Let’s open
the New Year with an open thread. Now’s
the time at last to bring up that otherwise off-topic comment that keeps
getting deleted, or anything else you like.
From Art Nouveau to Art Blakey, from presidents to presentism, from
sci-fi to Wi-Fi to hi-fis, everything is on topic. Just keep it civil and classy. Previous open threads collected
here.
If God is perfect in an unconditioned, absolute sense, why did God “mess with His own perfection”, by creating a non-Divine reality? Why not just leave well enough alone and preserve the already prevailing state of absolute, unconditioned perfection?
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way: Wouldn’t it be less than perfect of a (putatively) perfect being to willingly destroy a perfect state of affairs, by introducing radical imperfection into it?
Again: why mess with absolute & unconditioned perfection?
The secondary object of God’s uninterrupted act of being is both incapable of “messing with” the primary object toward which it is destined, namely God as telos, and is furthermore only relatively real to the divine Being such that the immutable God, as the only state of affairs, is not disturbed.
DeleteCreation neither adds to nor subtracts from God’s glory since God does not have a real relation to Creation (though Creation is really related to God, see the doctrine of mixed relations for details).
DeleteTherefore Creation is wholly superfluous to God.
But it is not superfluous to those who can share in God’s existence and goodness. Aren’t you glad God created you even if He did so in a way that permitted imperfections (imperfections which likely led to your and my existing in the first place).
I certainly am, and probably your dog or cat is even glad to a lesser degree. Therefore it is good that God creates.
I’m the one who just posted the very first comment. (My name is Paul.) My own thoughts on this matter are that there is *no such thing* as perfection in an absolute & unconditioned sense. If that is the case, God is the most perfect reality, not the absolute & unconditioned perfect reality. This would suggest the veracity of a certain type of value pluralism. In other words, value is expressed through a plurality of *kinds*, rather than only through ever greater degrees of a single kind.
ReplyDeleteThis way, there is no substitute for non-Divine value. That’s why God created in the first place: to bring more value into existence, specifically a kind of value He did not and could not possess by Himself.
We might say:
Where the non-Divine value stands, the Divine value cannot stand. (Even though the Divine value is infinitely greater in degree, the non-Divine value is radically different in kind. Hence, God chose to create it.
Well, what does everyone out there think about this proposal of mine?
To put it another way: Wouldn’t it be less than perfect of a (putatively) perfect being to willingly destroy a perfect state of affairs, by introducing radical imperfection into it?
ReplyDeleteWhat was the "perfect state of affairs" that was destroyed?
God’s existence without any Creation: a perfect state of affairs,
Deleteputatively.—Paul
God's existence was not "destroyed", let alone changed in any real way.
DeleteWhat is your opinion on the book Race, Reflections of a Theologian, by Father Bonaventure Hinwood ?
ReplyDeleteAre there animals in Heaven?
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not talking about whether animals go to Heaven (no they do not). I am asking about whether there will be fauna in Heaven.
The Book of Revelation describes Heaven as a restored Eden (Revelation 22:1-5) with the presence of flora (Revelation 22:2). If Heaven is a restored Eden with flora, then it is natural to wonder whether there will be fauna in Heaven just like the original Eden.
I would also like to know if there will be nighttime in heaven.
DeleteI read St. Thomas says
"All the elemental bodies will have in themselves a certain clarity of glory. Hence though part of the surface of the earth be not lit up by the sun, there will by no means be any darkness there."
But I find this answer to be rather dispiriting. In the opinion of this humble Texan, foremost among God's creations in glory and in majesty is the night sky on a clear and moonless summer night. Certainly this was a sight the Angelic Doctor was likely to be rather more familiar with than the average modern man, so it seems his meaning of "by no means any darkness" would exclude the dim light of the stars and milky way he would have been familiar with. Must we agree with him or can we admit that there is a beauty in darkness worthy of heaven which perhaps only us modern men can fully appreciate, since we have artificially deprived ourselves of it to such a great extent.
It is a revelation to me that adults can take this kind of stuff seriously and discuss it at length. You will be talking about demons, virgin births, the 'war in heaven', people 'waking up' from being dead and angels next, and chatting to a whole host of deceased or never-alive incorporeal entities. Oh, but wait.....
DeleteThe lion will lie down with the lamb...
Delete"No, I am not talking about whether animals go to Heaven (no they do not). "
DeleteI think they do, and it'd make much more sense of animal suffering on earth.
and it'd make much more sense of animal suffering on earth.
DeleteI don't think so. Animals have no sense of justice and of the righting of injustice. So any "rewarding" as the offsetting of being made to suffer unjustly will have no connection, to them, to the suffering they experienced. Thus it will be pleasurable but with no experience of it being on account of any past lack of pleasure.
Most animals, and all of the lower animals, appear to have no capacity for aggregating suffering into a greater experience than just the last few minutes: they don't get more and more unhappy from pain lasting days and days. Likewise, any heavenly reversal of their suffering will not be experienced as compensation in degree to whatever they suffered. It won't make more sense to them of their prior suffering.
And what of animals that lived happy lives without any merit of their own - e.g. cherished cats whose lives were vastly better than the lives of wild cats who lived the way their natures intended? Will they have to compensate by suffering in heaven?
The core condition of "being in heaven" lies in having the Beatific Vision, which is a mental and spiritual experience, so animals cannot experience that, they don't have the requisite minds for it. The ancillary aspects of heaven (for us) seem to be mainly physical correlates to that mental and spiritual state: a resurrected body that has agility, impassibility, subtlety, and clarity, which are suited to us because of our spiritual condition. Since animals can't partake of that spiritual condition, it is hard to say what, if anything, their "heavenly" experience would be.
I do not think that we can be certain whether there will be animals in the blessed realm after the final judgment. But I believe that if there are, it will be on account of it being more fitting for us that there be animals there. The Bible talks of there being "a new heaven and a new earth", but that could easily be figurative language meant to urge new spiritual conditions.
Tony,
DeleteTrent Dougherty argues that animals can be transformed into rational creatures in heaven and made to benefit from soul building from coming to understand their past life, etc. You are assuming animals would just remain as they are. check out his book "The problem of animal pain". It's pretty good.
I don't think this is necessary, though. someone doesn't need to be aware of and capable of understanding concepts of justice in order to suffer injustice. Some very severely mentally handicapped people also suffer great injustices without being able to aggregate suffering into a greater experience.
It suffices that they are conscious beings, and have value, for us to decry their pain and wish to improve their situation and give them joy. A world in which animals suffer horrible things is a sad and tragic world. even apart from strict justice, it's perfectly fitting for God to provide compensation to his creatures and keep them alive and happy. It's fitting of perfect goodness. Although it need not involve something like the beatific vision for them (but then again it might, if say Dougherty is correct)
"cherished cats whose lives were vastly better than the lives of wild cats who lived the way their natures intended? Will they have to compensate by suffering in heaven?"
Of course not. Cats (animals in general) being happy, healthy and loved is a good thing, not a bad thing. Ultimately speaking, it's the way things should be. God wants that state of affairs. He doesn't want the state of affairs of animals suffering - except perhaps as a means to a greater good, which eventually should (our would be fitting to) be compensated.
WCB
DeleteAnimals have no sense of justice!? Nonsense! Numerous tests of that proposition demonstrate animals do have that. Foe example, mice will forgo food to help a fellow mouse in a trap.
Monkeys trained to pull a lever for a snack, if they get cucumbers, while fellow monkeys get grapes will go on strike in protest.
Nonsense!
WCB
Trent Dougherty argues that animals can be transformed into rational creatures in heaven
DeleteWell, it's a hypothesis. It runs directly counter to Catholic teaching, so I am not going to credit it with much weight: in order to "change" an animal into a rational creature, you would have to undo its very essence and make it into an essentially new kind of thing. The old being would be altogether gone. It would be no better than turning a rabbit into a wolf by means of the wolf eating the rabbit, in terms of the entity persisting.
A world in which animals suffer horrible things is a sad and tragic world. even apart from strict justice, it's perfectly fitting for God to provide compensation to his creatures
The difficulty is that because animals' (and plants)' souls are not rational, those souls don't survive their death. Those beings altogether cease in every respect when they die. There is nothing for God to "bring back" into life to re-set their experience with pleasure and comforts. God could make another Fido that is "just like" the Fido that died, but it wouldn't be the old Fido that suffered, it would be a different being entirely, one that didn't suffer, and thus one that doesn't have the memories or behavioral back-story that Fido had.
Ultimately speaking, it's the way things should be. God wants that state of affairs. He doesn't want the state of affairs of animals suffering
Does he want predators to hunt? Carnivores to eat their prey?
The conditions of wholly temporal beings, as related to eternity, are a vague, cloudy issue with almost nothing to go by from THIS current phase of existence. The little we know, by revelation and from our own rational nature, gives us precious little help for animal (and lesser) natures.
I have no problem with God putting animals in heaven if that's his plan. I just don't think there is strong reason to believe it is part of his plan.
"in order to "change" an animal into a rational creature, you would have to undo its very essence and make it into an essentially new kind of thing."
DeleteHe discusses that objection in the book. Again, you should read the book - it's pretty interesting and he engages with thomism, orthodox perspectives, etc. Dougherty is a good philosopher.
Personally though, I would just point out that what you said doesn't seem necessarily true to me. Consider this possibility: brute animal souls have an incipient potency for rational thought that just cannot be actualized on earth, with their current bodies. This possibility seems empirically equivalent (here) to your view (that brute animals have essences with no potency whatsoever for reason).
If animals have some potential for reason in their essence that just can't be actualized here in their current conditions, God could perfect them in the afterlife and then transform them into Narnia-esque animals.
"The difficulty is that because animals' (and plants)' souls are not rational, those souls don't survive their death."
Dougherty also discusses that objection in the book. He argues that animals have souls that could be sufficiently immaterial to survive death (even if they don't have reason), and I agree with him. He also argues that even if animals had no souls, they could have "gappy existence" - this could work on B theory for instance - to survive annihilation.
Personally I would say this: are you aware of Christian materialists (like Van Inwagen) who came up with clever constructs to allow for the resurrection of the dead? I am convinced that they are correct (not about their materialism, but about the possibility of God resurrecting a material being). For example, all God would have to do is preserve a dog's brain (or part of his brain) and then recreate the rest of its body, and then it'd be the same dog. God could even preserve that brain cortex *before death*, or preventing death altogether.
Point is: if God really wants to give an afterlife to animals, or have them life forever after this ordinary time on earth (which I think he does), God is powerful and resourceful enough to do so without being prevented by materialism.
But as it happens, I believe animals have souls that are immaterial enough to survive death, anyway.
So I never bought the "animals cannot survive death!" argument.
"Does he want predators to hunt? Carnivores to eat their prey?"
I don't know. But if so, must they eat other conscious animals, instead of unconscious simulacra/automatons? Again, it seems to me God can find ways around these issues, no matter how "weird" they might seem to you. What matters more is whether God would care about the suffering of his creatures and would want them to live forever and be happy. I think it's fitting of perfect goodness.
Again, I think there is strong reason to believe in an animal afterlife, and it helps immensely with the problem of suffering of animals.
-Atno
@Anonymous
DeleteTrent Dougherty argues that animals can be transformed into rational creatures in heaven and made to benefit from soul building from coming to understand their past life, etc.
I don't think I could handle living in a physical version of Animal Crossing by Nintendo.
@WCB
Animals have no sense of justice!? Nonsense! Numerous tests of that proposition demonstrate animals do have that. Foe example, mice will forgo food to help a fellow mouse in a trap.
I guess this counts for another example of science catching up with the Bible.
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never." (Numbers 22:28-30 Douay-Rheims)
Personally though, I would just point out that what you said doesn't seem necessarily true to me. Consider this possibility: brute animal souls have an incipient potency for rational thought that just cannot be actualized on earth, with their current bodies. This possibility seems empirically equivalent (here) to your view (that brute animals have essences with no potency whatsoever for reason).
DeleteFrom the context, I think you probably mean, in the last sentence I quoted, that you think the hypothesis that animals have an innate potency toward rationality is just as viable a hypothesis as the opposing one (my position) that they have no such potency.
I grant that in the absence of adequate detailed information, both hypotheses can be considered viable. However, the standard Aristotelian-Thomistic view is that a wealth of ordinary experience of animals and humans in widely different conditions is sufficient data, with sufficient pondering and careful analysis, to produce the basic natural philosophy of Aristotle, at least its main theses. This natural philosophy asserts (a) that natural substances have "natures" that are the same in kind but distinct in number between members of the same species, (b) a distinct kind of nature is due to the substantial form of the thing, (c) we can successfully discern major divisions of genus and species that separate kinds of natural things; and (d) we successfully discern that man is rational in kind and that animals are not (and, not merely coincidentally, that this justifies using the term "animals" in a way that does not include man).
Trent Dougherty may argue that A-T thinkers are wrong about (d), but unless he argues against the entirety of the natural philosophy underpinnings presented by A-T, he is unlikely to have presented a strong argument against it. However, I am not prepared to re-make the entire A-T case, and without a better reason to read Dougherty than you have given so far, I am unlikely to bother to read the book and reflect on his arguments regarding animal potency to reason. I am willing to just note he does not agree, he gives reasons, and let it go at that.
However: does he allow that plants might have a potency to reason? What about crystals? Minerals? Dirt? Water and air? Does he have a principled reason to discern an essential difference between animal souls and plant souls?
If I make a comment "this comment is off topic" is that comment on topic or off topic for an open thread?
ReplyDeleteYou could conquer space with that kind of logic!
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVxsYzXI_Y
Both! It is on topic at the same time it is off topic - open threads are special, and are 'big enough' to allow for that. :-))
DeleteI believe metaphysics can be a bridge between psychology and theology. But I’m a psychology graduate student, not a philosopher or theologian. What are the top 3 works I should read next? Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteIn no particular order:
DeleteAn Introduction to the Science of Mental Health by Fr. Chad Ripperger
Practical Theology by Dr. Peter Kreeft
A Commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas' Virtue Ethics by Dr. J. Budziszewski
You should read Ed's book, Aquinas, which has a chapter on Psychology. Check it out. In a nutshell, it focuses on the aspect of the mind called intentionality as being the most distinctive feature of human thinking. This manifests itself most fully in human intellect and will. The next chapter goes into Ethics, which flows from a proper understanding of the human nature.
DeletePersonally, I think the greatest touch point between Aqinas and modern psychology would be in cognitive behavioral theory, which gives primacy over our thoughts as they key to controlling maladaptive behaviors. I believe Aqinas would fully agree with this idea, although, unlike CBT, what is maladaptive isn't just anything the client of a psychologist arbitrarily thinks is maladaptive, but corresponds to an actual metaphysically established set of virtues and ethics that flow from our very nature as human beings.
I know Ed is working on a new book on the Mind. I wonder if he will have any additional thoughts on the interplay between phychology and Aquinas? Hopefully it is coming out soon.
Today, the biggest event was the resignation of Claudine Gay. This is one small ripple from the horrific event of October 7th, the reactions to which has made clear to many just how deep the rot has spread in our education system and much else. Blaming Israel for the atrocities which Hamas perpetrated on October 7th, which many at Harvard did, is horrifying but not that surprising--it follows from their radical poststructuralist anti-whiteness, anti-male, anti-heteronormative etc. critical theory. But some of America is waking up to this ideology. We are at an inflection point. 2024 is going to be very interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteRight, I mean, when indigenous people manage to make a relatively small counter attack against a violent powerful apartheid colonial subjugating power that revels in its genocidal mythology, why would any sane person blame the apartheid colonial power for drawing the counter attack?
DeleteBut she still has her $900k salary. I am sure there is a sermon in there somewhere or a commentary on American 'higher education', Professor Feser! I wonder if her doctorate will be revoked as more examples of plagiarism come to light. (And is it indelicate to mention the plagiarism of a dissertation in the 1950s at Boston U?)
DeleteStarDusty
DeleteWell said StarDusty. The attack can only be understood in the context of what went before over very many decades. Locating a broader blame than pointing to Hamas requires a cool head, empathy with the oppressed and political intelligence, none of which this Finlay guy exhibits. It has nothing to do with critical theory and all the bogeymen he listed.
Stardusty,
DeleteJeffrey Gettleman reported in the New York Times about a few of the many horrific actions perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th. Here is one account from a survivor, confirmed by video and forensic evidence: "The first victim she said she saw was a young woman with copper-color hair, blood running down her back, pants pushed down to her knees. One man pulled her by the hair and made her bend over. Another penetrated her, Sapir said, and every time she flinched, he plunged a knife into her back." Are you really describing the events of October 7th as a relatively small counter attack and dismissing the atrocities as not much to write home about? Are you that anti-Zionist; are you that against a homeland for Jews? By the way, Israel was not occupying the Gaza strip, they were not colonizing it. It was Hamas who broke the peace treaty. Do you support a two-state solution, Stardusty? "From the River to the Sea" clearly is opposed to a two-state solution.
Well said StarDusty. The attack can only be understood in the context of what went before over very many decades.
DeleteHa he hah ho ho, super funny. If you actually knew a dime's worth of the history involved, going back to the 1890s or so for modern history, and of course going back 4000 years before that, you would realize how silly your comment is. We can of course broaden out the blame to many other players: all of the Arab countries that encouraged Palestinian repudiation of the UN peace resolutions of 1947 and later; those and the other nearby Muslim countries that utterly rejected taking in refugees (nor helping the refugees in Palestine), while ejecting Jews and confiscating their property; Iran for using Hamas and Hezbollah as sock puppets for its own political purposes. The rest of the world for being willing enablers of Hamas leadership milking the system for personal wealth. Plenty of blame beyond Hamas, for sure.
Tim,
Delete"From the River to the Sea"
That is what Likud is founded on.
Likud and Hamas are the same in their territorial ambitions.
Both parties seek the expulsion or extermination of the other.
"Do you support a two-state solution"
I am OK with the 1947 borders, in addition to the right of return.
"By the way, Israel was not occupying the Gaza strip, they were not colonizing it."
Gaza was and is under military blockade. The people of Gaza are and have been prisoners of Israel.
Exceptions to the blockade were made for some Palestinians to enter Israel as laborers.
Gaza is a Bantustan of apartheid Israel.
"Are you really describing the events of October 7th as a relatively small counter attack"
Relatively, on the scale of atrocities, yes.
"dismissing the atrocities as not much to write home about?"
Israel always does much worse. I see pictures of parents carrying their disfigured children away from the scene of a Israeli attack. Is being dismembered by a bomb or crushed under rubble somehow preferable?
Every Hamas attack is a retaliation for a far worse atrocity perpetrated by Likud controlled Israel, from the point of view of the victims of those Israeli atrocities.
Likud controls a nuclear weapons government with state of the art German submarines, American stealth aircraft, vast billions of American military aid, and every conceivable military weaponry.
Hamas makes rockets out of pipe while hiding in a basement or tunnel under primitive conditions. It takes them years to smuggle in enough supplies and to plan a coordinated counter-attack into Israel.
The Hamas attacks are always far less fatal than the Israeli attacks.
*****
NETANYAHU: (Through interpreter) You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible.
*****
There you have an open call to genocide by Likud.
Jews of Likud revel in the genocidal history as described in their bible, your bible, that book of mass murder invasion conquest by the ancient Jews.
Recall, according to the Jewish sources the nation of Israel grew into a nation in Egypt, the land of Goshen. Many hundred years prior Abram had moved briefly from Ur to Canaan but was just a small family of foreigners in the land.
His family moved to Egypt and that is where they grew into the nation of Israel, a people without a homeland outside of Egypt.
When Israel moved North and East out of Egypt they were an invading marauding force of foreigners to be defended against. Israel had no intention of taking prisoners. Their intention was genocidal invasion conquest.
The Amalekites were able to score an early victory against the invading Jews of Israel, but over time the Jews prevailed in their genocidal invasion land theft goals.
Netanyahu, of Likud, now again the leader of the Jewish state, is invoking that genocidal invasion land theft conquest against the Amalekites perpetrated by the ancient Jews and detailed so explicitly in their bible.
Your bible.
Say there, Tim, how about you brush up on what the ancient Jews did to the Amalekites and see if you think that is what Likud should do to the people of Gaza?
Tim Finlay
DeleteSeen in the context of the violent and cruel oppression and subjugation of indigenous peoples by The Zionist Entity ( as accurately described by StarDusty above ) and the settlers who established it, the events of Oct 7th WERE just a relatively small counter attack, as StarDusty says. Of course, they were indeed horrific events, but we can all trade in horror stories. Do not let that fact cloud your wider judgements about the situation.
It's also high time Harvard and academia in general starts cracking down on scientific fraud, especially in the humanities, but not only there.
DeleteLet's not forget the whole Harvard Francesca Gino affair that also blew up last year, and her allegedly widespread fraudulent (although the data does not look good for her). Professors like Gino make millions, influence politics, policies and economics and this based on their "research" which seems more and more often to be irreproducible, unreliable and now even fraudolent.
Stardusty,
DeleteJust to clarify, I am an American citizen and I am Christian not Jewish. The topic is one of human decency. Numerous organizations at Harvard on October 8th said that Israel was SOLELY responsible for the atrocious actions that Hamas committed on October 7th. At some of the “pro-Palestinian” gatherings at various campuses, clearly anti-Semitic sentiments such as “Gas the Jews” were proclaimed. Some professors attacked those who were horrified at the actions of Hamas, saying that this was what decolonializing entailed. Many Palestinians have acknowledged the right of the state of Israel to exist; you can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Zionist. And you can be anti-Zionist without trying to defend the atrocities of Hamas which they LIVESTREAMED (which utterly gives the lie to those who say that these atrocities never happened). Hamas have said that they would do this again. The reactions to the October 7th on many college campuses are a symptom of a larger problem (poststructuralism and various strands of critical theory fit into this) to pit people in classes of oppressor and victim, male and female, white/Asian/Jew and black, colonizer and colonized (the classification of Israel as a colonizer is extremely dubious anyway), cis and trans, and to interpret all of reality through that lens. That is why you have have such ridiculous statements as “Racism is about white superiority …. Period” (Chanequa Walker-Barnes) or the various pronouncements of the ways that math/logic is sexist, the vilifying of those who think that men who identify as women boxing against actual women is a bad idea, and I could go on. The good news, Stardusty, is that October 7th has caused significant numbers of people to wake up. They are at least partially realizing just how wrong higher education has gone.
Tim,
Delete"Do not let that fact cloud your wider judgements about the situation."
Right, the wider judgement indicates that Islam and Judaism are highly destructive, based on ancient superstitious violent mythology that fuels endless cycles of mass murder.
The tradition of Judaism cited by Likud's Netanyahu is one of wholesale murder and land theft. The Jews, according to their own texts, murdered the babies, grandparents, boys, girls, men, women and even slaughtered the livestock. Then the Jews stole the land of their murder victims.
By contrast Islam colonized and subjugated, murdering only so many as needed to eliminate resistance and maintain subjugation. Inhabitants of conquered lands, rather than being exterminated as was done by the Jews, were instead taxed and used for labor as second class citizens or outright slaves.
While the traditional methods of Islam were less extreme locally their religion presents a global threat because their religion has expansionist goals, with a stated goal of taking over the entire world.
Jews, even though their traditional methods were of blanket genocide (unless they decided to keep the virgin girls for themselves), are of little threat to the world at large, because their territorial ambitions are relatively limited to the area between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates river, or in some cases as little as from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan river.
And so the wars have been nearly continuous since the time of Moses, and will continue without any peaceful solution. The solution will be military.
Both sides claim the same land.
Both sides claim divine right to genocide in order to obtain and hold that land.
Both sides claim each new battle is retaliation for the previous battle.
The situation will continue with war until one side achieves a decisive military victory. Given the backing of the USA, and their own military power, Israel will almost certainly be the eventual winner.
Anonymous,
DeleteYou talk about The Zionist Entity (you attribute that term to Stardusty, but I don't think he is guilty of that). Zionism refers to a homeland for the Jews. Are you saying that there never should be any homeland for the Jews? If so, how is that not antisemitic?
TIM FINLEY 3.44PM
DeleteI do not attribute the term 'Zionist Entity' to StarDusty at all! I am clearly using it myself as a synonym for Israel.
I do not support the existance of an apartheid Jewish ethno-state, just as I would not support the existance of a hypothetical state run by and for white nationalists. How does that make me antisemitic? I have nothing against Jewish people at all.
Stardusty,
DeleteI think that you are mistaken on several fronts here. The majority of Jews in Israel are not religiously observant. Also, I think that both Jews and Arabs largely regard the Arab nations not as Canaanites or Amalekites but as Ishmaelites; and there certainly is nothing in the Bible about killing all the Ishmaelites. Further, several Arab and Muslim nations have made peace with Israel and several others desire to do so.
Anonymous,
DeleteThank you for the clarification and the confession. I asked you about any homeland for the Jews, not about "an apartheid Jewish ethno-state." Are you aware of the varieties of Jews that there are in Israel : Yemeni, Ashkenazi, Russian, Sephardi, Ethiopian etc.? From your comments, it seems that you would be against any form of Zionism, against any homeland for Jews. Why do Jews have less right to a homeland than peoples of another religion?
Tim,
DeleteI never referred to all present day Jewish citizens of Israel as a monolith or any such generalization.
I was specific about Likud, the leadership of modern Israel under Likud, the founding principles of Likud, and what the leader of Likud (the sitting prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu) said in reference to the Amalekites and their reference in the Jewish bible (also your bible, nearly the exact same material, rearranged a bit, but almost exactly the same text).
Irrespective of the presence of atheist Jews and other opponents of Netanyahu as citizens of Israel, the fact remains that Israel is led by the leader of Likud, who has formed a government with even more radical elements within Israel, which of course is not a 2 party system but a multiparty parliamentary system.
Israel is in fact being led in war, and has been declared to be at war, in an explicit declaration of war, by the leader of Likud, a party with the same territorial ambition in its charter that Hamas has in its charter.
You cited in this thread a reference to "From the River to the Sea", in a manner clearly indicating you were only considering that claim by Hamas.
Likud makes the same claim of "From the River to the Sea" .
Likud is the same as Hamas in its written territorial ambitions.
The atheist Jews of modern Israel are presently an ineffectual minority with respect to military actions.
The primary inhibition Netanyahu faces that prevents him from reenacting the Amalekite genocide is the resulting loss of support in the USA that would follow.
But to his troops and to his citizens he reminds them of the Likud party position on Gaza, to treat them as biblical Jews treated the Amalekites.
It has come to pass that a close military ally of the USA has referenced biblical genocide as a reasonable model for treatment of Palestinians, by equating them with the Amalekites.
"several Arab and Muslim nations have made peace with Israel and several others desire to do so."
Those nations are not "from the river to the sea".
Those nations are not in the crosshairs of the Likud military machine.
The Jews as a nation, since the ancient nation of Israel, have never been an expansionist power beyond the Levant, or ancient Canaan, and parts of what is now Syria and was recently known as Trans Jordan.
I have never had a Jew knock on my door with a pamphlet urging me to convert to Judaism. In general Jews do not seem to have in their culture much of an evangelical bent, a missionary zeal, a desire to go out and convert the masses.
Throughout history the nation of Israel has been almost entirely focused on a very small area of land, bordered by the Euphrates river, the Jordan river valley and highlands, the Sinai peninsula, and possibly as far as the Land of Goshen.
Modern Israel seems to be content to keep the Golan, to the Negev, and continue its anaconda like theft of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
There does not seem to be much appetite in Israel even within Likud to launch wars of conquest into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Egypt.
So, surrounding nations have grown weary of attempting to fight US backed Israel because they always lose. Now that Israel has German submarines fitted with nuclear weapons for Operation Samson, and given the uselessness of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria to any other nation, the Arab nations are slowly finding it more expedient to make peace with Israel, while making mere noisy words of objection each time Israel steals another chunk of Palestinian land.
The claim that Israel is ‘an apartheid state’ is, in fact, a lie. Two million Israeli citizens – 20% of the total – are Arabs, the overwhelming majority of whom are Muslim. Arabs are elected to the Knesset, serve in the IDF, have the full gamut of civic rights and responsibilities.
DeleteThe difference is not between Jews on one side and poor defenceless little Palestinians on the other. The difference is between peoples who wish to live in peace on one side, and a people that wishes to exterminate the Jews on the other.
Right, the wider judgement indicates that Islam and Judaism are highly destructive, based on ancient superstitious violent mythology that fuels endless cycles of mass murder.
DeleteThe Islamic world is expanding and there are more Muslims now than ever. Over the next decades the Islamic population of Europe and the Russian Federation is projected to grow continually. This is the opposite of Islam proving a destructive force to Muslims.
The formerly Christian secular European population of the those areas is projected to undergo significant ageing and decline because its fertility rate is too low. It looks like this tendency to sterility and inertia will prove culturally destructive for them.
I see that recent advances in genetic archaeology point to the probability that large parts of the pre-1950 population of Western Europe owe their existence to 'population replacement' events during the bronze age. Their (probably Indo-European) ancestors from the Steppe seem to have been naughty boys when it was a question of eliminating rival male lineages and claiming their women.
Stardusty,
DeleteI desire a two-state solution, as difficult as that may be to achieve. I am unclear as to what you desire for that region. The Anonymous who likes what you are posting clearly wants the eradication of the state of Israel. Is that what you want also?
Tom Simon,
Delete"The claim that Israel is ‘an apartheid state’ is, in fact, a lie."
Israel maintains military blockades of Gaza and what they call Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank).
Palestinian land has been stolen by Israel under a variety of pretexts including confiscation of refugee's property, establishing parks, military zones, wall zones, road blockage zones, archeological designations, and settlement annexations.
The remaining islands of Palestinian occupied regions are kept as isolated Bantustans.
Some Palestinians are allowed to temporarily enter Israel as laborers.
The Israeli blockaded isolated Bantustans are prisons operated by Apartheid Israel.
"Two million Israeli citizens – 20% of the total – are Arabs, the overwhelming majority of whom are Muslim."
Irrelevant to the blockaded Bantustans operated outside of Israel by Apartheid Israel.
" Arabs are elected to the Knesset, serve in the IDF, have the full gamut of civic rights and responsibilities."
Irrelevant to the blockaded Bantustans operated outside of Israel by Apartheid Israel.
Israel will never annex the Bantustans of Gaza and the West Bank in a way that will give the Palestinians living there Israeli citizenship, because that would shift the balance of power away from Likud, the party presently perpetrating Apartheid Israel.
"The difference is not between Jews on one side and poor defenceless little Palestinians on the other. The difference is between peoples who wish to live in peace on one side, and a people that wishes to exterminate the Jews on the other."
Hamas and Likud are the same in their territorial goals.
Both parties have stated in their party charters the intention to take all land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
It is true that Hamas has the added goal of exterminating all Jews in the process.
When Netanyahu called upon Israelis to recall the Amalekites in the bible it became clear that Likud has the goal of exterminating all Palestinians.
Samuel 15
3
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
This is from the Jewish sources.
This is not something some Nazi invented.
This is in the Holy Bible.
The Jews murdered the babies, infants, children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers and every living Amalekite human being.
It would be the height of stupidity to blame modern Jews for any of that ancient murder, after all, that was thousands of years ago and thousands of miles away. No sane person would blame modern Jews for the genocidal murders perpetrated as described in the Holy Bible.
Except...
Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, the party with the stated goal of taking all land from the sea to the river.
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, Saturday, October 28, 2023.
It has come to pass that the leader of a nuclear armed nation, a leader of a party that has the written goal of taking all land now under Palestinian control, that leader, has invoked those genocidal biblical passages.
These are not the words of a Nazi trying to blame modern Jews for all the ills of the world, these are words from the Jewish leader himself. He is the one who is calling upon his fellow Jews to heed those ancient genocidal biblical passages.
His words, the bible's words, not mine.
Tim,
Delete"The Anonymous who likes what you are posting clearly wants the eradication of the state of Israel. Is that what you want also?"
What I want does not much matter globally, I mean, nobody calls me for advice prior to war!
But, since you asked, as I said, I am ok with the 1947 borders including a right to return.
When colonialism is dissolved there has to be some division of lands. I think the UN made some fairly reasonable attempt to come up with a partition that accommodated both sides. Obviously, things have not gone well since then, to say the least.
We talked Ukraine out of nuclear weapons and look what happened to them as a result. Israel is not going to make that mistake, just the opposite. They have a fleet of nuclear capable submarines, German made, powered by hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells called AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) as well as diesel, so they have operational capabilities comparable to nuclear powered submarines. Those subs also have nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, that can be launched from the subs, if called for, in Operation Samson, or the Samson Option.
This is not some Tom Clancy novel, this is what Israel has, and they will use it if the time were to come.
So, Israel isn't going anywhere, they are a military superpower with F-35 stealth fighters and nuclear armed submarines and every imaginable military capability, all supplied by the most powerful nations on Earth and funded by their own advanced economy as well as many tens of billions of dollars we give them.
By contrast Hama makes rockets out of pipe in a tunnel and manages to smuggle in some rifles. Hamas are delusional homicidal maniacs with zero chance of doing anything of military significance to Israel.
Stardusty,
DeleteI missed your previous comment that you were OK with the 1947 lines with the right of return thrown in. In thousands of years of history in which nations battle each other take territory etc, a right of return has never been standard. You and I both know that the 1947 lines with the right of return would mean the quick end of Israel as a JEWISH state.
Tim,
Delete"In thousands of years of history in which nations battle each other take territory etc, a right of return has never been standard."
Suppose there is a war in your city you did not ask for, and do not want. All you do is live in the house your parents lived in as you all just go about your ordinary daily lives.
But, since a war has come to your city it is no longer safe for your family to live in your family house. So you pack them up, lock the door behind you and put the keys in your pocket.
The keys.
The keys you intend to use to open the door to your house once the war has subsided and it is safe for your family to return.
But, the victor government says no, you cannot come back to your home, you are exiled permanently, homeless, made to live in refugee camps for the crime of taking your family out of a war zone for their safety while fully intending to return to the home you own, the home you worked hard for, the only home your family has ever known.
All you have left of your family home is the keys in your pocket.
The keys are a symbol of the crime against humanity perpetrated by Apartheid Israel.
"the right of return would mean the quick end of Israel as a JEWISH state."
Jews, by your own words, depend on the injustice of stolen homes to maintain their state religion.
But, the Jewish leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, clearly reads the bible as license to employ all tactics including genocide, as ordained by god. Thus, Likud leads Apartheid Israel by choking the Bantustan mass prisons they operate in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, continued theft of family homes inside Israel, and mass murder of civilians in Gaza.
Relative to the genocidal actions of the ancient Jews that Likud uses as their model such fascism is considered godly.
Stardusty,
DeleteYour attitude toward the Jews is horrifying but so was that of the student organizations that blamed Israel on October 8 for the atrocities committed by Hamas the previous day that I mentioned in my original post. It was their blaming Israel (and the blaming done by the administrators and comments such as this is what decolonizing looks like) that has led many to come to realize just how deep the universities have sunk. You would fit quite well as a President of Harvard yourself.
Tim,
Delete"Your attitude toward the Jews is horrifying"
I never expressed an attitude toward "the Jews".
That is your term, not mine. You obviously think there is something that can rightly be termed "the Jews", I don't.
Again, your words, not mine.
I never referenced "the Jews" as a whole class, or whole race, or whole ethnicity. You have, I did not. Your mistake, not mine.
Just to be absolutely clear here, there is no such thing, no such population, no such race, no such ethnicity of "the Jews" that can be rationally treated as a whole class subject to a rationally derived attitude.
There is also no such thing as "the Whites", or "the Blacks" or any other such sweeping generalization to which one could reasonably hold an attitude, horrifying or otherwise.
Every person is an individual. However, some people voluntarily identify themselves as part of a larger group, say, Catholics, or Democrats, or Biblical Literalists, or whatever, on and on.
Everything I have said about Israel, Likud, Hamas, and Palestine has been specifically qualified and targeted at identifiable political parties and self identified members of particular religious traditions.
For a PhD in religious studies I find you to be rather loose with your terminology.
Just what do you suppose my attitude toward "the Jews", as you call this imagined group, is, and what, specifically, do you suppose is so "horrifying" about this supposed "attitude toward the Jews"?
"You would fit quite well as a President of Harvard yourself."
I suppose you think that is some sort of pejorative attribution.
You see me as a person well suited to be President of Harvard, and to you that is some sort of insult.
Somehow, pointing out to you a bit about the "Palestinian key" triggered you. A great many indigenous people had their homes stolen by Apartheid Israel. You can start with Wiki if you are so very unfamiliar with these facts of the Nakba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_key
While you are at it you can learn a little something about the right of return, and why the key is thus such a bitter symbol of stolen homes by Apartheid Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
Stardusty,
DeleteIt is not any one comment you made; you have made numerous comments about Jews, Israel, Judaism, Jewish Scripture, on this post and other posts on this blogsite. Your first post in this thread was not to agree that the organizations at Harvard should never have blamed Israel for the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas (including tortures, rapes and murders of women and children livestreamed) but to see Hamas merely as "indigenous people" and to demonize Israel as "a violent powerful apartheid colonial subjugating power." I want a two state solution. Further, you want Jews (all Jews, not just Israeli Jews) to be denied the chance to worship at the Western wall, their holy site, as was the case before 1967. I have nothing further to say to you.
StardustyPsyche,
DeleteYou are an apologist for terrorism. You have no moral leg to stand on. The people in Israel are just as "indigenous" as the Palestinians. Debating who started what, who should occupy what, or who struck the last blow is pointless. The fact is that Israel is much stronger than Hamas or any organized effort the Palestinians can mount. Israel has every right to keep the power dynamics as they currently are. They would be crazy not to. Otherwise they would not survive. Palestinians will never reclaim what they think is theirs. If they would come to grips with that fact and start living as good neighbors, all of this violence would end in a generation. IMO, Palestinians are 100% to blame for ignoring these realities. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Tim,
Delete"It is not any one comment you made;"
Right, because I did not make any statements of attitude toward "the Jews". Your words, not mine.
"to see Hamas merely as "indigenous people" "
Hamas is the elected representative party of people indigenous to Palestine since 1947 and up to the present day. We can not like that fact but it is a fact. You can have your own opinions but you do not get your own facts.
"and to demonize Israel as "a violent powerful apartheid colonial subjugating power.""
That is also a fact. What part of that is not true?
1.Violent. The number of deaths inflicted by Israel against Palestinians far exceeds the number of deaths inflicted on Israel by Palestinians.
2.Powerful. Israel is a nuclear power with stealth technology and huge stores of bombs and munitions of all sorts.
3.apartheid colonial subjugating power. Israel has blockaded and imprisoned and geographically choked and dismembered and confiscated Palestine such that it now controls a set of Bantustans in Gaza and the West Bank.
"Further, you want Jews (all Jews, not just Israeli Jews) to be denied the chance to worship at the Western wall, their holy site, as was the case before 1967."
I never said anything remotely like that. Where did you get that from? Now you are just making up stuff out of whole cloth. What are you even talking about?
"I have nothing further to say to you."
You haven't said much that shows any depth of understanding thus far, so I will not be losing out on any educational opportunities by your silence.
Mostly you just make up stuff I never said or become aghast when simple facts are pointed out to you.
"You are an apologist for terrorism."
DeleteHilarious.
"The people in Israel are just as "indigenous" as the Palestinians"
Not when Israel stole homes in the Nakba, no they are not.
Not when Israel confiscates Palestinian land, no they are not.
Millions of people from around the world immigrated to Israel since 1947. How many immigrants have there been in that time to Palestine?
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
"Debating who started what, who should occupy what, or who struck the last blow is pointless."
Perhaps to you but that is a very big part of what fuels the cycle of violence there.
You obviously do not live there or you would not say something so absurd as to claim debating "who should occupy what," is "pointless".
That is the whole point "who should occupy what,", but you obviously have no idea of that fact.
The whole point is that Likud seeks to occupy all land from the sea to the river, and Hamas has that very same territorial goal.
For Hamas they also have the goal of killing every Jew in Israel as they take all the land.
For Likud the suffering and death of the Palestinians is irrelevant, they just want the land, irrespective of how many Palestinians are injured or killed in the process.
StardustyPsyche,
Delete"Not when Israel stole homes in the Nakba, no they are not."
Try expanding your vision to prior to 1948. Fact is, those who call themselves Jews have an historical claim to that area as much as any other group. Both Jews and Arabs are indigenous to the land. If we look at more recent history, virtually nobody who owned land there in1948 is still alive. The people of Israel are "indigenous" now, like it or not.
"You obviously do not live there or you would not say something so absurd as to claim debating 'who should occupy what,' is 'pointless'."
You didn't even try to understand me. It's pointless because trading words about who was there first will never settle the issue. Rhetoric will not chase the people in Israel into Turkey or anywhere else. That's why it's pointless. The Arabs lost. They are done. They just need to get over it.
"For Likud the suffering and death of the Palestinians is irrelevant, they just want the land, irrespective of how many Palestinians are injured or killed in the process."
Now ask yourself why this state of affairs exists. I suggest it exists because the Palestinians have refused to comprehend the fact that their own behavior keeps increasing animosity. It makes fanatics on both sides. And since they are by far the weaker party, they will lose. That is just a fact. It has nothing to do anymore with who believes what is right or wrong.
Don,
Delete"Fact is, those who call themselves Jews have an historical claim to that area as much as any other group."
Which is zero.
"Historical claim".
So, you get to steal my house because 3000 years ago your distant relatives lived in this general area.
Get over yourself.
"If we look at more recent history, virtually nobody who owned land there in1948 is still alive."
Tell that to the holders of the keys. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.
"You didn't even try to understand me."
Wait, you are the Anon who told me "You are an apologist for terrorism.", and now you are complaining about not being understood? Hilarious.
"The Arabs lost. They are done. They just need to get over it."
Some people consider it an act of courage to never give up without a fight, to defend themselves to the death.
You want the Palestinians to cry uncle after getting the bully beat down. If that is how you respond to getting beat down, up to you. Some people choose to live free or die fighting.
"Now ask yourself why this state of affairs exists."
Why is Likud indifferent to the suffering they inflict? They can afford to be, since they have the backing of the most powerful nation in history.
"I suggest it exists because the Palestinians have refused to comprehend the fact that their own behavior keeps increasing animosity."
Your suggestion is nonsense.
"It has nothing to do anymore with who believes what is right or wrong."
It still makes a difference to those willing to give their lives to put a price on the crimes of conquest perpetrated by Apartheid Israel.
Hello there Professor Feser
ReplyDeleteWhen perusing your ( appropriately named ) X feed, I frequently encounter a pic of a very scantily clad young female in suggestive pose, sometimes even spread eagle. This forms part of an add for sexual contact and dating services in the local area.
I suspect that many of your readers are clicking onto these adds and availing themselves of the opportunities they provide, but I must say that I am surprised that you part-finance your activities through such immoral advertising.
Care to comment good professor?
Surely you're aware that those are spam advertising tweets I have nothing to do with. If you know of a way of blocking them en masse, let me know. (They're always blurred, though, unless one clicks on them -- so why are you doing so?)
DeleteAnonymous might consider whether it is his own cookie cache or browsing trail which is prompting the ads he reveals he is being presented with.
Delete" .... partners may target the ads they serve you on X based on interests they have inferred about you, including based on your web browsing history or mobile application usage."
Mine are certainly not blurred!
DeleteHe frequently encounters them, which means he keeps clicking. So, either our friend is so low IQ that he still hasn't got it, or he is really interested in that. Lust darkens the mind as Aquinas used to say and that explains his post.
DeleteI guess I might be doing what my name is saying not to do, but sometimes you have to beat down the fool and aswer their foolish arguments (at least that's how I interpret the relevant passage from the Proverbs).
Because I'm lonely.
Deletedon'tfeedthetroll 2.36PM
DeleteYou have a long history of troll feeding DFTT, why stop now?
DON'T FEED 2.36PM
DeleteHaving decided that the post is an example of trolling, rather than a genuine inquiry ( why?? ), you abuse the poster , then announce that 'sometimes you have to beat down the fool and answer their foolish arguments' What arguments are they then? As far as I can see, none were made.
I frequently encounter a pic of a very scantily clad young female in suggestive pose, sometimes even spread eagle.
DeleteI am not the good Professor Feser, but I can tell you what is going on.
You are regularly surfing websites with "scantily clad young females" and which leave cookies on your browser (not the kind of cookies you leave for Santa, btw) and thus X (and other sites) tune their ads to your surfing habits.
So if you are bothered by ads about "scantily clad young females" then stop visiting those websites.
It is worth pointing out that if you opt out of cookies, they will still generate ads based on your location/ demographic (even opting out of cookies doesn't free you from tracking). So odds are, if you're a male, you're going to get porn ads regardless if you yourself consume it or not.
DeleteA curiosity struck me from one of the Gospel readings: Mary and Joseph made a sacrifice in the temple as was customary when the first born child was a male: as the Gospel put it, when a male "opens the womb" of the mother.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Mary was ever-virgin. This is taught as not only reflecting that she never had sex, but also that (according to tradition) the birth of her son miraculously, she was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
So, in what sense was it true that Jesus "opened the womb" of Mary, such that she and Joseph were required to make a sacrifice in the temple? Or did they make the sacrifice on account of appearances, since everyone would naturally assume that Jesus was conceived and born in a natural manner?
AFAIK, Jesus is believed to have been born just like any other human being, except that Mary never had sexual intercourse with any man, neither before or after Jesus's birth.
DeleteSo, it seems that Jesus did open Mary's womb.
I do not know what this has to do with beng a virgin or not. Or do you mean that opening her womb entails tearing Mary's hymen?
But why couldn't Mary by miracle have an intact hymen after giving birth. The whole thing is believed to involve a miracle.
BTW, the lots of women who are virgins do not have intact hymens and not every hymen gets damaged during sexual intercourse.
We are not privy exactly to how Jesus was born. Some very early traditions say the birth was also miraculous, but those are not in the canonical gospels. So Jesus might have had a normal birth.
DeleteIn any case they would still be required as Jews to make such sacrifices.
BTW, the lots of women who are virgins do not have intact hymens and not every hymen gets damaged during sexual intercourse.
DeleteWalter, yes, the hymen being intact is only an indicator of virginity, and not an especially reliable one at that.
I do not know what this has to do with beng a virgin or not. Or do you mean that opening her womb entails tearing Mary's hymen?
I too don't know the details. I discovered that in later centuries, Christians re-analyzed virginity and said that someone who made a vow of permanent virginity, and who was forcibly raped, and who at every moment refused to consent to the act being done upon them, could still be considered virginal in spirit, so to speak: they had all the necessary conditions to have that which is admirable about virginity. Obviously, the mere physical fact of having an intact hymen is not admirable in isolation.
From that standpoint, Mary's hymen being torn by childbirth would be an irrelevancy to her spiritual condition of virginity. However, that point of view (apparently?) had not been developed until later, and both Jews and Christians for a couple of centuries after Christ widely still held onto the earlier views. And yet there were plenty of early Christians who held that Mary was virgin after the birth through a miracle in which the Christ child did not pass through her birth canal.
Because a virginal conception had never happened before, I doubt the Jews had ever asked the question of whether a normal birth to a woman who (miraculously) conceived as a virgin would end her virginity, i.e. whether the baby's passage through the birth canal would end her virginity.
But the expression in the Gospel for their offering a sacrifice is for a boy who "opened the womb", not for any virginity aspect. I dare say any Jew who did ask the above question would positively say that if the birth was normal, the baby boy would "open the womb". What I am asking is whether the baby's mere presence in the womb would also satisfy the condition, and/or whether Mary and Joseph offering sacrifice can be (or has been) taken as commentary on the issue of whether the birth itself was miraculous.
I thought the blog post below was interesting. There are so many ways to "prove" something with statistics.
ReplyDelete"The Mathematical Trick Guaranteed To Win You A Nobel Prize"
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/50104/
Quite interesting, thanks!
DeleteThat's a really funny article. However, you can't win a Nobel prize for math, Alfred Nobel provided no such prize category.
DeleteWhat's even funnier is that I bet the author knew this, and the title is a tongue-in-cheek play on that fact.
The Nobel would come from your co-called discovery, not the math itself.
DeletePart 1:
ReplyDeletehttps://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2023/11/dr-feser-defines-woke-out-of-existence.html
Part 2:
https://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2023/12/dr-feser-defines-woke-out-of-existence.html
Hey One Brow,
DeleteGood to see you again. In Ed's defense, he does address the scholarship on Critical Race Theory in his book that he mentioned in the post and never once uses the term Woke in that book. Have you read it?
For example, in his chapter on CRT, he quotes extensively from the following authors:
Ibram X. Kendi "How to be an Antiracits"
Delgado and Steganic, "Critical Race Theory"
DiAngelo's "White Fragility"
Alan David Freeman's "Legitimizing Racial Discrimination through Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine"
Kimberly Crenshaw's "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color"
Are there others he should have addressed? What other authors would you suggest he read to get a better handle on these ideas?
Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel,
DeleteThe second link in my first post was a review/recommendation article based on scientific studies. Another opportunity would be a cogent response to the caser of Riley Grant, as outlined in the link to Joshua Kennon's site. AFAIK, Kendi and the others you list are not scientists engaged research, rather they rely on the research to inform their views. Much as the scientific study of biology leads to evolution, the scientific study of human behavior leads to the pervasiveness of microaggressions.
One Brow,
DeleteDelgado and Stefanik are major thinkers in Critical Race Theory, not popularizers, and Crenshaw is perhaps the founder of Critical Race Theory building off Derek Bell's prior arguments in the field of Critical Legal Theory.
Tim Finlay,
DeleteFrom the context of your comment you seem to think that what you are saying is in some fashion contrary to what I said, but I don't see how. Many serious scholars are not conducting scientific research (our esteemed host among them).
I may have misunderstood you, One Brow.
DeleteTim Finlay,
DeleteI don't mind. I'm not a particularly good writer, so often express myself poorly. It's all good.
Your definition of woke is this: recognition that there are many ways, some not obvious, that oppression can manifest itself.
DeleteEd defends this definition: “Wokeness is a paranoid delusional hyper-egalitarian mindset that tends to see oppression and injustice where they do not exist or greatly to exaggerate them where they do exist.”
You see the implications of Ed’s definition as this: “ By this definition, no straight, white, cis, etc., male (such as me) can be "woke" because, regardless of how much we agree that society is fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., it favors me. Feser would consider me paranoid instead, meaning I can't be "woke". It's a measure of Feser's privilege that he seems to think everyone who shares some common characteristics with him must agree with him.”
Just a few comments:
1. Ed does admit in his definition that racism can and does exist, but that the woke, in general, exaggerate them where they do exist. Or at the very least, they exaggerate them in such a way as to be of a paranoid delusional hyper-egalitarian mindset.
2. Nowhere does Ed state that straight white males can’t be woke in his definition.
3. I don’t think that Ed would deny, in principle, that some of the existing forms of racism are not problematic. But the way he approaches these problems are in line with the Catholic Church’s social teachings, as described in his book. Not the way Critical Race Theory proponents approach the problem.
So just sticking to your initial comment in Part 1, I think you are off the mark. I would encourage you to read his book on CRT. Specifically Chapter 1, 2, and 3 where he develops Catholic social teaching on this topic and on related topics, such as immigration. I would be interested in hearing your reaction to those chapters.
But I will continue to post on Part 1 over the next couple of days. I believe each of the examples you cite are based on some extreme statements from Kendi, Delgado, Stefanik, DiAngelo, and Freeman, which he takes to be thought leaders on Critical Race Theory and, in a broader way, to those he defines as woke and not necessarily against those who have a more reasonable definition of wokeness, as you have defined it.
Daniel,
DeleteYou made an error in quoting, one that drastically changed the meaning. I said, Feser would consider me pronoid instead, meaning I can't be "woke".
1. I agree that would be Feser's take, but the science does not support him.
2. Feser does not say this explicitly, but this is the inevitable result of his definition.
3. Did Feser specify any way that he fights racism, or does he prefer to ignore it, ala Clarence Thomas?
Unfortunately, my library offers no copy of All One in Christ. However, it does list an essay by Feser. Felons should not be allowed to vote. Considering the racism pervasive in the criminal justice, I doubt I would be impressed with Feser's interpretation of Catholic social teaching.
I didn't get any input from Kendi, et. al., nor from their writings, etc., in assembling my list of examples. They are trivially easy to find, as well as hundreds?/thousands? more, by a Google search. You have causation reversed regarding Kendi, et. al.; it's the CRTists following the research, not leading it.
I am unsure of the difference between my definition of woke vs. those of Kendi, et. al. Could you elaborate there?
“You made an error in quoting, one that drastically changed the meaning. I said, Feser would consider me pronoid instead, meaning I can't be "woke".”
DeleteAh! That clarifies it. I was not familiar with the term pronoid. I thought it was a typo. Now that I look it up, I can better understand what you mean. But I think a person who believes in the claim of white privilege and white fragility can be woke to the extent they buy into these ideas. If you believe that “... society is fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic” and that “… it favors me.”, then yes, I guess that would make you woke, on Ed’s analysis.
“1. I agree that would be Feser's take, but the science does not support him.”
OK - Let me focus on this one first before I move on to Ed's presentation on Catholic social teaching.
Ed does have a chapter that covers what the Social Sciences have to say on the matter. He quotes a lot from Sowell, Intellectuals and Race. And also from Sowell’s Discrimination and Disparities. Also from David Landes “Culture Makes Almost all the Difference”, and then some really interesting quotes from Daniel Entounga-Manguelle’s “Does Africa Need a Cultural Adjustment Program”. Some more from Lawrence E. Harrison, “”Promoting Progressive Cultural Change”, and “Culture Matters”. There are lots more, but you can get a general idea of the thinkers he dialogues with.
Anyway, they have performed studies as well and do not view the results of their studies through a CRT framework.
“3. Did Feser specify any way that he fights racism, or does he prefer to ignore it, ala Clarence Thomas?”
The problem is cultural, in his view and the social scientists he quotes from. And not necessarily just black culture that needs to change. But a key problem in black culture is the problem of the lack of Fatherhood in many black communities. Dads are not sticking around to raise their kids. Mothers are doing it completely on their own. Children raised in families with two parents do better on every metric, regardless of racial background. And those races that have higher rates of intact parental unity do better as a whole. This puts the Chinese who have a high rate of parental unity, on top of whites, followed by Latinos, then blacks who have the lowest level of parental unity.
Rather than acknowledge this problem, proponents of CRT tend to ignore it completely and raise the counter accusation of wanting to support the patriarchy by wanting to support intact families where there is a father and mother present. Thus changing to subject from racism to sexism.
He also makes a more general analysis of American culture, which he says, flows from Protestant Reformation values that give rise to modern forms of Capitalism. The elect or the saved, in this view, should show signs of financial success and thus the Protestant work ethic that strives for this gives rise to a post Christian secular preoccupation with material success as a sign of being successful in life in general. He contrasts this with Daniel Entounga-Manguelle’s analysis of African culture, where financial success is not the defining element of success in life. They have many cultural elements in place that lead to more happiness and less loneliness. More communal integration, and so on, that do not necessarily lead to financial success or material wealth.
This does not mean that racism does not exist or that racial discrimination does not happen and where blatant acts of racism occur, they should not be challenged. But the core of the issue is not white hatred of black Americans as proponents of CRT claims. Or that whites need to admit their original sin of white privilege and constantly try to change their racial and genetically inherited evil.
Anyway, I started with the social science part of Ed's book, which is the second to last chapter, before I've even described his chapter on CRT, which is the fourth. I am unsure whether I should jump into Catholic social teaching first or Ed's description of CRT first, given what you say here:
Delete"I am unsure of the difference between my definition of woke vs. those of Kendi, et. al. Could you elaborate there?"
Which would you prefer to look at first?
How about some links? It's been a while...thanks!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to better understand the argument from the determinacy of thoughts and indeterminacy of matter.
ReplyDelete1- in the plus and quus case, surely we can check the calculators program to see a physical difference between these two putative operations. If the calculator were doing quadrillion, it would have to check if either x or y are greater than some number. If the calculator or program isn't checking for something like that, then surely it isn't doing quadrillion. It's just adding; it's not checking for ant other variable or condition. As such we *can* empirically verify that the calculator is performing an adding function instead of a quadding function.
2- why couldn't the materialist just say that a certain brain pattern IS determinately about triangle rather than trilateral? The materialist could say it might be hard for us to identify whether this brain process is determinately about triangle or trilateral (an epistemological issue), but metaphysical there is still a fact of the matter that this particular brain pattern is about triangle, not trilateral.
Something about this reply does strike me as implausible because it's hard to see why there would be a necessary connection between brain pattern 1 and concept 1, and brain pattern 2 and concept 2. I'd just like to know if there's more that can be said, because it seems the materialist could just stomp his foot and say "this brain pattern does metaphysical determinately mean concept 1 and not concept 2". Although I understand how implausible and costly it can seem
I've been having an issue over the last couple of months with respect to A and B theories of time. I know Feser is an A theorist, so I figure this is a good place to noodle it.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering God is outside of time, it seems natural to consider B theory correct, since this seems to imply that all points in time are equally real to God. God being the most real, he grounds all time simultaneously in Himself.
Honestly, B theory seems bizarre. Intuitively I feel I should somehow privilege the now. However, if A theory is correct, the now is more real than the past or future. How is this truth grounded if God is outside of time? It seems God would have to know specific current facts (it is 2:14PM) for those facts to be properly grounded. Since now, it is 2:15PM, has God's knowledge changed? If so, what does that imply about immutability? If not, how are the present facts grounded in what is most true?
Gary, I suppose that I am some version of an A-theorist also, but probably not an ordinary sort.
DeleteLet me suggest a reason for qualifying / limiting any proposal for B-theory: all human language (so far, at least) is built up by people who experience time continuously in one direction, LIKE the A-theory. One consequence is that all languages have that experience of time baked into the structure of the language, as well as into individual concepts. The fact that verbs have tenses is a main element of that impact on language. In a people whose life-experience includes, from infancy, learning language in a tensed manner, the very context in which they form concepts is affected by that environment. Arguably, it would take a person raised from infancy with a language without tenses at all, (or whose tenses are explicitly the kind that B-theory holds, i.e. the "seems" of tenses from within the actions of agents inside a sequence) to actually be able to THINK in the right manner of being able to form concepts not laden with A-based language forms and assumptions.
As a minimum, all arguments about B-theory using English or any other language with A-based tenses is smitten by defects in the language itself for carrying the necessary B-theory concepts. You would have to invent a new form, explicitly un-tensed verbs, to start to make sense, and the argument would have to be entirely with that new form, not slipping into and out of tensed forms.
My own guess is that for us who actually live experiences embedded in A-type sequencing, A-theory is the true description of the reality we are "in", and (probably) the ONLY true description of moral behavior for us, i.e. of making good choices as temporal beings. A description from God's PoV would necessarily be transcendent and unlike ours in so many ways that something like a B-theory would be merely one more facet of difference, and it would be (probably) only sort of like B-theory because of other factors, the main being that God isn't "a being" like the stuff in the universe is "being", and it isn't really "time" at all from outside created being, it is so wholly other that even B-theory is more like merely "less wrong" as a description.
To say that another way: I doubt that angels (who are purely spiritual, don't experience material change, and borrow from God's eternal now) have some sort of a B-type apprehension of reality.
Tony,
DeleteVery interesting comment. I only wanted to ask if you had much exposure to Cantonese?
I understand it is a tenseless language, or so a school friend told me long ago when I asked why his parents, when speaking English, were always so explicit about time even as they always got the tense wrong. (His father once asked me, "This morning you make empty?" to see how much food he should prepare – I'm blushing just recalling the memory but I guess it's a fair question!)
Did Chinese philosophers generally favour a B-theory?
"God is outside of time"
DeleteThis is just another incoherent term.
Somehow, god is outside of time, whatever that means, yet acts through time. Those assertions are mutually contradictory, hence, the assertion is incoherent.
God does X at t1 and then later at t2 god does Y, all while remaining somehow outside of time. Pure gibberish.
Zoe, good question. After I submitted the above, I recalled that I had heard about one or two language where time was not embedded in the verbs, (or at least, not in all of them, maybe in some?), and you had to use "helping words" to indicate the relations of before and after and such. I hesitate to say anything specific about them, because (a) I don't know them, and (b) if they have standard ways of indicating the various kinds of "earlier" and "later" to help out, it is going to be unclear just to what extent time is not "part of" the language forms. (By which I mean A-type time, or apprehension, or thinking.) Someone who is a linguist and philosopher in those language might be able to speak to that.
DeleteI note that in English, we also use helping words to formulate our tenses:
I go,
I have gone,
I had gone.
I will go.
"Moses shall have been a fool."
So I just don't know how far different Cantonese (or other less-tensed languages) would be from English or similar western stuff, on this point.
I believe that just as some other languages have more words than "cousin" to distinguish, say, cousins on mother's side vs. on father's side, etc, so also there could be languages with more distinctions in time and temporal relations than we have in the English tenses.
Just discovered that Joe Schmid, with whom Prof. Feser has had interchanges, has published recently in major journals like Mind and Synthese. Plus has a co-authored book out on Existential Inertia and proofs within classical theism. Pretty impressive.
ReplyDeleteIt's impressive in that he can churn out enormous amounts of material in an intelligent manner, but it's not impressive in that he continues to think that his existential inertia objection carries water and that his "refutations" of per se causality are effective. He sometimes footnotes his other material which amounts to very brief analyses of a topic as if the issue in question were settled. His arguments do not impress me at all.
Delete@Bill: I haven't read Schmid's stuff yet, so I reserve judgment about its quality. But as someone who only later in life got articles published in top, international refereed journals in my field, I am impressed at this young chap's publishing record so far. I can access the book on existential inertia online so may dip into it later this month after the APA.
DeleteI was at a philosophy conference in Princeton last month but don't recall seeing anyone who looked like Schmid. But he wasn't on my radar screen so I may have missed him. I do have to say that I was impressed also by the caliber of questions asked and comments made by Princeton grad students, as well as by how nice they seemed - not like us obnoxious grad students in my day. But I know that niceness as such is not a moral virtue.
"book out on Existential Inertia"
DeleteUnnecessarily long.
Continued existence is no change in the existential aspect (respect) of material.
"No change" does not call for a changer. Invoking an unobserved changer to account for "no change" is extravagant and unnecessary at best, I would say delusional fantasy.
Suppose you have a gold coin in your pocket. Then later you still have that same gold coin in your pocket. You don't go looking for a pickpocket who suddenly felt remorse and put the coin back again.
You can speculate about such a returning pickpocket if you wish, but such a speculation is unnecessary certainly, and rather silly I would say.
There simply was no change in the existence of the gold coin in your pocket, so you don't need to invoke any kind of changer to account for an observation of no change.
The rest is just a very great deal of philosophical puffery. All that superfluous verbiage does is open up the opportunity for endless rabbit holes to jump into and debate about.
To speak in the local vernacular, material is already fully actualized in its existential respect, therefore there is no call for an existential actualizer to account for no additional existential actualization of the fully existentially actualized material.
The total amount of material in existence is precisely static.
Material cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore never changes in its existential respect.
If material could somehow be eliminated from existence that would be a change in the existential respect of material.
A change calls for a changer.
No changer is called for to account for no change.
Continued existence is no change in existence, therefore no changer is called for to account for the null transition from existence to existence.
Dr. Feser has it all back to front and we don't need a book to show that simple fact.
SP: it is at this point that you have to point out some existing "material" that is *not* a composite of matter and form.
DeleteBecause, if you can't, maybe stick to talking about what *evidently does* exist: particular material things, which *can* be created and destroyed.
Whenever you're ready...
"it is at this point that you have to point out some existing "material" that is *not* a composite of matter and form."
DeleteYou can call properties "form" if you want.
Properties without material to be properties of is incoherent.
Existence without material that exists is incoherent.
Material without any properties at all is incoherent.
"Existence itself" is incoherent.
A-T seeks to separate the inseparable.
The properties of existent material are co-necessities, ontologically contiguous and coincident, simultaneous and inseparable by necessity.
But by all means, do point to "pure act" or "existence itself", that is, an existence without anything that the existence is of. You can't because no such thing has ever been observed and the very term "pure act" is the incoherent jamming together of intrinsically disjoint words to form an incoherent term.
@SDP: I think many on this board will point to God as "pure act" and as "existence itself." Though perhaps "being itself" might be more accurate? [For Platonists, of course, "Being/being" is not metaphysically ultimate ...]
DeleteI still find Quine's "to exist is to be a value of a bound variable" a pretty good account.
ficino,
Delete"God as "pure act" and as "existence itself.""
Yes, that is the target of my assertion.
A core assertion of A-T is merely an incoherent term.
"Existence itself" is incoherent. Existence is of a thing, not the thing itself.
Supposing we conceptually start with absolutely nothing at all, and to nothing we add "existence itself".
What is existing in that case, just existence? Where? How? What?
Makes no sense.
"Existence itself" is just a gibberish term, two disjoint words jammed together so the proponent can declare eureka as though some deep problem has been solved by coining an incoherent term.
"I still find Quine's "to exist is to be a value of a bound variable" a pretty good account."
Values of bound variables do not exist, they are numbers, which are abstractions, and have no mind independent realization in the cosmos.
I don't know the context of that Quine quote but the plain text in isolation makes no sense because it cites a non-existent abstraction as the definition of what it means to exist.
This is you conceding that you *cannot* show us any of this "material" that exists without form? They say, it takes a big man to admit his mistakes. Have you spoken to your doctor about TRT?
Delete"Material without any properties at all is incoherent."
Yes, though I think you mean unintelligible rather than incoherent. In any case it’s a problem for you as I am not calling properties form, rather *you* are denying form exists while smuggling it in under the name “properties” (or “arrangement” or whatever). These determine particular matter to some thing (a matter/form composite) which *can* be created or destroyed. And this form must *be* in some way before it can determine anything else. It just doesn’t exist as corporeal things exist i.e. it is not extended spatially or temporally or subject to motion as matter is. And so it is rightly termed *immaterial*.
You’ve denied all of this ad nauseam without any argument and insisted on an indestructible material-absent-form without any evidence but I guess that’s okay because you now call the idea “incoherent”.
Instead of role-playing an expert on Aquinas, just read––really read––his 24 theses at a minimum.
“[8. …] the corporeal creature is composed of act and potency even in its very essence. These act and potency in the order of essence are designated by the names form and matter respectively.”
“9. Neither the matter nor the form have being of themselves, nor are they produced or corrupted of themselves, nor are they included in any category otherwise than reductively, as substantial principles.”
Note my emphasis then re-read your earlier comment to me. Sound familiar? And remember: Act is any mode or perfection of real being, or any activity or *other feature that characterizes* the being(s) in question.
Pointing out “Pure Act” is not the same challenge to me because I have never suggested that the immaterial is observable but somewhat intelligible. And the evidence for Him is given in such proofs as Aquinas’s. In trying to understand what is meant by “Existence Itself” conceptually why don’t you trying starting with *nothing but God* instead of ”nothing at all”?
I've referred before to Peter van Inwagen's channeling of Quine when van Inwagen argues that abstract objects exist. He so argues precisely because he holds that "exist" in "there exists an X such that ..." must be univocal for any value of X.
DeleteThis is a controversial topic, and I doubt that it can be discussed adequately in an open thread -- let alone solved, lol.
ficino,
DeleteNot hard to solve, the ad hoc insistence on univocal use of the word "exist" is just a transparent attempt to define the non-existent into existence.
Zoe is doing much the same above.
It is a simple matter of linguistic fact that people speak colloquially of a great many ideas as if they exist.
Then an immaterialist ad hoc insists on a univocal usage of the word "exist" and then tries the linguistic trick of equating (equivocating) non-existent abstractions with existent material.
The ontological argument for the existence of god attempts the same linguistic trickery by claiming that god exists as a thought in the mind when in fact god does not exist at all merely by having a fantasy of something one calls god.
By this verbal slight of hand Zoe and Aquinas and many others say that arrangements of existent material are themselves somehow existent.
"Existence itself" is an incoherent term. If only existence exists what is it that is existing in existence itself? Nothing, only the existence?
"Existence itself" is as rational as "running itself". Running is of a thing, not the thing itself. Existence is of a thing, not the thing itself.
To say that only god exists is not incoherent as an isolated assertion. That is not what "existence itself" means.
If only god exists then god is not existence itself, rather, then god is the only existent thing.
The term "existence itself" is a case of having no there there.
@SDP: re your "Not hard to solve, the ad hoc insistence on univocal use of the word "exist" is just a transparent attempt to define the non-existent into existence."
DeleteTake this propositional function:
(Ex)(Px & ((Ay)Py-->(y=x)&Mx))
Substitute "President of the USA" for P and "moron" for M, and the proposition reads "The President of the USA is a moron," or "At least one thing is POTUS and a moron" or "There exists an x such that x is the POTUS and for all y, if y is POTUS then y is identical to x and x is a moron."
Or, substitute "working class" for P and "construct" for M. The proposition reads "The working class is a construct" etc analogously with the above translations.
What account of the quantifier notated as "E" covers all cases of its use?
ficino,
DeleteTranslations from prose to symbolic logical form are just that, translations.
As with other sorts of translations, much can be lost in the translation.
I have no expectation that "E" in this context can be salvaged to be universally useful in descriptions of prose on the subject of existence.
Human being do not speak, in general, in such formalized ways. There is a great deal of nuance and equivocation in ordinary expressions. In principle, perhaps some vast set of expressions could capture all the relations expressed in human language, but that seems like such an enormous task I doubt it is humanly possible.
Consider my favorite Thomist reference site:
https://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
III. The Argument in Symbolic Format:
P1-A: m
P2-A: m ® a
C-A: a
[P1-B: a ® (i V f)]*
P2-B: a
C-B: i V f
P1-C: i V f
P4-C: ~ i
C-C: \ f.
* This premise is implicit and necessitated by the text (which means the argument is an enthymeme).
Well, that looks somewhat impressive, and from that translation Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo, Ph.D. (aka, Don Paco) concluded that the First Way is logically valid.
Well, he got a few things wrong in the translation. The First Way is logically invalid because it suffers from the fallacy of false dichotomy and the fallacy of non-sequitur.
So, sorry, but I do not expect to be able to patch up "E" in that context. I suggest discarding the attempt at translation to symbolic form and stay with logical arguments in English with reference to existence. Define terms sufficiently to expose and eliminate the verbal slight of hand that is insistence on a univocal use of "exist". Then we can see clearly that "existence itself" is an incoherent term and that the word "exist" is used in very different ways in different contexts in common language.
When that is all done perhaps one could figure out a comprehensive and accurate way to translate all that work into symbolic form.
@SDP: I agree with you that there are problematic and/or contentious steps in the First Way as Fr. Carrasquillo regiments it.
DeleteYou seem to direct most of your reply to problems that arise from talk of "existence itself." My recent had a different focus, sc. whether abstract objects exist, as Quine and van Inwagen and others have maintained that they do.
I started out with a propositional function before I supplied English word combinations to substitute for the values (maybe I could have supplied better ones) because I was trying to find out your views about what a person commits her/himself to when quantifying over a bound variable in now classical, Fregean/Russellian predicate logic. We need not continue this line of discussion. I reject the notion that "Being" or "existence" is a first-order predicate.
Below Brandon said that there are various systems of logic in use today. Other than the old so-called syllogistic, I don't know about other systems. My intuition is that to throw now-classical, Fregean/Russellian predicate logic overboard would entail huge theory costs. Another intuition is that, while logic doesn't arrive at metaphysical conclusions, a metaphysic that needs to reject F/R predicate logic again operates at huge theory costs. I sometimes wonder whether some followers of Aquinas downgrade F/R pred logic because they think it makes it harder for them to argue for Thomistic conclusions than does, say, Aristotle/Porphyry syllogistic.
A colleague, who works on medieval philosophy, said that your metaphysics will be "off" if you are using a flawed system of logic to argue for it. I can't see how that observation doesn't hold.
Much of the above doesn't address what you wrote, of course. It's my further rumination, and instead of deleting, I'll just shut up now.
ficino,
Delete"Below Brandon said that there are various systems of logic in use today. Other than the old so-called syllogistic, I don't know about other systems."
Perhaps you know more than you know you know.
In other words, intuitively, by common use, I think we all use various sorts of contexts for the word "exist".
There exists a number X such that...
There exists an electron X such that...
Superficially one could attempt to use the same logical structure to analyze both statements, but that does not capture the fuller meaning of the English language expressions, hence my assertion that a great deal gets lost in the translation from English to logical symbology.
"My intuition is that to throw now-classical, Fregean/Russellian predicate logic overboard would entail huge theory costs."
That is a price I am willing to pay to gain greater comprehension. I don't see the utility in struggling with symbology that is awkward and lossy, when one can more simply and elegantly and fully communicate using the English language.
"I sometimes wonder whether some followers of Aquinas downgrade F/R pred logic because they think it makes it harder for them to argue for Thomistic conclusions than does, say, Aristotle/Porphyry syllogistic."
Possibly.
For example, the identification of false dichotomy in the First Way is not apparent just by a narrow view of the syllogistic argument or its symbolic interpretation. In that narrow view the argument seems logically valid.
To identify the invalid logic one must first take a much broader view of the premises employed, then realize there are 3 choices, not 2.
"A colleague, who works on medieval philosophy, said that your metaphysics will be "off" if you are using a flawed system of logic to argue for it."
Right, and the reverse can also be true, as in the example I provided above!
Not only do you need valid logic to make your argument sound, you need sound premises to make your logic valid. That is a fundamental error of A-T, failing to recognize their invalid logic that arises from their false premise.
"I'll just shut up now."
Oh, darn, I was hoping you would tell me I am a troll, or a monkey typing on a keyboard, or a Jew hater, or a terrorist apologist or some other super impressive such attribution! Well, no worries, I am sure there are a bunch of folks here to do the job.
It would be interesting to see a post using pop culture to explore the distinction between artifact and substance in artificial intelligence -- how Star Trek, strongly endorses that mechanisms like Commander Data or Voyager's EMH are characters in their own right. (I recall an earlier post using Freaky Friday to explore the mind-body problem.)
ReplyDeleteYes, very impressive for someone that young. He's finishing his Ph.D from Princeton, and will soon be teaching at a university somewhere.
ReplyDeleteHi Ed,
ReplyDeleteI've followed this blog for almost a year, and it has been largely (not entirely) responsible for turning me from a New Atheist/Materialist into a (tentative) philosophical theist -- however, I still have much to learn!
Your post that had the greatest effect on me is "The Road From Atheism," but I'm curious -- would you consider writing "The Road to Catholicism?" I'll admit that even as classical theism has forced me to reconsider so much of my worldview, a positive case FOR Christianity or Catholicism still seems as fanciful in my mind as ever. Perhaps the ghost of the New Atheist still has a hold on me!
Happy New Year, and I'll continue to follow the blog.
- AKruger
AKruger
DeleteLike you, I have moved from atheism to a tentative classical theism, but also like you , I see the positive case for Christianity, let alone Catholicism, as being highly fanciful. A basic classical theism might be true, yet all our religions could still be purely human creations.
Be very careful AK not to end up subscribing to a particular faith tradition because of emotional or social need. They will do all they can to draw you in, then ensnare and incorporate you. Resist this at all costs.
AKruger,
Delete"Perhaps the ghost of the New Atheist still has a hold on me!"
New Atheists, like just plain old any kind of atheists, do not believe in ghosts.
If you have transitioned from not believing in ghosts to believing in ghosts then I suppose a post by Dr. Feser might well have influenced you.
Of course, you are likely speaking only metaphorically about ghosts, you might say, but what is any sort of theism if not a belief in some sort of ghosts?
Catholics commonly call it the Holy Ghost, and in all seriousness. What is your opinion of a grown adult who believes that Casper the Friendly Ghost is real? That is probably about the same as my opinion about a grown adult who believes the Holy Ghost is real.
Irrespective, classical theism is incoherent nonsense. The Five Ways of Aquinas are worthless. There are no sound arguments for the existence of god on offer, none at all, I can quickly show you the errors in any one of them.
For example, the first and most manifest Way is based on the ancient Aristotelian misunderstanding that a object that appears to be in motion must have something else moving it in the present moment. That is shown to be unnecessary with inertial motion, which manifestly has nothing else moving the object.
Since the First Way is an argument for necessity, and inertial motion shows the core premise to be unnecessary, the whole argument immediately fails.
While it is incontrovertible that inertial motion proves that the First Way is unsound, it has further defects in that it suffers from false dichotomy, by neglecting the mutual causation case of circular movers. The fact that Scotus included a denial of circular movers in his arguments shows that Aquinas neglected that third case, and therefore employed invalid logic.
Plus the last phrase of the last sentence is a non-sequitur, what Koons calls "the gap problem".
And so it goes with all the arguments for classical theism. They have a sort of superficial appeal to common sense, but quickly fall to pieces when examined.
Dr. Feser had a good decade back there in the nineties. More's the pity that such an articulate speaker and engaging writer remains locked in the ancient errors of Aristotle and Aquinas.
My first comment on the blog got a reply from SP — and it was absolutely as deranged and incoherent as I could expect! Getting completely lost in the weeds over an obviously playful comment about “ghosts” — right off the bat — is about par for the course.
DeleteYou’ve attempted to “quickly show the errors” in the Five Ways before on here, and have done nothing more than quickly humiliate yourself. If anything, it’s atheists like you — absurdly overconfident and deluded — that have only pushed me away from atheism.
- AKruger
An anonymous individual above warns to avoid religion at all costs. But why? I mean, you see classical theism popping up in the earliest traditions of Christianity, for example. So by becoming convinced of such a position you’re basically just discovering now something that early Christian thinkers were able to see prior to the last 1700 years of philosophical development. I mean, I wouldn’t consider that to be the position to start claiming that one is much more intelligent than the religion that has been developing way beyond your “new” philosophical belief for so many centuries…
Delete"My first comment on the blog got a reply from SP"
DeleteWow, lucky you, eh???
"it was absolutely as deranged and incoherent as I could expect!"
Well, one would reasonably expect zero derangement and zero incoherence from me, and that is what you got, so, you're welcome!
"Getting completely lost in the weeds over an obviously playful comment about “ghosts”"
Who got lost? Sure, I realized it was just a metaphor, but those sorts of idioms sometimes have some very interesting backstories.
"You’ve attempted to “quickly show the errors” in the Five Ways before on here, and have done nothing more than quickly humiliate yourself."
Interesting, how so?
Can you show me that Aristotle was correct after all that inertial motion necessarily requires ongoing movement impressed upon the object from outside?
Can you give me an example of causation that is not mutual at base, and therefore circular?
Perhaps you could show me that Duns Scotus did not include a denial of the circular causation case, thus avoiding the false dichotomy that Aquinas committed?
Can you please show me the logical connection between the last phrase in the First Way and the rest of the argument, such that it is not a non-sequitur and Koons is wrong to call it "the gap problem"?
Dr. Feser references this site on the right in his provided links, and I agree that Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo provides some interesting materials by giving us translations into syllogistic and symbolic forms.
https://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
But, by all means, do you have a favorite study source site for Aquinas? If so, please share the link here.
"it’s atheists like you — absurdly overconfident and deluded — that have only pushed me away from atheism."
Confidence comes with age, which is one reason younger women are often attracted to older men, but that's another subject...
You'll get there, with practice. Like, for example, can you give the specific evidence and rational arguments by which you say I "humiliate (myself)"?
I mean specifically, what have I said about inertial motion, necessity, mutual causation, circular causation, false dichotomy, and non-sequitur that would reasonably lead me to feeling self-humiliated by virtue of my "deranged", "incoherent", and "deluded" utterances?
Journey 516
DeleteI certainly did not warn AK to avoid religion at all costs. I merely recommended that he should not end up subscribing to a particular faith tradition because of emotional or social need ( or incorporation ).
At the moment, despite his tentative classical theism , AK finds the claims of Christianity to be highly fanciful. I agree. Perhaps that is because they are fanciful, and false.
An interesting new argument for god’s existence is the argument for psychophysical harmony: why is there a match between the valence of our conscious experiences and the behaviors they promote (for example, why does pain feel bad). It would be interesting to hear this argument analyzed from an Aristotelian perspective:
ReplyDeletehttps://philarchive.org/rec/CUTPHA
Same old argument from reason and EAAN, with a dose of begging the question by assuming dualism.
DeleteThe AFPH states that on the supernatural there is good reason to believe in the supernatural.
People are actually taking this seriously?
", pain is correlated with avoidance behavior"...because evolution.
Correlation of pain with avoidance is pretty obvious on materialism, yet this is treated as some sort of mystery to be solved by invoking some invisible being?
Lewis, Reppert, and Plantinga have been publishing this scattered silliness for many years.
The AFPH isn't new, just warmed over ignorance of the obvious evolutionary account. Organisms exhibit avoidance behavior in response to stimuli indicating harm to the organism. Organisms that do not evolve ways to avoid harm are unlikely to survive to reproduction. This is evolution 101, pretty obvious.
I think this would make sense to Alvin Plantinga.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMynvSe5PSc
Psychophysical Harmony’s Most Common Objection
Apologetics Squared
WCB
ReplyDelete"I have nothing to do with. If you know of a way of blocking them en masse, let me know."
The geniuses at Google will soon be changing their Chromium browser to no longer be able to use ad blocker extensions. How this will afffect sites infested with ads is going to be interesting to see.
WCB
Don't want to rekindle the now quieted conflict that briefly erupted between our host and Lofton, so readers take this linked material for what it is worth.
ReplyDeleteI was mostly and more focused on the hall monitor and flag waving psychology and rhetoric of the presentation than on the plausibly split hair. I was not able to stand more than 20 or so minutes of it so I don't know of Lofton addressed Frankie's timing or his history of dancing on the edge of the precipice and then saying in effect, "Who little ole me? Causing scandal?"
Link below.
Lofton, accusing a professor of a lack of " docility" of Protestantist scriptural interpretations, and of failing to recite "I do believe, I do believe, I do believe that Frankie and the magisterium are One" (Ok this last one is an exaggeration, sort of, maybe, to some extent)
"Refuting Regis Martin's Shameful Hit-Piece on Pope Francis"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FRd9U-xC3Ag
I had an interesting exchange with Chat GPT. I was discussing order and the program referenced self-organization as one reason for why we have order. I've shortened the responses that the computer gave.
ReplyDeleteMe: "If self-organization is an explanation of why a rock came to exist, then is it reasonable to say self-organization is the reason a computer came to exist? Natural processes created the order for both objects, correct?"
Chat GPT: long answer and then "In summary:
Rocks: The order in rocks emerges from natural processes like geological and chemical interactions. Self-organization in this context refers to the inherent tendencies of materials to organize themselves under natural forces.
Computers: The order in computers is a result of human design, engineering, and intentional assembly. While materials undergo manufacturing processes, the organization into a computer is not a result of spontaneous self-organization but a product of human-directed processes."
Me: "The human design that creates the computer implies that there are forces involved that are not natural forces. In other words, the forces that created the rock are not the same forces that created the computer. Is this correct?"
Chat GPT: "Yes, that's a correct interpretation."
I kept pressing but it wouldn't give me a solid answer.
Me: "How can human agency have any quality that isn't natural?"
Chat GPT: "The recognition that human agency is a product of natural forces doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of human agency having qualities or aspects that are distinct from what we might categorize as purely "natural" phenomena." followed by a list of several things to consider. "Emergence" seems to be a catch-all response for why anything comes to exist.
"Chat GPT: "Yes, that's a correct interpretation.""
DeleteClearly the algorithm needs refinement. Once AI reaches human level capabilities for philosophy it might do better, but given that most humans are theists it is likely that AI will have to surpass average human intelligence before this sort of error ceases to be exhibited.
"Me: "The human design that creates the computer implies that there are forces involved that are not natural forces. In other words, the forces that created the rock are not the same forces that created the computer. Is this correct?""
No, that is not correct.
4 forces of nature have been identified thus far:
Electromagnetism
Gravity
The strong nuclear force
The weak nuclear force
All observed phenomena are the natural result of natural process in various combinations and aspects of the same 4 natural forces.
If human activities are defined as not natural and non-human activities are defined as natural then all one has done is define the supernatural into existence.
Not impressive.
Well, Chat GPT functions on the basis of the 4 forces of nature and it says you are wrong. Physics and/or quantum emergence can be a real b*tch.
DeleteSteveK,
Delete"Physics and/or quantum emergence can be a real b*tch."
Hmm, wasn't bothering me at all, what seems to be the problem?
Human constructions are as natural as an animal burrow, nest, hive, or beaver dam. Human beings are as natural as any other animal.
Once the beaver builds the dam all kinds of things happen beyond the control of the beaver. The same can happen when human beings construct devices.
There is no call for some realm that is somehow "supernatural", whatever that incoherent term is supposed to mean.
I disagree with the output of a computer program, so what?
The assertion of "supernatural" is just another attempt to define god into existence.
Can you demonstrate the existence of "supernatural" or "immaterial" without begging the question, defining god into existence, or mere speculation?
Having recently read Thomas White’s The Incarnate Lord: A Thomistic Study in Christology and re-read Steven Duby’s Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, I am struck by how much they have in common with each other in terms of metaphysics, divine attributes, diaphysite and diathelite Christology. [By the way, I recently attended a panel at the Evangelical Theological Society in which Father White was largely cheered on by the audience for his defense of Chalcedonian Christianity against the kenotic Christologies of at least two of the panelists.] The Baptist scholar Matthew Barrett also has an excellent recent book (on which there was also a panel discussion at the ETS meeting), The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It builds upon work done by David Steinmetz, Richard Muller, James Dolezal, Lewis Ayres, Khaled Anatolios and others in showing a significant common orthodoxy. The divine attributes and the Christology expressed in the Twenty-Five Articles of the Methodist Religion (the first article of which explictly affirms divine simplicity) lines up very well with these books also. Wesleyan theology shares with Thomistic theology certain features different from Reformed theology: sanctifying grace is quite prominent in White’s book as is the universal offer of atonement (rather than limited atonement) and the concept that justifying grace can be resisted.
ReplyDeleteTim, thank you for this. I had no idea that Wesleyan thought diverged that much from what I take as standard reformed theology. Of course, I really haven't studied Wesleyan theology specifically, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
DeleteYou're welcome, Tony. I probably gave the impression that Steven Duby is Wesleyan when he is in fact more in the Reformed/Calvinistic line. So even with the Reformed theology of Francis Turretin in the 1600s, say, and Aquinas there is a huge overlap concerning natural theology and law, divine attributes, chalcedonian Christology, Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics etc. Duby is defending that against recent alternatives, largely Protestant (Karl Barth, Jurgen Moltmann etc). Thomas White is defending Thomistic theology against recent alternatives, mainly Catholic (Karl Rahner, Jon Sobrino and others).
DeleteJohn Wesley was not a systematic theologian and largely retained the theology of the Anglican tradition (Richard Hooker would be a good example). The best systematic theology in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition is that of Thomas Oden. It is good on Patristic resources but does not discuss metaphysics much. I would love to see a similar work to Duby's in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. At the Evangelical Theological Society this November, I got to meet Steven Duby, James Dolezal, and Craig Carter, all major figures in the Evangelical revival of classical theism. Wesleyans should join them; they share additional connections with Thomistic theology which I mentioned in my first post.
I know of 1 book that compares Aquinas's and Wesley's theologies of grace. It's called "Wesley, Aquinas, and Christian Perfection: An Ecumenical Dialog" by Edgardo A. Colon-Emeric.
DeleteI haven't read the book, so I don't know the details; but from the book's description, he argues that their views of grace/Christian perfection have a lot of overlap with each other.
One thing I would want to see be developed among Wesleyan Protestants is a Wesleyan-Thomist synthesis (on their views of grace and related topics).
DeleteAs far as I know, this has never been attempted on a large scale. I've only seen it be used for specific aspects of their theologies.
Michael,
DeleteThank you for that reference; I shall try to borrow a copy via InterLibrary loan (it is too expensive on Amazon). I see that Steven Long regards it highly, so that is a positive.
Open threads seem like the right place to have a discussion about monikers, since the topic has come up in several past threads recently. Since Dr. Feser has a comment system that allows anonymous commenting, it seems that he either doesn't care that much or is in favor of the ability for people to comment anonymously, but that sentiment clearly isn't shared among some regulars.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who prefers commenting anonymously, I would much rather my comments be considered for their actual content rather than by the fact that I am the one making them. Putting names to comments immediately makes people start forming opinions of you as a person and then replying to you rather than to your comment based on what they know (or believe) about you, rather than the comment itself. I get no parasocial value out of commenting here, so I see no point in adopting a persistent nickname.
If anything it is a courtesy to the person you are talking to. When there are fifty Anonymous posters, it makes tracking conversations difficult, particularly when one Anonymous agrees and another disagrees.
DeleteAnd as you've likely seen, being an Anonymous does not protect you from the criticism of your identity. It just takes on a different form.
Anonymous at 4PM
DeleteCompletely concur with the very sound reasons you gave for prefering to remain anonymous, which seem to me to trump arguments to the contrary. It also means that you will not get into long running animosities with sociopathic posters who take exception to you.
Since Dr. Feser has a comment system that allows anonymous commenting, it seems that he either doesn't care that much or is in favor of the ability for people to comment anonymously, but that sentiment clearly isn't shared among some regulars.
DeleteActually, I think he mentioned in the past that the Blogspot software constrains his options on that.
Using a pseudonym IS remaining anonymous. "Bill" isn't my actual name, and nobody here except Ed knows who I am.
DeletePutting names to comments immediately makes people start forming opinions of you as a person and then replying to you rather than to your comment based on what they know (or believe) about you, rather than the comment itself.
DeleteI hate to break it to you, but people already do this with single anonymous comments, as well; and if this were the real argument, it would effectively mean that anyone commenting anonymously would be confined to single comments rather than actual discussion. (Which relates to the primary problem with the anonymous commenting here, which is that quite a few anonymouses do not differentiate themselves from other anonymouses even when it's actually necessary for understanding an argument developed over multiple comments.)
The obvious solution would be for commenters to use a pseudonym or identifying mark, even if only temporary; but the advanced technology of making up a name or signature seems to elude some of the people commenting anonymously here.
Putting names to comments immediately makes people start forming opinions of you as a person and then replying to you rather than to your comment based on what they know (or believe) about you,
DeletePutting "Anonymous" to your comment has the automatic and predictable result that the reader ascribes to you that you have some motivation to NOT put a distinct moniker to your comment, and reacts to that fact at a minimum. And the reader also (typically) reads the comment with (present to his mind) possible reasons why you might say that and not want it associated with you specifically. You can't avoid giving grounds for possible and probable inferences from your behavior, even if your behavior is not ascribed to one name that carries to other comments.
The benefits to you of remaining anonymous seem trivial compared to the detriments to the conversing community of your remaining indistinct from all of the un-addressable. And one of the "benefits" proposed by one of the thousands of anonymouses here seems positively perverse.
Anonymous@January 4, 2024 at 4:00 PM
ReplyDeleteIt's a free country (in theory). If you choose to comment anonymously (not accidentally) along with 100 other people it's likely people will confuse with some other anonymous, think you are some sort of bot or are too lazy or crazy to respond to.
I normally consider the graffiti on the subway wall obnoxious. Not some thoughtful person that wants to engage in a discussion.
If someone posts as 'Anonymous' , why might others think that they are too lazy to be worth responding to, or just crazy? These seem bizarre conclusions to jump to. Is that how you think, bmiller?
DeleteAll I ask is that people consider my comments for their actual content rather than by the fact that I am the one making them. But it seems anonymous posters cannot bring themselves to this level of civility.
DeleteI'm not going to directly reply to or engage with the Anonymous commenter at 4 pm. But his peculiar rationalizations are worth remarking upon.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing to note in a general way while he explains and justifies his practice of posting up repeated comments anonymously, is that his personal identity would remain just as unknown with a pseudonym as with a generic "anonymous" label.
The difference between pseudonym and none would not concern the exposure of his personal identity to the world at large, but instead affect the simple comment to comment contextual assignability*** of his output to one particular voice.
To prevent this, is the aim to which he in effect admits, albeit in a curiously spurious way.
Now, in the current social scene where politically driven doxxing and swatting and employment harassment of the outspoken, especially if they are "conservative", is relatively common, a pseudonym for the vulnerable might seem prudent.
And, if a dropped comment is neither directed personally at other commenters, nor is there any design to engage them rather than the topic solely, then who would care?
But neither case constitute his rationale.
It is precisely in order to avoid the consistent assignment of his own output to himself as author by other writers, that he refuses to even adopt a "moniker".
And the stated rationale?
"Putting names to comments immediately makes people start forming opinions of you as a person and then replying to you rather than to your comment based on what they know (or believe) about you, rather than the comment itself."
Placing aside "makes". So if there is a you of any kind, represented by an emblem, number, series of symbols, whatever, to be associated with your words, an opinion of you as author might form. And apparently, as he ostensibly sees it, the double walled anonymity he advocates is a way of maintaining the purity of an exchange, or at least the presentation, of ideas lest some opinion of the pseudonymous author form in the minds of readers of more than one of his comments. Then to psychologically intrude, and remarks be subsequently directed at the emerging image of the character of the person shielded by the pseudonym.
In other words, if your opinions can be traced to even your message moniker, an opinion of your character will ensue. The solution, is the disembodied voice or unconnected voices if more than one foray is planned, emanating from behind the radiator, as it were.
As one who has himself had assorted combox lunatics pitching themselves in front of him and shouting insane questions and accusations, it might seem we could tease some sense out of that stance.
Yet the trolls shouting for attention have themselves conceded you can respond to or ignore or simply leverage their assaults as suits your own long or short term purposes.
As far as the " I get no parasocial value out of commenting here ... " business goes; well, I don't think that the term "parasocial" means quite what he imagines it means. At least it did not when I was being taught psychology and when it meant a one-way and imaginary social relationship with fictional characters or celebrities such as in the way a TV addict might refer to Oprah or to some daytime TV judge.
It did not refer to virtual or contextual electronic interactions or exchanges with real human beings constituting a form of substitution for "flesh and blood" social interactions.
Aside from that, the points are well taken.
***( In the sense of attributable, not the legal sense of transfer, of course)
Putting names to comments immediately makes people start forming opinions of you as a person and then replying to you rather than to your comment
DeleteI got a strong sense of "methinks thou doth protest too much" in reading this. On the one hand, a certain anonymous commenter (I won't mention who, for the sake of anonymity), insists that DNW must reveal his religious and philosophical commitments, and his failure to do so is (at a minimum) antisocial. Then the commenter presumes to read into DNW's not (locally) providing that information by making assumptions about his character that go well beyond what he says in his comments.
For myself, from the very first moment I saw DNW's moniker, I started making assumptions about him, such as these:
(1) He has a normal name, something like David Nathanial Webster;
(2) He has a horrible name, like Drewsome Nullity Warhorse;
(3) He insists on shoving his personality into the commbox's impersonal questions, so much so that he has to demand others pay homage via his moniker (though disguised), for Due Net-based Worship ;
(4) He is so self-effacing that not only doesn't he claim to have settled anything definitively himself, he doesn't even claim THAT up front, but hides it under an acronym for Don't Negate Wonder.
There is no end to the things you can "learn" from someone's moniker.
" The Guy That Usually Goes by Tony but Here Goes by "This Spot Taken"January 6, 2024 at 9:40 AM
Delete'Putting names to comments immediately makes people start forming opinions of you as a person and then replying to you rather than to your comment'
I got a strong sense of "methinks thou doth protest too much" in reading this. ... For myself, from the very first moment I saw DNW's moniker, I started making assumptions about him, such as these:
(1) He has a normal name, something like David Nathanial Webster ..."
LOL The variation "Daniel Nathaniel" has a nice ring to it.
One might even consider the combination of letters as representing a monogram; in which case "Webster" would signify the middle name.
Of course if it stood for a name like Daniel Nathaniel, rather than say, the logo of a North Sea energy or other company, I might then attract Anonyponce-type insinuations that I was a Zionist Jew Oppressor; and the insistence that I attempt prove otherwise by dancing to whatever insane tune these anonymous CHEKApunk Jr. Nazis decided to call.
You have to give Catholics some credit. That would be credit for not shrugging, and then turning the nominalists' nihilist and deconstructive acid hose back in the faces of the progressive secular-demoniacs themselves.
Doing so would seem not only fair, but just. With the added bonus of granting the polemical diabolists - with limitations - their fondest wish: i.e., the acknowledgement that insofar as ostensible humans go, that they at least, are essentially [existence preceding essence of course], soulless, ultimate and intrinsic nothings of no ultimate cosmic significance whatever.
Yet Catholics in some obstinate Marian-like determination, insist on viewing these jabbering eyerolling tongue lolling secular diabolists as "poor sinners" ... rather than as the skin-bag flotsam of a meaningless reality which their own premises imply them to be.
You would imagine that these self-reduced and implicitly defined progressive skin-bags would be grateful. If for nothing else than for at least receiving the attention they so obviously crave and wheedlingly seek.
Yet, I have still to see the Catholics receiving any thanks whatsoever for it.
Come join our Classical Theism discord If you're interested in open dialogue on theology, metaphysics, ethics, etc. Non theists welcome too!
ReplyDeletehttps://discord.com/invite/fmvd5Mz9
DNW takes 18 paragraphs to say what he could have said with just his second to last paragraph:
Delete"...points are well taken."
Invite did not work
DeleteIt seems like a very polite community that can disagree and debate without being insulting and condescending, thanks in part to a particular and well-earned ban. Thank you for the invite.
DeleteKevin,
DeleteIs that why the invite did not work? Hilarious, a discord ban for too much discord.
Looks like you need a safe space to be discordant.
There was a lot of disagreement and debate, but only one poster that I saw that made a multi-paragraph "I can't imagine adults believing this" post. The expectation of common courtesy is not the same thing as a safe space, I think.
DeleteSP, I think they're welcoming people who want to dialogue on things.
DeleteYou're a clueless monkey randomly typing on a keyboard, prancing like a pigeon who thinks he's right -- and for whom dialogue is "hey, look at how I'm right".
I'm sure you can get the idea why you're banned. :D
Now, I'm not sure you can get that idea, though. That's why I feel pity for you. :(
Kevin,
Delete""I can't imagine adults believing this""
That is my personal lived experience.
I could only believe in the bible and such fiction as a child. As soon as I grew old enough to begin to think for myself it became blatantly obvious to me that the the "logic" of the bible was utter nonsense.
Before I became an adult I transitioned from a child believing whatever he was told to a rational individual who could easily identify the obvious absurdities in Christianity.
I personally identify Christianity with childhood. I find it very difficult to personally relate to or conceive of an adult human being believing anything such as that which seems so childish to me.
I stopped believing in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the bible when I transitioned from being a young child to being able to think for myself. I associate those beliefs with childhood, children, children's stories, and childishness.
Now, very obviously, otherwise adult human beings do in point of fact believe very strongly in the bible. Many believe so strongly in the bible they take the stories literally.
The most respectful thing I can do on this subject is to assist you in coming to grips with your present state of fantasy beliefs. I respected you enough as an adult to be able to hear that you are expressing yourself childishly in this aspect.
That respect of me toward you, that you would have the maturity to be able to constructively absorb that characterization, was clearly misplaced.
You lack the maturity to be able to hear such descriptions about your beliefs without seeking to shut them out. You clearly have some sort of psychological need for a safe space, which you have in fact created for yourself and your fellows of like character.
Couple things.
DeleteYou do realize I'm not the one who banned you, right? I received the same invite you did at the same time you did. I simply referred to the fact that its not uncommon for people to react negatively toward those who lack common courtesy, such as yourself.
Which brings me to the next point, which is like many of the New Atheist persuasion, such as Sam Harris for a prominent example, you seem to pretend that you can wrap insults into otherwise polite language and claim you're holding a reasonable dialogue, such as the post you just made to me. That's not how the world works, something of which you are fully aware, so you intend those little jabs as you write them.
It is entirely possible to have a respectful dialogue with a person with whom you agree on absolutely nothing without launching a single insult, so when you choose to tell someone you find their beliefs childish when they haven't attacked you, you're simply providing an example of childish behavior, which is rather like writing a typo in a post criticizing someone else's grammar or spelling. Cracks me up every time.
Likewise, while you find Christian belief to be childish, I find New Atheist anti-theism to be universally juvenile and ignorant. So no hard feelings on my end.
StarDusty
DeleteI never believed the Biblical, general religious and paranormal stuff even as a young child, but found it all to be utterly absurd, and said so openly. Mind you, that was not hard in secular England. When people have not been socialised or otherwise conditioned to believe this stuff, most automatically find it laughable..
We've heard what you had to say. Multiple times. For years. Your message has been received, discussed, considered and ultimately rejected.
DeleteThe most respectful thing you can do it stop repeating yourself. If you're interested in being respectful, as you claim to be, then either find a new argument or just stop commenting.
I find it very difficult to personally relate to or conceive of an adult human being believing anything such as that which seems so childish to me.
DeleteOK, that's your experience. I know people who were raised without religion, and came to believe Catholicism as adults. These are thoughtful people, who spent years and years (as adults) in their examination of many options, before coming to believe in Christ. One is a college professor. You are effectively dismissing their years-long arduous work as "childish". It is not surprising that others hear your comments as tone-deaf, condescending, and oafish - and that's aside from the actual reasoned quality of any arguments you make, which isn't much better.
Kevin,
Delete"You do realize I'm not the one who banned you, right?"
No, but that's fine, I have no reason to contradict you. I did not pay much attention one way or the other, just saw the invite, but it didn't work.
"That's not how the world works,"
Clearly the world does work that way, since I did in fact write what I wrote.
Now you are the authority on "how the world works"?
"you intend those little jabs as you write them."
Now you are an internet mindreader, somehow you get to tell me what my intentions are, this just keeps getting richer.
" I find New Atheist anti-theism to be universally juvenile and ignorant."
That's the difference between us then, since I am not triggered by that statement but your snowflake fellows need a safe space.
Anon,
Delete"When people have not been socialised or otherwise conditioned to believe this stuff,"
Right, which generally happens in childhood.
Apparently, that did not happen to you in your childhood so you did not experience a time in your life when you rejected that absurd religious rubbish.
Many people who are conditioned as children to believe that "laughable" nonsense retain those childish beliefs, and really do not appreciate having such facts pointed out to them, typically, at least superficially at first.
But, over time, in many cases, it becomes clear to those who received childhood religious conditioning that actually, yup, believing in god is absurd and laughable and childish, and thus reject religion later in life.
Anon,
Delete"For years. Your message has been received, discussed, considered and ultimately rejected."
More's the pity, then. But I still have hopes for you, being the optimistic sort I am.
StarDusty
DeleteYour comments here are very much appreciated, both philosophical and political, despite the frequent rude interventions of your vociferous detractors, who are obsessed with censoring you. Fortunately, the professor does not agree with them.
Please remember that vastly more people read this combox than the aforementioned vociferous rump, who seem to think they own the place.
Does anyone on this blog read philosopher-poets?
ReplyDeleteOr poets that have written poetry on philosophical themes?
The only ones I have read (or heard of) are these ones:
Lucretius - On the Nature of Things
Boethius - The Consolation of Philosophy (poetry in between chapters of dialog)
Robert Bridges - The Testament of Beauty
C. S. Lewis - (a few of his poems; not all of them)
The Romantic poets (particularly Novalis, Coleridge, and Wordsworth) are good examples of poets sometimes writing on philosophical themes; while John Norris, Margaret Cavendish, and George Santayana are often-overlooked examples of philosophers writing poems related to various aspects of their philosophy.
DeleteThe romantic poets you've mentioned should have written nursery rhymes instead. Their philosophy was awful
DeleteYes, philosophical poetry at its best!
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9baKqZJrI
Is philosophical poetry at its best when its philosophy is rubbish?
DeleteAlexander Pope, “An Essay on Man”.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/50205660/Why_I_Am_an_Atheist
ReplyDeleteIt's free to read. You don't need premium membership.
I believe this proposal by philosopher of religion Nathan A. Jacobs has tremendous potential:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailywire.com/news/the-private-practice-professor-a-path-to-true-education-reform
What does Prof. Feser think of it? I know I would definitely sign up for his classes the second registrations were open 🤓
You look at how much money is spent and wonder where all the money goes, but I guess, if this is to be expanded, professors would need a place to teach 20 students, that place needs bathrooms and other facilities, emergency plans, data storage, that place needs to be maintained, soon enough the professor has a secretary and an IT guy on payroll, etc.
DeleteSuddenly, the students need to go to different courses with different professors, but can't travel all around a city to do that, so, to remain competitive, multiple professors acquire a central location with multiple rooms, build a library, hire administrators to manage things, and call it a campus.
Suddenly, costs and bureaucracy explodes and you've just created a university.
But, perhaps his proposal creates some diversity in the industry. Professors might want to remain with a reasonably small student group, just working out of a home or rented room with being able to supplant a library by providing only access to online academic resources, and there are some kids willing to let go of the campus experience (which some clearly are with distance learning).
So, while presiding over Epiphany Mass, Pope Francis warns against ecclesiastical ideologies, and directs you all to seek God in the faces of the poor, instead of being obsessed with clever religious theories. Many of the contributors to this combox, including its propriator, should take heed.
ReplyDeleteThe word is "proprietor." Take heed that he let your comment be posted.
DeleteAnonymous at 1.19PM
DeleteWhat is the significance of your anal typo/spelling error correction , in the context of the post in general?
As to taking heed that the professor let my post pass, why should he not? Are you suggesting that posts should be vetted for spelling and grammar, or that I should be dumb struck that he let it pass while containing a critical comment about him? Professor Feser regularly does this, indeed his openness to criticism and refusal to censor and ban people from this combox is one of the things I most admire about him.
Prof. Feser does not need to be told to heed anything.
DeleteAnonymous 4.29PM
DeleteEr, why? I
Er, because I'm pretty sure he already knew what Francis said.
DeleteAnon 2.50PM
DeleteKnowing something and taking heed of it are quite different things. I am more than 'pretty sure' that the Prof already knew what Francis said, but not at all sure that he has taken heed of it. They are not the same thing are they?
Who are you to tell him to "take heed?"
DeleteYou are just being snarky.
You've previously spoken on the impossibility of true AI, but what do you think of a related topic, which is the danger of simulations of human intelligence becoming so convincing that, whatever the objective reality behind that "intelligence," humans can't functionally tell the difference?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what do you think of the potential of genAI making authentic evidence impossible to verify? Do you think that's something to worry about? If so, what do you think is the best solution to that?
Those chanting "Gas the Jews" believe that an identifiable group, "the Jews" exists. Those who were horrified at the chants "Gas the Jews" believe that an identifiable group, "the Jews," exists.
ReplyDelete
DeleteSome might find this link below to be of interest.
It's been years since I did a paper in school on the British Mandate. And on looking up Ottoman land tenure law and Palestinians, their registration and their avoidance of the process, in order to refresh yesterday, I again came across the business about "communal ownership", non registration of title to avoid taxes and military obligation, and said to myself 'Chuck it'. I'm not wading through that morass of special pleading again.
So, what follows instead, is an Israeli's perspective on the imparted cultural value's dissimilarities at work. Is it, "Nature or nuture?", as the old question was framed when considering, say, a blood drinking cannibal or sex pervert case.
Roman Catholics, other Christians and maybe Jews in general, would tend to answer "nuture" I figure; at least with regard to the most abominable crimes. [ I never for example came across even a Calvinist who suggested that total depravity extended distributively through all individuals in each and every case: and leading inexorably and universally to the kind of monstrousness we see developing in Islam, in homosexual culture, or in anti-theistic Marxism, progressivism and collectivism]
"I Can Understand Why The Palestinians Hate Us Israelis"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jDjQV1JOf6E&pp=ygU2SSBjYW4gdW5kZXJzdGFtZCB3aHkgdGhlIFBhbGVzdGluaWFucyBoYXllIHVzIElzcmFlbGlz
And then there is, drumroll ...
Empathy - a phenomenon of psychological projection - which depends for its "validity" upon the assumption of one humanity, or the psychic unity of mankind. If some hominids are in fact collectivist drones, [and I do not assert that all persons called Palestinians are, any moreso than were all members of the preRevolutionary Russian Obshchina] then, the exercise of that relatively newly defined "power" is substantially illusory as applied.
Different , perhaps radically different and antithetical moral sensibilities, or " tastes" and foundations as Haidt has referred to them, might exist within what is taken on blind faith, be it religious or sociopolitical, to be one moral species. Rendering it mirabile dictu, not one.
Could pose a problem for those trying to live on the same landmass or in the same political space under the same laws.
Of course, and getting back to the Gazans and the instant case: If one were to accept that at base all causality is mutual, then is one to further conclude that in some way the Palestinians have done all this to themselves, and that in a deterministic world it is, "shrug", inevitable? And if not, why not?
"Those chanting "Gas the Jews" believe that an identifiable group, "the Jews" exists."
DeleteRight, that is terminology commonly employed by racists, which is why it was highly imprudent of you to employ that terminology yourself.
"Those who were horrified at the chants "Gas the Jews" believe that an identifiable group, "the Jews," exists.
Not as an identified group to which an "attitude" could reasonably be attributed, no.
Suppose some marchers start chanting "kill the effing s". The horror or disgust the rest of us experience in response is not an affirmation of the validity of the stereotype employed.
BTW, your implications are your problem. I have been very specific and qualified in my assertions.
Say there, Tim, which do you think is worse?
1. "Gas the Jews"
2. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"
Ok, I confess, trick question, they are equally bad. Both call for the extermination of a whole people, genocide. Gas or the sword, the method is not the main factor in the wrong, it is the fact of mass murder of a whole people that is so very wrong.
Is 2. irrelevant, however?
The Leader of Israel, the leader of Likud, the party that states in its charter the territorial ambition to take the land from the river to the sea, that guy, he considers those ancient words to be worth remembering to this day.
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible — we do remember,” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 28 Oct 2023
For myself, I would be very happy to dismiss Samuel as irrelevant ancient mythology, ugly and primitive and disgusting to be sure, but just a mythological horror story, one of many in the bible.
But Bibi says no, remember, he says, remember Amalek in the bible, Bibi has exhorted the Israelis he leads.
Are you as horrified by Bibi citing genocide as other incitements to genocide?
Frege: Look at that beautiful sight!
ReplyDeleteCritic: Oh, what do you see?
Frege: Look, there are some thoroughbred horses.
Critic (squinting): Capital, but where are they?
Frege: Down there in the field by the river.
Critic: And how many horses are there?
Frege: Four, see, all coal black. Stunning. And so fast!
Critic: Amazing, I see them, yes! And do they exist?
Frege: Wise guy.
Some questions above have me cogitating again over the question, is the existential (or particular) quantifier ontologically loaded, as Quine, van Inwagen, and others hold? Or is it ontologically neutral, as nominalists may want to hold if they get into the problem?
There really is no such thing as 'the' existential quantifier; there are several different kinds of existential quantifier (depending on the particular logic used), each of which is susceptible of very different interpretations, as one pleases. The widespread acceptance of the existence interpretation as if it were the only one is entirely an accident of history, probably due to Brentano's (at the time highly idiosyncratic) interpretation of logical judgment happening to influence a number of people involved in the nineteenth century development of symbolic logic. So the answer seems to be that it is ontologically loaded when interpreted as ontologically loaded and it is not when not; it is a formal operation in a logical system that can be used to represent various sorts of positing (including but not limited to positing actual existence), not an act of metaphysical insight.
Delete@Brandon: thanks for your reply. Can you suggest one or two published discussions of what you wrote, pitched to people with some philosophy in their background but who are not trained logicians beyond the Logic 101 level?
DeleteWhat are laws of nature?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the Thomistic view is to treat it as natural tendencies stemming out of a thing’s nature. Thus, that f=ma or the concept of Inertia all derive out of a thing’s intrinsic mode of being. The problem with this is that it involves baking the modern cake in a scholastic oven. It involves attempting to translate a modern concept into scholastic language, resulting to in a Frankenstein like creature and I will show why.
Here is the Scholastic concept of natural laws:
1. Derive from a particular being’s nature
2. Necessarily follow from a given nature
3. Are ontological (not say physical) in nature, rather than mathematical
4. Only happen “most of the time”, meaning they can misfire
A fellow like Newton treats laws a nature as mathematical rules which guide nature as a whole (law of “nature” rather than laws of “natures”) in such a way that they never “misfire”. He sees them as contingent, thus requiring experimentation rather than mere reasoning to be uncovered. In short, it is widely different from the scholastic concept and trying to merge the two will only make one misrepresent what the scholastics believed.
Here is a fine article on the topic:
https://catholicscientists.org/articles/christian-foundations-of-idea-of-laws-of-nature/#:~:text=Natural%20laws%20in%20this%20sense,accessible%20to%20all%20rational%20individuals.
Hi Thiago, wondering if you might have a second to help clarify some similar concept I'm having a difficult time comprehending, namely AT teleology versus ID teleology, got a moment?
DeleteTiago, that's a interesting argument, and I thank you for at least taking seriously the A-T concept of nature(s).
DeleteHowever, I don't think that your suggestion fully works. (I didn't have time to read the article in the link yet, but I will later.) I am not an expert in this, so I might mis-state what a proper A-T theorist would say, but: it seems to me that in Thomism, natures of complex organisms usually are explained as entailing in their substantial (and accidental) forms the virtual presence of the forms of sub-"entities" that subsist in the encompassing organism. So, for a simple example: in a lion that has "water" in it, the lion's substantial form supervenes over all parts and aspects of the matter of the lion, but in doing so it retains (and supervenes over) the virtues of the form of water as to the water molecules, so that the water molecules act as if a water-nature form were the "substantial form" of the molecule, i.e. it still acts LIKE water, inside the lion, but does so as a consequence of the lion-form that all of the lion's matter is being informed by. And the same for the iron atoms, etc.
And this "in-virtue-of" descends all the way down to the level of atoms, protons and electrons, and quarks. Thus there is no level at which the laws of nature (modern sense) would interfere with the law of natures (A-T sense).
A fellow like Newton treats laws a nature as mathematical rules which guide nature as a whole (law of “nature” rather than laws of “natures”) in such a way that they never “misfire”.
I think that it is consistent with A-T theory that the "misfiring" can be construed as more possible / probable as the order of complexity grows, so that it never happens at the level of quarks and atoms, rarely happens at the level of, say, DNA molecules, infrequently happens at the cell level, and sometimes happens at the level of an organ system or whole organism. In at least a rough sense, I think this is our experience in biology. It is my (vague and very rudimentary) grasp of biology that one reason why it is possible for a veterinarian to treat 20 different kinds of animals, but in we need 20 different kinds of specialists to treat humans, is that humans are just plain more complicated than most animals, and especially so in respect of the brain / nervous system. And we are rather susceptible to misfires in those complex organ systems at least in the sense of system interactions.
Also, while Newton thought of nature obeying mathematical laws in a deterministic way, the moderns have realized that this may be an oversimplification in two directions: (1) the determinism that is seen at the macro level appears (under quantum theory) to resolve to a matter of the laws of large numbers as applied to not-exactly-deterministic (some sort of random) aspects at the sub-atomic level: i.e. it is only the mathematically probable that "necessarily" happens at the macro level. (2) The more thoughtful scientists are admitting that they are not yet able to assign a clear explanation of the interface between the (probability) mathematical laws and the actual events themselves, i.e. they admit that a mathematical law is not, itself a cause in the sense of "acting on" the bodies like an agent cause does, it describes rather than causes. There remains an explanatory gap that has not yet been filled.
For those on the blog who do think that the Jews exist and want to learn more about them from a Catholic historian's perspective, I recommend Paul Johnson's "History of the Jews."
ReplyDelete"Coming to Faith through Dawkins" is a recently published book which I highly recommend.
ReplyDelete"Editors Denis Alexander and Alister McGrath gather other intelligent minds from around the world to share their startling commonality: Richard Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists were instrumental in their conversions to Christianity.
Despite a wide range of backgrounds and cultures, all are united in the fact that they were first enthusiasts for the claims and writings of the New Atheists. But each became disillusioned by the arguments and conclusions of Dawkins, causing them to look deeper and with more objectivity at religious faith. The fallacies of Christianity Dawkins warns of simply don't exist.
Spending time in this fascinating and powerful book is like being invited to the most interesting dinner party you've ever attended."
Anon,
Delete"The fallacies of Christianity Dawkins warns of simply don't exist."
Such as?
The Dawkins rant about Yahweh is a classic, and spot on, you know, infanticidal pestilential and all the rest.
Did Dawkins mention the incoherence of the omni properties attributed to the Christian god?
The Christian god is logically impossible because multiple mutually exclusive properties are attributed to him, such as being simultaneously omniscient and having free will.
Of course, the assertion that god is the source of objective morality is logically impossible, since objective morality is ruled out by arguments of the form of the Euthyphro dilemma.
God cannot be omni benevolent and omnipotent in the presence of evil in the world, as shown by the 4 questions of Epicurus.
The idea that god somehow came to Earth to sacrifice himself to himself so he could live forever in paradise himself...all in order to somehow save you from your sins...well, that kind of takes the cake for idiotic assertion sets.
I doubt those guys were "new" atheists at all, more likely they are just saying that to make some sales.
God will protect the Jews in Israel, His chosen people, until the end of time. I have enormous respect for that little country which has defeated all countries that have attacked it since 1948, and has hunted down its enemies all over the world. That, however, does not excuse Israel's failure in dealing with the people of Palestine.
ReplyDeleteAnd God seems to have spared the Germans in France from 1941 to 1945. All parties come to an end.
DeleteFernandez has got to go. His erotic nonsense is the last straw.
ReplyDeleteWho is this Fernandez, and what has he done now?
DeleteTrouble is he won't go because he's Francis's man.
DeleteThis is what I find most frustrating about the Francis pontificate. There is no canonical process for removing a bad pope.
All the talk about a heretical pope automatically losing his office is just talk when there's no canonical process in place. All we can do is pray that Pope Francis will see the light or that his pontificate won't last much longer.
This guy Fernandez seems to have a very sensible perspective on sex and sexuality for a Roman Catholic. Perhaps he will become Pope one day.
DeleteInteresting. I was wondering if Fernandez was, or had been, a practicing homosexual.
DeleteKatherine Watt great catholic, Sasha Latypova, RFKJr Thatddeus Kozinski all show how badly Ed judged coofid1984. Someone with his research skills and capacities should not have made those mistakes. Could be subject of world-class repentance, showing how catholics do it.
ReplyDeleteThe Philokalia: St Mark the Ascetic No.214 When the evil conduct of one person begins to affect others you should not show long-suffering, and instead of your own advantage you should seek that of the others so that they may be saved. For virtue involving many people is more valuable than the virtue of only one.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Watt, Sasha Latypova, R F K Jr, Dr T. Kozinski and friends showed this teaching during the carpet bombing of the trans...fection agent. Ed would do a good work to follow.