to brain activity while my reduction itself is not.<br /><br />Your views are mere brain activity, while my brain gospel is a set of magic universal meta-brain insights that everyone else must cow-tow to like imaginary cognition-ruling-and-obligating friends.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88501590863299774472012-04-15T20:14:32.486-07:002012-04-15T20:14:32.486-07:00Hello,
I am pretty ignorant when it comes to phil...Hello,<br /><br />I am pretty ignorant when it comes to philosophy, but I have got a question (I apologize in advance if what I am asking is trivial or not a real issue).<br /><br />In the "What is a Soul" thread, it is brought up that intelligence is something that is irreducible. Though recently, they have been able to find the correlates for intelligence. The link for which is below (it also has a short video explaining what they found): <br /><br />http://news.illinois.edu/news/12/0410braininjury_AronBarbey.html<br /><br />I think Ray also brought up this point before in the other thread. So, does this mean that human intelligence is reducible, or is there something that I am missing or not understanding when it comes to this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40303206558494293732012-04-15T15:30:48.465-07:002012-04-15T15:30:48.465-07:00Socrates and Plato were not above mocking, satire,...Socrates and Plato were not above mocking, satire, and derision, particularly when it came to the sophist.<br /><br />The very idea that Rorty would identify with the sophists should be enough to blacken his name.<br /><br />Plato engaged the sophists, at times, in his dialogues, but he did not, a la contemporary academic philosophy, spend his time writing papers to refute them. He got on with his spiritual and philosophical path, and in with guiding others along it as well.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30484496183206420482012-04-15T12:27:05.818-07:002012-04-15T12:27:05.818-07:00So this has been a huge non-philosopher on non-phi...So this has been a huge non-philosopher on non-philosopher action ????Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9584903088161410572012-04-15T11:57:48.061-07:002012-04-15T11:57:48.061-07:00Rorty was not above identifying himself with the c...Rorty was not above identifying himself with the classical sophists that Socrates and Plato were fond of dumping on. There are some obvious similarities. But Socrates at least did not consider himself above <i>debating</i> with them -- that is, he engaged with them on the level of ideas, rather than (well, in addition to actually) simply slapping a derogatory label on them and then smirking in self-satisfaction. So if Rorty is not a philosopher, you guys are even less so.goddinpottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17806057888464618112012-04-15T10:25:39.692-07:002012-04-15T10:25:39.692-07:00That was poorly stated. Better to put it this way,...That was poorly stated. Better to put it this way,<br /><br />It is not overly difficult to understand how a reader might come away from Latour with the impression that he actually has no problem with the Reason, provided what's left after its inhumanity has been nullifed can be rendered an obedient subject under the reign of the reins.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66224628338972434232012-04-15T10:22:55.630-07:002012-04-15T10:22:55.630-07:00It is not overly difficult to understand how a rea...It is not overly difficult to understand how a reader might come away from Latour with the impression that he actually has no problem with the inhumanity of Reason, provided some way can be found to render Reason an obedient subject under the reign of the reins.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42189005432329289642012-04-15T10:15:57.313-07:002012-04-15T10:15:57.313-07:00To oversimplify Latour greatly, he is concerned wi...<i>To oversimplify Latour greatly, he is concerned with showing that principles are indeed very human.</i><br /><br />Yes--provided the principles are kept safe from the rubric of Reason.<br /><br /><br /><i>What these two quotes [one from Steven Weinberg and one from Socrates] have in common, accross the huge gap of centuries, is the strong linkage they establish between the respect for impersonal natural laws on the one hand, and the fight against irrationality, immorality and political disorder on the other. In both quotes, the fate of Reason and the fate of Politics are associated in one single destiny. To attack Reason is to render morality and social peace impossible. Right is what protects us against Might. Reason against civil warfare. The common tenet is that we need something "inhuman"--for Weinberg, the natural laws no human has constructed; for Socrates, geometry whose demonstrations escape human whim--if we want to be able to fight against "inhumanity". To sum up even more succintly: only inhumanity will quash inhumanity. Only a Science that is not manmade will protect a Body Politic which is in constant risk of being mob-made. Yes, Reason is our rampart, our Great Wall of China, our Maginot line against the dangerous unruly mob.<br /><br />This line of reasoning which I will call "inhumanity against inhumanity" has been attacked of course, even since it began, first by the Sophists, against whom Plato launches his all-out attack, all the way to this motley gang of people branded by the accusation of "post-modernism" (an accusation, by the way, as vague as the curse of being a "sophist"). Postmoderns of the past and of the present have tried to break the connection between the discovery of natural laws of the cosmos and the problems of making the Body Politic safe for its citizens.</i>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72246865455866880282012-04-15T09:47:12.064-07:002012-04-15T09:47:12.064-07:00@gip: "if Rorty isn't a philosopher, what...@gip: "if Rorty isn't a philosopher, what is he?"<br /><br />That's easy: he is a sophist. Westcountrydude already told you that, in fact.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7196542552549499712012-04-15T08:36:09.731-07:002012-04-15T08:36:09.731-07:00@Tony could not possibly find the essay by Latour...@Tony <i> could not possibly find the essay by Latour worth finishing, since he starts it with a devastatingly stupid notion that principles are "inhuman." </i><br /><br />Not quite sure how you are getting that out of Latour; he opens by describing that position as it comes from others, but he does not support it:<br /><br /><i>The common tenet is that we need something “inhuman” —for Weinberg, the natural laws no human has constructed; for Socrates, geometry whose demonstrations escape human whim— if we want to be able to fight against “inhumanity”. To sum up even more succintly: only inhumanity will quash inhumanity.</i><br /><br />Note the scare quotes. To oversimplify Latour greatly, he is concerned with showing that principles are indeed very human.goddinpottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45981987247140463112012-04-15T01:00:15.090-07:002012-04-15T01:00:15.090-07:00I'm no expert on Kierkegaard, however, from wh...I'm no expert on Kierkegaard, however, from what I know, I largely agree with Schuon. He appears to have reacted to the rationalism of the Critical Philosophy, not by reverting to the Intellectual foundations of traditional philosophy, but rather by taking refuge in that which is below reason. He is then a bridge to all the modern irrationalism.<br /><br />I believe he even goes as far as to attempt to establish a strict division between thinking and acting or being, utterly sundering the traditional unity of these 'faculties'.<br /><br />Kierkegaard seems not so much concerned with the individual as with individualism. His individual is one abstracted from revelation and Intellection, left only to the mercy of an subjectivist and individualistic faith.As Schuon puts it in that letter <i> No doubt I will be told that this thinker, if he did not make his criticism in the name of intellection, at least did so in the name of faith; but he was just as ignorant as to what constitutes true faith, since in the name of his faith he attacks theology, which is precisely an indispensable objectification and a conditio sine qua non of the faith of the heart. Kierkegaard’s faith is individualistic, not sanctifying. </i> By this he means that faith was not for Kierkegaard what it was in traditional philosophy, a pre-rational cognition of truth written in our hearts, of which theology is an objectification, but simply an individualistic and subjective leap into the dark. This means that Kierkegaard's doctrine is positively destructive when it comes to true spirituality.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51606024307383674922012-04-14T23:39:55.260-07:002012-04-14T23:39:55.260-07:00@Westcountryman
Thank for your response to my qu...@Westcountryman <br /><br />Thank for your response to my questin regarding Plotinus and Kant. I certainly share the sentiment with you in regards to modern and post modern philosophy (or sophistry if you like). A lot of it is in fact towering sytematizations and suffocating 'caves', identified thousands of years ago by Plato himself.<br /><br />I do however depart with you when it comes to Soren. I think much of his critique (especially his anti-rationalist stance as well as his critique of the church itself and the state it was in at the time) was both valid and important. His introversion to subjectivism is not as problematic I believe, if one were to use it as a supplement to Classical Theism for example. Soren was very much concerned with the individual in the world and his contribution to philosophy was in that regard.<br /><br />At any rate, as I said, for the most part, I share you opinion regarding the distructive chimera of modernism. To me, the likes of hume, nietszche, shopenhauer, spinoza and the like were much more central to the destruction of the intellectual life. Now as far as post-modernists are concerned, apart from the usual "let's all speak and say whatever nonsense comes to mind 'cause everything is relative" crap, I don't really see much value in their work at all, as a means to illuminate the philosophical mind's quest within the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78106885706527266212012-04-14T22:01:17.474-07:002012-04-14T22:01:17.474-07:00Brian,
"The first step on the path to realis...Brian,<br /><br /><i>"The first step on the path to realism is to realise that one has always been a realist; the second is to recognize that, however much one tries to think differently, one will never succeed; the third is to note that those who claim that they think differently, think as realists as soon as they forget to act a part. If they ask themselves why, their conversion is almost complete."</i><br /><br />The best quote by him I've seen so far. Leave it to Gilson to get it down to an algorithm, and I think it applies to certain other views as well. A profound and inspiring philosopher.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67928666504470249082012-04-14T21:29:21.193-07:002012-04-14T21:29:21.193-07:00GIP, I could not possibly find the essay by Latour...GIP, I could not possibly find the essay by Latour worth finishing, since he <i>starts</i> it with a devastatingly stupid notion that principles are "inhuman." Half-way through was all I could take, and he would fall under Stove's condemnation just as fully as Plotinus or Hegel. <br /><br />Stove, however engagingly written, is out to lunch in suggesting that the <i>filioque</i> dispute is like to the cited passages of Plotinus or Hegel. He is quite wrong. The reason (he admits this later) he finds the filioque dispute impenetrable is that he knows nothing about what the terms of the dispute are about. <br /><br />I have no problems with pragmatism that I don't also have with all the other modern philosophies: other than being just plain wrong, they start in the wrong places and proceed in the wrong ways - other than those defects, they are fine.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71108311337506660232012-04-14T20:57:44.624-07:002012-04-14T20:57:44.624-07:00Actually I did make an argument, or rather a contr...Actually I did make an argument, or rather a contrast. I didn't respond to the particular Rorty essay you wish me too. but I don't have to. You brought your pragmatist viewpoint up, it is not the subject of Dr.Feser's post You brought up Rorty. I then brought up my criticisms, which were aimed at a broader point than just one of Rorty's essays. Take it or leave it, but it is certainly not fair to say that there is no content or supported position in what I've been talking about, nor is it fair to simply categorise what I have written as saying I don't like modernism and modern 'philosophy' while completely ignoring the substantive comparison I drew up.<br /><br />It is rather you, therefore, gip, who is not putting up an argument or any content against my point. I understand it may not interest you, just as refuting specific essays of Rorty does not interest me, but then say it, do not make petulant, dismissive, and quite frankly underhanded (in the sense it is just a falsehood to suggest I'm not saying anything or giving an substantive content or argument) comments.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27089575668262785342012-04-14T19:18:56.832-07:002012-04-14T19:18:56.832-07:00@Westcountyman -- ok, i get it, you don't like...@Westcountyman -- ok, i get it, you don't like modernism, modern philosophy, or the modern world. That's your privelege, but what is the point of simply harrumphing and name-calling without making any kind of argument? Socrates at least was not above actually attempting to refute the original sophists, rather than simply labelling them. <br /><br />Oh well, guess I am done unless you manage to actually say something.goddinpottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52989305126995079462012-04-14T17:58:48.537-07:002012-04-14T17:58:48.537-07:00I have an off-topic question maybe someone can hel...I have an off-topic question maybe someone can help me with.<br /><br />I've recently read Feser's article: <br /><br />http://libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/natural-law-natural-rights-and-private-property<br /><br />The question is, can ownership be said to be a human convention?<br /><br />I understand the way in which private property is an extension of the natural law, and that ownership can be considered necessary for us to exercise our potentials and realize certain ends. My intuition is that it cannot be merely conventional, but I'm not so sure.<br /><br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com