tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post114240313874861245..comments2024-03-19T00:20:18.049-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Interview on Aristotle’s RevengeEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85575633084988185342019-08-04T12:05:41.555-07:002019-08-04T12:05:41.555-07:00Tritium August 2, 2019 at 3:09 AM
"Thanks to ...Tritium August 2, 2019 at 3:09 AM<br />"Thanks to the two resident trolls, SP and PR, this thread has completely gone off the rails."<br />In what sense is listening to the audio links provided in the OP, making note so that the words of the OP are quoted accurately, then making specific rational arguments on the specific philosophical points of the OP "off the rails"?<br />Please see<br />July 21, 2019 at 7:40 PM<br />July 19, 2019 at 3:49 PM<br /><br />Virtue signaling to your friends by attacking those who disagree does not constitute a philosophical argument.<br /><br />The Fifth way, contrary to the statement in the OP audio link, is unsound, including because it uses at least 2 logical fallacies:<br />Begging the question. Aquinas states "designedly" as a premise and then concludes an intelligent designer.<br /><br />Non-sequitur. Aquinas states "natural bodies" that are "evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way", then concludes an intelligent designer. Ironically, Feser undermines The Fifth way by stating that patterns of efficient causation do not directly implicate a mind, which is true, and makes that argument of the Fifth Way a non-sequitur.<br /><br />Any thoughts on the specific philosophical arguments?<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70814392422634113952019-08-02T03:09:55.823-07:002019-08-02T03:09:55.823-07:00Thanks to the two resident trolls, SP and PR, this...Thanks to the two resident trolls, SP and PR, this thread has completely gone off the rails. It is amazing, quite frankly, that StardustyPsyche hasn't been perma-banned by Dr. Feser. The same applies to Phillip Rand.Tritiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09898318643029403042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17208687063502855912019-07-23T21:33:11.554-07:002019-07-23T21:33:11.554-07:00I know that Dr. G.C. Dilsaver approaches professio...I know that Dr. G.C. Dilsaver approaches professional psychology from a classical philosophical and Catholic point of view. His main work is Psychomoralitics. I have not read it, but I have listened to some interviews of his, and he seems like a sharp guy.<br /><br />Also, he is certainly not a Thomist, or even religious, but a lot of people think Jordan Peterson has made valuable contributions to the integration of philosophy and psychology at least on a popular level.<br /><br />I would be interested to hear other people’s suggestions.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481589239954065668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20927183411652599702019-07-23T12:21:07.973-07:002019-07-23T12:21:07.973-07:00Still stubborn as ever, even more than when you we...Still stubborn as ever, even more than when you were on the CT forum, before your dumb ass got booted from there.<br /><br />SP, you know, if you were hanging on a cliff holding with your two hands, I'd step on both of them. And then kick your face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51390190010351662322019-07-22T20:08:20.187-07:002019-07-22T20:08:20.187-07:00Coconuts July 21, 2019 at 6:25 AM
"SP ...
His...Coconuts July 21, 2019 at 6:25 AM<br />"SP ...<br />His lack of interest in philosophy beyond a minimal level "<br />What do you think of the conflict between Feser stating "I think the Fifth way is sound" and Feser stating that "intrinsic teleology does not directly implicate a mind"?<br /><br />Isn't the second statement an acknowledgement that differential or incremental or moment to moment or functional progressions of material in no way imply or necessitate a mind?<br /><br />Doesn't the Fifth Way begin with the observation of "natural bodies" that are "evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way" ? <br /><br />So, Aquinas begins with the observation of the regularities of functional progressions of material, and Feser says such observations of patterns of efficient causes do not imply a mind, therefore the Fifth way commits the logical fallacy of the non-sequitur in concluding that the observation of the functional progressions of natural bodies necessitates a mind.<br /><br />The argument being logically invalid is therefore unsound.<br /><br />Do you have any further rational analysis on these specific philosophical arguments to add?<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45367644577986807982019-07-22T19:11:16.169-07:002019-07-22T19:11:16.169-07:00RomanJoeJuly 18, 2019 at 11:24 PM
"SP I don&...RomanJoeJuly 18, 2019 at 11:24 PM<br /><br />"SP I don't like how you tend to never seriously engage the actual positions of AT metaphysics but instead jump to knocking down caricatures or distorted prima facie understandings without asking for further clarification."<br />Could you be more specific as to subject matter and arguments?<br /><br />I have listened to both segments posted in the OP and have several times on this thread accurately stated the words of Feser, and responded directly to those actual words.<br /><br />How is that anything other than on-topic commentary on the specific philosophical arguments of the site owner?<br /><br />For example, reference StardustyPsyche July 21, 2019 at 7:40 PM<br />below.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2002864000713411902019-07-22T09:20:07.829-07:002019-07-22T09:20:07.829-07:00Often those who show little interest in metaphysic...Often those who show little interest in metaphysics, resisting it with a depraved post-enlightenment adherence to the scientific image, are captivated by the idea that metaphysics is just an extravagant system of conceptual generalizations. Typically this goes hand in hand with material reductionism, determinism, etc. The taxonomy of being, so they believe isn't delineated by form, essences, teleology--this is all a grand illusion. The scientific image is what's true. <br /><br />I struggled with this for awhile when I was younger, until I realized that it was merely another metaphysics, one that denied the richness of being. The materialist-cum-reductionist believes classical metaphysics is mere conceptual imposition on a simpler and bleaker reality of mechanical movement. The classical metaphysician believes the materialist-cum-reductionist is, unknowingly, a defender his own metaphysics, it's just one that is an abstraction of the classical system--with merely the material and efficient causes of the old system abstracted from the rest. This is the crux of the disputes between the two parties. It's why they tend to talk over each other, and it's why comment threads can go on for days without resolution. We operate in two different realities, one--I would argue--living in an abstraction of the other, yet promulgating that it is reality in its fullest and that any metaphysical quandaries beyond its methodology is conceptual jumbo, self-delusion, etc. RomanJoenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37093684151753474872019-07-21T19:40:39.988-07:002019-07-21T19:40:39.988-07:00Jeremy Taylor July 20, 2019 at 5:19 PM SP,
Hi JT, ...Jeremy Taylor July 20, 2019 at 5:19 PM SP,<br />Hi JT, thanks for stopping by. Do you have any comments on the specific philosophical arguments raised in the OP?<br /><br />For example, Feser states he thinks the Fifth Way is sound. I say that Aquinas states as a premise "designedly" and then concludes an intelligent designer, thereby begging the question, making the argument logically invalid, and thus unsound.<br />http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/03/fifth-way-in-syllogistic-form.html<br />(translation by Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo, Ph.D.)<br />What do you think?<br /><br />Feser seems to agree with Fodor that natural selection cannot account for why the polar bear is white. I say elementary evolutionary fact and theory account for the white color of the polar bear. Who do you think is correct and why?<br /><br />Feser states that intrinsic teleology does not directly implicate a mind, I agree the regular progressions of material in no way imply a divine mind, or god, or overarching purpose. Do you agree?<br /><br />Feser asserts that biological function is not reducible to patterns of efficient cause. I say that science clearly shows biological function reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics, which in archaic A-T parlance progresses by patterns of efficient cause.<br /><br />Any opinions on these specific philosophical arguments of the OP?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80490039501968508142019-07-21T12:35:45.207-07:002019-07-21T12:35:45.207-07:00Timocrates
"My point only is that for biology...Timocrates<br />"My point only is that for biology to even exist as its own proper scientific discipline, it requires a unique teleological foundation. Otherwise it's only a redundant and superfluous form of modern physics or chemistry: "<br />False dichotomy.<br />A "proper" scientific discipline provides relative explanations that have relative meanings. Meaning, or explanation, is the relationship between collections we approximate as things. An ultimate explanation for all things is not needed for a meaningful relationship to be described between collections we approximate as things.<br /><br />A "proper" scientific discipline makes no attempt and makes no claim to be able to explain our macro level observations directly in terms of an as yet undefined ultimate underlying reality.<br /><br />Yes, biology reduces to chemistry which in turn reduces to physics.<br /><br />"evolution requires believing there is this thing called "life" and things called "organisms" that have features or functions inexplicable in inanimate, mechanical terms. "<br />No "belief" is required. "life" is an aggregate system of chemistry, which is in turn an aggregate system of physics.<br /><br />Describing a physical system as an "organism" is like describing a vessel of gas with PV=nRT. It is an aggregate descriptor that converges on the net progressions of a vast number of entities acting at the level of underlying reality. <br /><br />No "belief" is required because no claim is made to the precise accuracy of the large scale model, nor is there any claim that the large scale model has ultimate universal existential explanatory value, only relative explanatory meaning. That is what a "proper" scientific discipline is and does.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8155460836373512252019-07-21T09:49:14.464-07:002019-07-21T09:49:14.464-07:00@Tony
Oh I agree. My point only is that for biolog...@Tony<br />Oh I agree. My point only is that for biology to even exist as its own proper scientific discipline, it requires a unique teleological foundation. Otherwise it's only a redundant and superfluous form of modern physis or chemistry: evolution requires believing there is this thing called "life" and things called "organisms" that have features or functions inexplicable in inanimate, mechanical terms. That or the evolutionist must confess he is merely in the art of window dressing physics using peculiar jargon that is redundant as it is already and must be cashed out in the language of particle physics and fields. Or so it seems to me at least... Like Democritus realizing that his own atomism results logically in denying the reality of his own mind.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54821239971212752852019-07-21T07:36:05.460-07:002019-07-21T07:36:05.460-07:00@Philip Rand:
"You cannot observe your defea...@Philip Rand:<br /><br />"You cannot observe your defeat... interesting..."<br /><br />Truly, we are not worthy of your genius. You are casting your pearls before pigs, so you better seek some other internet joint, some other audience, where your countless dialectical victories will be more readily recognized. So go away. Pretty please with a cherry on top?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27753491654402947092019-07-21T06:25:57.860-07:002019-07-21T06:25:57.860-07:00Joe,
SP I don't like how you tend to never s...Joe,<br /><br /><i> SP I don't like how you tend to never seriously engage the actual positions of AT metaphysics but instead jump to knocking down caricatures or distorted prima facie understandings without asking for further clarification.<br /><br />You're either intellectually dishonest, a troll, or severely blinded by some perverse motivation to willfully resist AT metaphysics. </i><br /><br />I think the explanation is just that SP has little to no interest in reading and discussing metaphysics. <br /><br />He does seem to feel compelled to 'refute' any arguments for the existence of God that anyone might attempt to present (I remember coming across some atheists who had a kind of reflexive compulsion like this back at in the New Atheist period in the 00s). <br /><br />His lack of interest in philosophy beyond a minimal level though means doing this he just sounds like a total troll and has little/nothing to contribute.<br /><br />Sadly people unaware can end up wasting time finding it out. <br /><br /><br /><br />Coconutsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9402673387452235952019-07-21T02:37:38.688-07:002019-07-21T02:37:38.688-07:00No. Restorting to the PNC is like going for your ...No. Restorting to the PNC is like going for your <i>six</i> guns... only to find that there are only two there...Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16434660585008929412019-07-21T02:09:27.523-07:002019-07-21T02:09:27.523-07:00Attacking a position via targeting the principle o...Attacking a position via targeting the principle of non-contradiction is like shooting the own foot, immediately taking upon the other and then, with seven bullets to go, just emptying the magazine in the own head.Dominik Kowalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14634739012344612398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2355684511369060802019-07-20T23:15:11.009-07:002019-07-20T23:15:11.009-07:00Bill
You are tabling an appeal to logic to suppor...<b>Bill</b><br /><br />You are tabling an appeal to logic to support the PNC:<br /><br />Proposition:<i>You can have no "rule," syntactic or otherwise, if its inversion is true in the same sense. Hence, any rule is subject to the PNC</i><br /><br />However, you have also tabled at the same time this proposition concerning the PNC:<br /><br />Proposition: <i>.The PNC is not demonstrably logical.</i><br /><br />In symbolic logic you are stating: (p & (p -> q)) & ¬q<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4807096077364231212019-07-20T21:35:32.329-07:002019-07-20T21:35:32.329-07:00Bill
You cannot observe your defeat... interestin...<b>Bill</b><br /><br />You cannot observe your defeat... interesting...<br /><br />This statement of yours supports the fact that the PNC is NOT truth apt:<br /><br /><i>You can have no "rule," syntactic or otherwise, if its inversion is true in the same sense.</i><br /><br />Your statement is a <i>command</i> and commands are not truth apt.<br /><br />So, a Thomists tabled position concerning the PNC is that it is a <i>truth by stipulation</i>. <br /><br />Which is simply another way of saying that the PNC is simply an <i>attitude</i> NOT an <i>assertion</i>. Which is what my syllogism demonstrated... very interesting... <br /><br />Thanks chaps for the data....Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53659603825034454722019-07-20T19:55:48.061-07:002019-07-20T19:55:48.061-07:00@Philip
Well, I gave you a fair shake, but like o...@Philip<br /><br />Well, I gave you a fair shake, but like others have said, you're clearly a troll. You are either deliberately feigning confusion over the point I made, or you're a liar.<br /><br />You can have no "rule," syntactic or otherwise, if its inversion is true in the same sense. Hence, any rule is subject to the PNC.<br /><br />Bye. You're wasting my time.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53869254339740424782019-07-20T17:39:48.427-07:002019-07-20T17:39:48.427-07:00You can be far more brief: go away. You were bann...You can be far more brief: go away. You were banned by Prof. Feser. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54223825092872927452019-07-20T17:34:03.698-07:002019-07-20T17:34:03.698-07:00In evolution randomness means that the mutations h...In evolution randomness means that the mutations have not occurred with the goal or intention of altering the genome. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73834675128516473722019-07-20T17:19:42.234-07:002019-07-20T17:19:42.234-07:00SP,
You are being disingeneous, again. The threa...SP, <br /><br />You are being disingeneous, again. The thread was part of a deal to get you to stop clogging up this blog with your nonsense. You didn't take the deal. You came to the forum only after Feser booted you from here. I was therefore under no obligation to let you hang around the forum indefinitely. Besides, part of the deal was you stay in your thread (or at least post sensible stuff - per impossible - elsewhere). You didn't keep that part of the deal either.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65655216585107018422019-07-20T15:38:16.798-07:002019-07-20T15:38:16.798-07:00Timocrates, Tony,
You both raise some interesting ...Timocrates, Tony,<br />You both raise some interesting questions with respect to naturalism, reductionism, the reality/unreality of biological systems/ and the explanation for the origins of existence. That's a lot, so I can only be brief.<br /><br />Large scale objects are recognizable organizations of smaller scale material. For example, a crystal, the molecules align in particular angles so the overall crystal has a recognizable shape.<br /><br />The continuity of self is a correlation between sets of material, past compared to present. We are, each of us is, continually changing n composition and arrangement. The individual object continues as that object as a collection that is similar to and contains a set of arrangements that correlate to a past set.<br /><br />Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene". Taken literally that would be an absurd anthropomorphization of a section of a chain molecule. Yes, that molecule and all it does reduces to quantum fields or whatever the ultimate material is, but we humans have no means to perform useful analysis of macro objects by employing transfer functions from the quantum scale to the macro scale.<br /><br />The only tools we have to gain any sort of understandings are to employ models at successive levels, models that are necessarily only approximate analogs of the true underlying reality. As unsatisfying as that might be that is just the best we have available.<br /><br />On the bright side our models turn out to be good enough to produce all the fantastic technologies we all enjoy, so that is vast evidence that the models are realistic because they converge on the underlying reality over large numbers of various circumstances.<br /><br />One net result is genes that in a very metaphorical sense seem superficially to be acting selfishly.<br /><br />As for why there is something rather than nothing, and why this particular sort of something rather than some other imaginable sort of something, those are unsolved mysteries, riddles that have puzzled minds for thousands of years and remain unsolved to this day by all.<br /><br />The speculation of god solves nothing, explains nothing, only calls for answers for these questions:<br />Why does god exist as opposed to absolutely nothing?<br />How is god ordered in such manner that he can know literally everything?<br />How do god's powers of knowing all everywhere actually work?<br />What is the mechanism for his creative powers?<br />What is the mechanism for how he interacts with material?<br />How can a god outside of time and space act over and through both space and time?<br />Why does this particular sort of god exist as opposed to the unbounded alternative sorts of gods that have been and could be imagined to exist?<br /><br />All proposed solutions to the origin of existence lead to logical contradictions, unintelligible assertions, or critical unanswered questions.<br /><br />The only solution that has strong evidence is eternal material, and the evidence for eternal material is vast indeed:<br />We never observe stuff just popping into existence out of nothing.<br />We never observe stuff just disappearing from existence into nothing.<br />We observe stuff in existence all around us.<br />Therefore material has always existed, and will always exist, our inability to make sense of an actual infinite temporal regression of material notwithstanding.<br /><br /> StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1645456117285268362019-07-20T15:18:58.232-07:002019-07-20T15:18:58.232-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-542654912328337142019-07-20T09:27:10.663-07:002019-07-20T09:27:10.663-07:00Bill
"Do you really think the Detroit Lions ...<b>Bill</b><br /><br /><i>"Do you really think the Detroit Lions and the Cleveland Browns will be in the Super Bowl this year?"</i> <br /><br />Your above example proves my point, i.e. the above is NOT truth apt.<br /><br />The apparent function of your example is to make an assertion, but which may instead be expressing an <i>attitude</i> rather than being in the business of aiming at truth or falsehood.<br /><br />The PNC functions in the same way as your example above and as my original syllogism revealed, i.e. the PNC is not truth apt.<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48204743786936698862019-07-20T08:24:37.486-07:002019-07-20T08:24:37.486-07:00@Philip
"Syntatic rules" are unintellig...@Philip<br /><br />"Syntatic rules" are unintelligible without the PNC. Is the inversion of "syntatic rules" true? Why not? All forms of communication are unintelligible without the PNC. That's why its denial is self-defeating. You have to employ it in the denial because you assert it as a true statement and not that its inversion is also true.<br /><br />You say, "It is syntactic rules that make my statements intelligible NOT the PNC." What would you do if I reply, "Do you really think the Detroit Lions and the Cleveland Browns will be in the Super Bowl this year?" You would insist that your sentence bears no relevance to my reply, that it has a specific meaning, and that you are not affirming the inversion of what you said. You are thus depending upon identity, contradiction, and excluded middle to make intelligible what you said. If not, you're just typing gibberish.<br /><br />Your rules are thus dependent on the PNC, not the other way around.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20110006340559497592019-07-20T07:45:57.746-07:002019-07-20T07:45:57.746-07:00Timocrates, I suspect that the naturalist will rep...Timocrates, I suspect that the naturalist will reply that ultimately all biological aspects of the universe, secondary as they are, are also <i>temporary</i>: in the long range, all biology will pass away in the eventual heat death of the universe, and we will be left with primary being (atoms, with a minimum state of energy). Thus the "survival" aspect is indeed an entirely accidental and short-lived condition, to be replaced in the long run. The "tendency" of atoms in plants to assist the plant to survive is an accidental "tendency" that is a mere statistical blip in the more rooted tendency to exhibit chemical and physical attributes. <br /><br />He will, of course, have no explanation for why there would be a universe with atoms that have physical and chemical tendencies. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.com