tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post9153329765040196237..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Empirical science and the transcendentalsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58908485531518158262017-05-12T07:33:29.721-07:002017-05-12T07:33:29.721-07:00Get your physics right. You don't kick a ball ...Get your physics right. You don't kick a ball with your weight, you kick it with your mass. Your mass is the same everywhere in the universe, your weight is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39979190824371049982017-05-04T17:32:57.313-07:002017-05-04T17:32:57.313-07:00Gravity is a problem given that it is so inherentl...Gravity is a problem given that it is so inherently relativistic. What does it physically matter if on earth my kicking a soccer ball is, say, happening at a gravitational value of 1; while, on the Moon, say, it is 1/4 that? I and the ball would effectively weigh 1/4 what I hear do: but why would that matter? Presumably my effective weight and the soccer ball's effective weight are the primary factors in how far I kick it: but if I kick that ball with 1/4 my weight but it weights also 1/4 what difference would I expect? Arguably the only thing that is different is the lack of atmospheric pressure on the Moon.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73218387636541000712017-05-02T09:27:48.758-07:002017-05-02T09:27:48.758-07:00Take an example. There is an observation that ther...Take an example. There is an observation that there does not seem to be enough mass to account for the gravitational effects observed in galaxies. Either there is mass that we can't see (dark matter) or our description of the force of gravity is not merely wrong, but really wrong, and we propose to modify the Newtonian law of gravity so that it is stronger (MOND MOdified Newtonian Dynamics).<br /><br />The fudge fixes the problem in that now galaxies rotate in a predictable way, but it creates a problem of its own is that there is no rationale for deciding in advance what the modification should be. MOND is considered "ugly" for this reason. In this case "ugliness" is using an unexplained item to explain another unexplained<br />item.<br /><br />The other remedy is to keep looking for dark matter, and to try to figure out what dark matter is. There are plenty of observations that are consistent with matter that interacts only with via gravitation. The other side is to look for likely candidates for dark matter in the zoo of<br />known elementary particles in the standard model and in more exotic theories. If such a particle/theory is created, then this will be "beautiful" because it removes the problem and expands our knowledge of the universe. In short, we prefer science that explains the unknown by expanding the known.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59684120694387528302017-04-26T14:21:27.260-07:002017-04-26T14:21:27.260-07:00I'm not at all sure I get your main point. But...I'm not at all sure I get your main point. But I do like the way you put the portion on egalitarianism. I've often across this. For all the claims of relativism, many people believe that all inequality is evil per se, and a fortiori, anyone who rejects egalitarianism is to that degree, reprobate. All this while proclaiming their relativism. (And when I say "many people", that really means a large majority of those who bother about this at all. Including those on the "right".)<br /><br />So thanks for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6726792322865200932017-04-25T11:36:37.704-07:002017-04-25T11:36:37.704-07:00It seems to me that the assumption that mind is no...It seems to me that the assumption that mind is not in any way fundamental is what leads many people in the humanities to reject objectivity; if the intellect is an accident of biology with no fundamental connection to the environing reality, then it's hard to see how it could have anything like reliable access to that reality. Of course, when humanities scholars reject objectivity etc., it ruffles the feathers of scientists, ironically enough.Bearded Stoichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918503306935870981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36854964629757930922017-04-25T09:18:20.334-07:002017-04-25T09:18:20.334-07:00Imagination isn't or doesnt include the ration...Imagination isn't or doesnt include the rational. All mobile living organisms require something of imagination to stimulate desire and move the organism. We experience this too but we have choice in a way that other animals do not. Learning to resist temptations can help us distinguish between our rational and irrational desires and appetites.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43655660580700578592017-04-25T01:55:01.598-07:002017-04-25T01:55:01.598-07:00I see. Sloppy writing then.
What exactly is the d...I see. Sloppy writing then.<br /><br />What exactly is the difference between imagination and intellect though?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63916610894402705712017-04-24T18:31:24.294-07:002017-04-24T18:31:24.294-07:00And they are not making decisions. It is pleasure ...And they are not making decisions. It is pleasure or pain or appetite that is deciding for them.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23430046004579903762017-04-24T18:18:06.363-07:002017-04-24T18:18:06.363-07:00Angels can be specified in relation to material ki...Angels can be specified in relation to material kinds and particulars. Function suffices for specification. Hence individual human beings but also nations and probably families too have guardian angels.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19701220454235296472017-04-24T17:42:14.515-07:002017-04-24T17:42:14.515-07:00Ecactly, erich. That fact scares a lot of people.Ecactly, erich. That fact scares a lot of people.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82277357464603126822017-04-24T16:25:27.380-07:002017-04-24T16:25:27.380-07:00Isn't there a hidden empirical issue here? If ...Isn't there a hidden empirical issue here? If a general sense of simplicity and beauty truly structures evaluates scientific work that is later assessed to be <i>progress</i> (more often than not, at least), might that be demonstrable?<br /><br />If its true that out epistemic limits, within their limitations, are somehow "in accord" with the way the world really works, then our epistemological contours are themselves expressive of reality itself. I'm not looking to philosophy of science to "prove" this – but I'd be suprized if it turned out otherwise!erichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45402564761557339632017-04-24T14:06:12.075-07:002017-04-24T14:06:12.075-07:00You forget that Plato was still a realist and a do...You forget that Plato was still a realist and a dogmatist and could easily trap you in your scepticism.<br /><br />Modern science is more Platonic than not. It reduces things to abstract IDEALizations, e.g. perfectly linear motion or point-particles for local motions. but point particles aren't even physical objects and virtually no motion is ever actually and perfectly linear. So how are our physical theories so good at making accurate predictions? Because reality still approximates to these things.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64768763837193679772017-04-24T13:33:42.793-07:002017-04-24T13:33:42.793-07:00Imagination is not intellect.Imagination is not intellect.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48825853876139603352017-04-23T09:48:56.105-07:002017-04-23T09:48:56.105-07:00Speaking of empirical science, what would you say ...Speaking of empirical science, what would you say about this, and do you think it is relevant to your interest?<br /><br />How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence [Video]<br /><br />Single-celled amoebae can remember, make decisions and anticipate change, urging scientists to rethink intelligent behavior<br /><br />https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18987378827274245522017-04-22T14:03:55.045-07:002017-04-22T14:03:55.045-07:00@Timocrates,
‘The Axiom of Choice: Going Mediaeva...@Timocrates,<br /><br />‘The Axiom of Choice: Going Mediaeval on Buridan’s Ass.’Tom Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16067031472666752839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13048410525641928022017-04-22T09:27:27.747-07:002017-04-22T09:27:27.747-07:00@ Aristotle's Jedi:
"The Society of Scho...@ Aristotle's Jedi:<br /><br />"The Society of Scholastic Philosophers: Be Careful! We Will Go Medieval On Your Ass."Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10091545983034740482017-04-22T09:14:49.590-07:002017-04-22T09:14:49.590-07:002/2
To account for degrees of goodness we merely n...2/2<br />To account for degrees of goodness we merely need to acknowledge an hierarchy of being or beings. The egalitarians may revolt at this but in the very act of doing so and in justifying it to themselves or others they do in fact have to produce a contrary hierarchy (for per necessity e.g. equality cannot be absolute otherwise they would have no justification for revolting against some order or arrangement in the first place, for this would have to be equal with their own contrary system; but presumably they cannot believe it is actually equal otherwise they would not revolt against it - they also have to affirm the existence of good and goodness in the world. Hence we can argue that a radically reductionist materialist cannot logically have any preference for any system of government if they deny objective good or goodness for if they do they have to add or include goodness in being and reality; and if it exists then they have to produce some account of it or how it exists, and in doing so would of course to that extent cease being a radical reductionist).<br /><br />TL;DR : Long story short, the will by nature aims at goodness that exists in reality both potentially and actually: the will is good when its object is also objectively good and bad when its object is objectively bad; and by analogy to the senses, if the will wills what is good, then goodness itself must be an objective component of reality just as the ears hear because there really is sound in reality.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2758688163253316802017-04-22T09:14:12.353-07:002017-04-22T09:14:12.353-07:00goodness is being considered as an object of the w...<i>goodness is being considered as an object of the will</i><br /><br />While I agree that this is true at least subjectively true in all cases of any willing per necessity, I think goodness also has an independent and objective being in reality too: in the hierarchy of being, being is a principle (e.g. of activity) of all and any other being (and even in a sense of non-being; e.g., Dr. Feser <b>is</b> 'not-fat'; while Michael Moore <b>is</b> not 'not-fat') and being itself is good (for if being literally in principle were actually or in any way 'not-good' how could anything be either a) positively good (for anything that is would have to be not-good; and how could the principle on which everything that is is based produce something contrary to it) or b) fail to be positively not-good (i.e. bad or evil)?).<br /><br />There only would seem to be three options: Being is either in principle <br />a) good or actualized goodness<br />b) neutral or<br />c) not-good (i.e. bad or evil)<br /><br />C) seems impossible because how could the evil or bad exist in a non-derivative way of the good; and if the good exists even potentially then per necessity it would have to be a being, and so being could not in principle be not-good. B) seems attractive because in this case we could be all pessimistic and sceptical to a degree, arguing goodness is a subjective kind of projection of man universally or of particular individuals onto things, though the things themselves are neither good nor bad. More seriously, however, we might want to say being in principle is neutral so that it could be the host of contraries (i.e be either good or bad/evil); however, in this case being is made into a substance, which except perhaps in the case of God is simply not true (it is never absolutely true to claim being is four feet long or white or healthy or whatever). <br /><br />Furthermore, accidents would seem of necessity to have to be not-beings, if being or all being is substance and then we would have to inquire how or what makes being to be either good or evil without any actuality to base this upon that inheres in the thing, which presumably at least abstractly would have to be a being (e.g. if health is real and a state of affairs in the world and is also good at least for some things; and health for this individual is having an arrangement of parts in a certain order or ratio, then if anything is actually good certainly that order or ratio that is the case of something's being said to be good would have to itself be good - for this is exactly what makes and causes the thing to be healthy and therefore good); but then either this state of affairs is real and actual or otherwise it is not, and since it is being then being itself would have to be also good and accidents would have to be beings). But the problem then becomes how do we account for evil or bad; but if we divide good and evil not between actual beings but between being and not-being, then those things that are - insofar as they actually are - can be said to be good and that which is not could be said to be bad or evil. Hence insofar as some being can not-be, this is sad to be bad or evil at least for it; and other "bads" or evils would have their bases in not-being at least in some respect. For example, something is said to be bad or evil because of a failure of some perfection (which is good) to be actualized and this lack-of-being is the cause of something's being said to be bad or evil.<br /><br />1/2<br />Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22219302642990335172017-04-21T20:31:36.244-07:002017-04-21T20:31:36.244-07:00And yet he will keep commenting, interminably.And yet he will keep commenting, interminably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85500605873022481032017-04-21T20:00:25.354-07:002017-04-21T20:00:25.354-07:00Creationists know its about who decides when concl...Creationists know its about who decides when conclusions have been made about what is true in nature. So simplicity, or not, still needs a final conclusion and someone to do it.<br />It ends up being a human being (tailless primate for some).<br /><br />Who created the universe etc? If a creator then its an option the universe is based on final simple conclusions. If its by chance in whole or part it must be based on simple conclusions/laws <br />It must of started simple and then got complex and so this complexity must have its essence in existing simple original laws.<br />I think any side is right to presume simple foundations behind any complexity.<br />Once again the "organizer" of the universe is the first big player in these matters.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89750275431582766722017-04-21T14:44:57.483-07:002017-04-21T14:44:57.483-07:00So, I just checked with the show host Justin Briel...So, I just checked with the show host Justin Brieley of Unbelievable radio show, and he said he tried to get Feser on! Do you know how cool that would be?!?! It's a shame that you are always busy Ed, on the otherhand I inpatiently tapping my foot to get my hands on your new books in the works. I'm a hypocrite, I know. <br /><br />Anyway, If you ever see this comment, it would be awesome to see you on the show at some point; Kicking ass and taking names. Getting medieval with some scientism schmuk. Aristotle's Jedinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29557054429981456772017-04-21T09:50:03.612-07:002017-04-21T09:50:03.612-07:00Instead of the cat, take murder. Does it make sens...<i>Instead of the cat, take murder. Does it make sense to say that a particular murder is good in the sense of being a good specimen of “murderness”.</i> <br /><br />And, in addition, this makes no sense because that which is evil <i>already</i> represents a privation of goodness and being; you cannot take a privation and say of it "what does it mean to speak of a 'good' or 'better' instance of this" as if that were an objection. Dianelos can just reject the whole A-T being / privation :: good / evil relationship altogether if he wants to, but he use a "good" privation as an objection to it. <br /><br />In fact, Dianelos's ideas are so completely opposed to everything that is A-T that it makes little sense for him to continue commenting. It's about like having a cockfight promoter applying to be a PETA executive. Doubtingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44075770278699915932017-04-21T09:44:20.034-07:002017-04-21T09:44:20.034-07:00@ Daniel,
“To designate moral properties to an Ev...@ Daniel,<br /><br />“<i>To designate moral properties to an Event as opposed to an Agent is a category mistake.</i>”<br /><br />True, but we are here discussing the theory of transcendentals. In this context all things that have being have the transcendentals to some degree. So in the example that Feser uses the cat has a degree of goodness, even though it's not a moral agent. The way I imagine this is that all creation through the transcendentals participates in God's being, albeit in various degrees of distance. God, through the natural end imbued in all creation, calls all things into perfection – like an attractive force. In one theistic eschatology all creation will in the end be united in God's being. <br /><br />“<i>Furthermore degrees of Being and Goodness are only applicable to biological Kinds, as they are the only Kind capable of being instantiated imperfectly.</i>”<br /><br />Surely triangular shapes can also be instantiated imperfectly. As do chairs, such as the uncomfortable ones. The suggestion that only biological kinds can be instantiated imperfectly surprises me; perhaps we are talking past each other. <br /><br />Incidentally I am having trouble with the concept of “degrees of being”. I can understand the concept of a being which is transcendentally further from God, but not of a being with a lesser degree of being. But perhaps people use “lesser being” in the way I'd use “further from the truth that is God”. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82564828085876184502017-04-21T09:40:39.523-07:002017-04-21T09:40:39.523-07:00Hi Dr. Feser!
I hope you got my email ;)Hi Dr. Feser!<br /><br />I hope you got my email ;)Aristotle's Jedihttps://twitter.com/Aristotles_Jedinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18147064657714508982017-04-21T09:35:00.437-07:002017-04-21T09:35:00.437-07:00the way God structured physical reality
Since yo...<i>the way God structured physical reality</i> <br /><br />Since you don't believe in physical reality, it puzzles me that you would say this. Doubtingnoreply@blogger.com