tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2608690389543349277..comments2024-03-28T10:15:27.193-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Presentism and analogical languageEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88076575025460450062020-05-15T17:18:29.160-07:002020-05-15T17:18:29.160-07:00I will, Atno.
I sincerely hope he recovers.I will, Atno. <br /><br />I sincerely hope he recovers.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16609825153110497412020-05-15T14:10:19.336-07:002020-05-15T14:10:19.336-07:00Atno,
Best wishes to your father, you, and your fa...Atno,<br />Best wishes to your father, you, and your family. since he is in hospital chances are they will be able to treat the symptoms until he recovers. They have medicines and cooling techniques to keep a fever under control, plus oxygen or a ventilator to provide breathing assistance.<br /><br />You are concerned about posting off topic, so you might wish to post on one of the Covid-19 threads Dr. Feser started.<br /><br />Again, my heartfelt best wishes for your father.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57850348399481675442020-05-15T13:47:00.429-07:002020-05-15T13:47:00.429-07:00Sorry if this is off-topic, but if anyone can pray...Sorry if this is off-topic, but if anyone can pray for my dad to recover, please do so. He has covid, is in the hospital and his situation worsened. Thanks a lot, sorry if it's off-topicAtnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31548651544102261872020-05-15T13:18:25.059-07:002020-05-15T13:18:25.059-07:00Well, I think that you can’t “rebut” something tha...Well, <i>I</i> think that you can’t “rebut” something that is obviously true from the meaning of the words. I suppose to give him the benefit of the doubt, he might be making the point that if you have reasons to expect evidence for X and you get evidence for Y instead, that might be a reason to think that Y instead of X, but of course nobody thinks otherwise, so it’s still probably not worth going to read the whole thing anyway.<br />Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15360553320806394242020-05-14T19:42:50.442-07:002020-05-14T19:42:50.442-07:00ficino,
"God is wise in a way somehow like th...ficino,<br />"God is wise in a way somehow like the way we are wise, but in other ways, far beyond us. "<br />Brittanica provides this definition, perhaps you have another you prefer:<br />Verbal fallacies<br />Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in some other needed premise or in the conclusion.<br /><br />Suppose then one presents a deductive argument attempting to prove god is wise. In that argument the word "wise" is used in the sense that humans are wise.<br /><br />The conclusion of the argument is that, therefore god is wise. Even if the argument is otherwise sound it can only prove that god is wise in the sense that humans are wise. Yet the claim is that the aregument proves god is wise in the analogical extended sense.<br /><br />Clearly, that arguemtn fails as as argument that god is wise in the extended analogical sense, since the word "wise" was not used in the extended analogical sense throughout the whole argument.<br /><br />In fact, it is impossible, even in principle, to provide any sound deductive argument that god is wise in the extended analogical sense because that sense is necissarily impossible for humans to define. If one is arguing to prove god is wise in the extended analogical sense of "wise" one litterally does not know what one is talking about.<br /><br />A sound deductive argument must employ terms that can be defined, and must use those those terms consistently in the senses they are explicity meant, else the argument is logically invalid.<br /><br />Thus, arguments that purport to prove an aspect of god in the analogical sense are logically invalid.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22816444513059293532020-05-14T12:22:25.106-07:002020-05-14T12:22:25.106-07:00What do you guys think of this atheists rebuttal o...What do you guys think of this atheists rebuttal of the statement "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence"?<br /><br />http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2014/12/absence-of-evidence.html?m=0Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18261630203653988592020-05-14T04:51:49.305-07:002020-05-14T04:51:49.305-07:00I saw that Craig was clarifying the presentism and...I saw that Craig was clarifying the presentism and the perdurantism. He clearly calls the later crazy, but he seemed a lot more sympathetic to the presentist position. Does he have an opinion one way or the other? It isn't clear from the post. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />DanielDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64006357406248236802020-05-13T19:26:07.896-07:002020-05-13T19:26:07.896-07:00There are two types of analogical predication. One...There are two types of analogical predication. One is proportional, where A is to B as C is to D as E is to F. Aristotle gives the example, bone is to land animal as pounce is to cuttlefish as spine is to fish. Aristotle makes a lot of use of proportional analogy in his biological works. This is called "analogy" by Aristotle.<br /><br />Then there is what Aristotle calls "pros hen" (= "in relation to one") predication, which specialists since the 1950s generally call "focal meaning." That's when there is one primary sense of a term, and other senses are parasitic on it and can only be understood by reference to the primary. A standard example in Aristotle is with the term, "healthy." The primary analogate is the healthy animal. But "healthy" can also be used of something that is a sign of health, like healthy urine, or something that produces health, like a healthy drink. You can't understand what it means for urine or a drink to be healthy unless you understand the primary analogate, the health in an animal.<br /><br />As the tradition developed between Aristotle and Aquinas, theologians made use of both proportional analogical predication and pros hen predication to try to predicate names of creatures and of God. On the doctrine that God's being is radically unlike - because naturally prior to - the being of creatures, theologians struggled to explain how we can assign qualities of God that are possessed by creatures - since God's being is radically different from the creature's being. We can't say that wisdom in God is just the same as in a human, since God's essence is identical with His existence, and in us, it's not. But if wisdom means something totally different when applied to God and applied to creatures, then we won't know what it means to say God is wise. So the doctrine of analogical predication tries to bridge the gap - God is wise in a way somehow like the way we are wise, but in other ways, far beyond us. <br /><br />The problems become manifest, as already seen in some of the comments above. Analogical predication is not univocal, and classical theologians say it is not equivocal either, so you can predicate terms analogically in an argument and the argument won't be vitiated by a fallacy of equivocation. Opponents of this view of course say that analogical predication cashes out as equivocal.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77022971657794715992020-05-13T12:35:45.975-07:002020-05-13T12:35:45.975-07:00What do people think of Craig's response here:...What do people think of Craig's response here: you used to exist in the past, you will exist in the future, but you exist now.<br /><br />https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/presentism-and-past-existence/Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08540150994564584563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7121371891396925422020-05-13T07:03:38.174-07:002020-05-13T07:03:38.174-07:00T N,
Thank you for those details. You have convi...T N,<br /><br />Thank you for those details. You have convinced me <i>Aristotle's Revenge</i> is worth a read for this area, at least.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71141326507433985062020-05-13T02:46:00.241-07:002020-05-13T02:46:00.241-07:00^what this guy said. But definitely SP is worse th...^what this guy said. But definitely SP is worse than 10 anonymous posters<br />Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6542489685557552922020-05-12T23:51:16.530-07:002020-05-12T23:51:16.530-07:00Perhaps you are both right, and should listen to e...Perhaps you are both right, and should listen to each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9317773156650036242020-05-12T19:05:47.153-07:002020-05-12T19:05:47.153-07:00to the Anonymous who is upset about SDP: it should...to the Anonymous who is upset about SDP: it should be obvious that there are more than one posters using this moniker on here. So if you respect the blog, you will stop introducing confusion by posting under a handle used also by others Unless you are ALL of them. Perhaps you are the demonic Legion><br /><br />Show some respect for the blog and grow up.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34562573138803820162020-05-12T18:14:58.274-07:002020-05-12T18:14:58.274-07:00Oh, sorry, the wording “change within a three-dime...Oh, sorry, the wording “change within a three-dimensional space” is confusing. This is one of those challenges of electronic communication, especially for dense subject matter. Time is just the addition or subtraction of attributes in sequential order, regardless of the number of dimensions. The number of dimensions is just a starting point to show an infinite regress of iterations.<br /> <br />The section on time is 70 pages and the bibliography is 40 pages. There is a section that discusses four different strategies used to reconcile Special Relativity to the A theory, which is a high-level summary of method, not a detailed discussion of the physics. There is a section on whether Relativity is incompatible with the commonsense perception of time. There is a critique of the spatialization of time, and a defense of presentism. I’d say these sections give you a good idea on how an A theorist approaches the question methodologically, if that’s what you’re after, but they aren’t a blow by blow account of the actual physics.<br /><br />I’m struggling to come up with a summary of these sections, but, in general, I think its true to say that the overall mission of the book is to show that the mathematical/empirical descriptions afforded by science—as good as they are—are not exhaustive of reality. And in principle they cannot be.<br />T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68589647712260285772020-05-12T07:45:30.661-07:002020-05-12T07:45:30.661-07:00T N,
I apologize for my clumsy wording. I don...T N,<br /><br />I apologize for my clumsy wording. I don't think time itself is a ratio. What I meant is that using time in a ratio, which was what I understood by "As I recall, one was that if time is the measure of change within three-dimensional space," did not indicate time was different from any other item we measure. For example, we can measure the change in atmospheric pressure at sea elevation and 1000 feet above sea level, and the measure of change would be feet (of elevation). <br /><br />I'm looking for an argument that addresses why acceleration/geodesic deviation/etc. results in time dilation while preserving an A-theory of time. Do you recall that topic being specifically touched upon?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27036406789159676822020-05-12T03:45:21.625-07:002020-05-12T03:45:21.625-07:00This does pique my interest though. It seems that...This does pique my interest though. It seems that how to proceed with the question is going to depend on how one defines time. You are saying it's a ratio of dimensions. For Aristotle, it's the sequential gain or loss of attributes. I'm not sure how a ratio of dimensions is "time" other than a mathematical description of motion. While the physicist is concenrned with the mathematical description, it is not an analysis of what it is ontologically, which is what the Aristotelian is concerned with. T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36633386323696107202020-05-11T21:42:27.567-07:002020-05-11T21:42:27.567-07:00I find the use of analogous language to be troubli...I find the use of analogous language to be troubling to understand, at least as a third option. I'm not saying you can't have a term that isn't purely univocal or equivocal, but analogy just seems to be a term that is both univocal and equivocal<br /><br />For example the term "in" when considering the spoon in the drawer and man in the club. I seems to me all we have is a univocal term with equivocal elements. It is univocal in the sense that it's something located at the space of something else, but equivocal in that well, a spoon isn't a drawer isn't a club and a man has intentions in a club. <br /><br />Is analogous language suppose to be univocal? From my previous readings on this that doesn't seem to be the case Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60412025934866742192020-05-11T20:30:28.764-07:002020-05-11T20:30:28.764-07:00Ficino you are planning to post your full name ver...Ficino you are planning to post your full name very soon no doubt?<br /><br />Stop feeding the trolls. You certainly have no respect for the blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32953660612504818172020-05-11T19:36:45.607-07:002020-05-11T19:36:45.607-07:00ficino,
“Logic isn't my specialty, so I am hap...ficino,<br />“Logic isn't my specialty, so I am happy to be corrected by anyone better versed.”<br />Then you will have to seek correction elsewhere, in general :-) I have studied certain logical arguments in detail, but I am not an expert in formal logic in general.<br /><br />“does "exists" function as a quantifier or as a predicate?”<br />I have not considered that distinction for the word “exists”, but a quick reference check shows that exists is a verb, so it seems to me thus a predicate, since it describes a state of being. I don’t see that “exists” serves to number or count or numerically designate in any direct way.<br /><br />“I think we agree on how analogical predication will vitiate a demonstrative syllogism.”<br />Ok, yes, for me at least, that seems to be the key point relevant to Thomistic arguments for the existence and nature of god. The Five Ways of Aquinas are purported to be sound deductive arguments, so there is a tradition of attempts at sound logical argumentation in Thomism, but all too often I find Thomists seek to justify incoherent assertions with the claim they are speaking analogically. But speaking analogically in the midst of a deductive argument makes the argument logically invalid, unless the differences in senses of words are explicitly stated, accounted for, and rationally linked in the argument, at least in principle, as I have never witnessed that sort or rigor from a Thomist in any argument.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76564398487525128672020-05-11T18:57:35.986-07:002020-05-11T18:57:35.986-07:00I have no respect for people who hide behind the m...I have no respect for people who hide behind the moniker of Anonymous. Get the courage to maintain an identity, speak in some name, and post under it.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68993983763246310452020-05-11T16:46:00.878-07:002020-05-11T16:46:00.878-07:00Tom, I don't think my comment is an argument f...Tom, I don't think my comment is an <i>argument for</i> Open Theism, any more than (say) a proof for the existence of God is an argument for Open Theism. What I said would typically be challenged and (at a minimum) closely qualified and constrained by Open Theists to drain it of most of my intention: I intended that God knows future contingent events that hinge on our free choice, and Open Theists usually would resist such a thesis. <br /><br />And (again) my position is not, primarily, that we can <i>satisfy</i> the truthmaker requirements through analogy, it is that "truthmaker" is a very likely hopeless theory of truth that should be abandoned. The difficulties (that are worth considering) of presentism probably can be stated without relying on the "truthmaker" idea getting things all muddled. Certainly St. Thomas considered God's knowledge of the future as an objection to omniscience without referring to any "truthmaker" theory. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55052568364904189372020-05-11T16:26:32.960-07:002020-05-11T16:26:32.960-07:00Agreed: aeviternity is a headache to me, too. Wou...Agreed: aeviternity is a headache to me, too. Would love to have it parsed out, even a little. (more than "well, it's not eternity, and it's not time...") Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26825151424198600432020-05-11T15:38:08.146-07:002020-05-11T15:38:08.146-07:00One Brow,
The section on time is probably the lar...One Brow,<br /><br />The section on time is probably the largest single topic in the book as I recall. There is a lot about tense, Special and General Relativity, A and B theories, spatialization, and more. It's not an area I claim to be well versed in other than the basics. You may want to get the book. T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21239191940550960202020-05-11T15:16:57.015-07:002020-05-11T15:16:57.015-07:00Why are you feeding trolls? Have some respect for ...Why are you feeding trolls? Have some respect for the blog. Everyone has been doing really well, despite his clear desperation for attention, and you ruin if. Well done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59266093985449505642020-05-11T12:12:44.239-07:002020-05-11T12:12:44.239-07:00@SDP: Logic isn't my specialty, so I am happy ...@SDP: Logic isn't my specialty, so I am happy to be corrected by anyone better versed. I don't think the fact that the statement I chose above expresses an attitude is relevant to the question, does "exists" function as a quantifier or as a predicate? If "exists" will have non-univocal (or analogical) senses, it seems to me that "exists" is being used as a predicate, as when "healthy" is used as a predicate non-equivocally (e.g. healthy animal, healthy drink, healthy urine). But if "exists" acts as a quantifier, then IT is not predicated analogically. As far as I know.<br /><br />So whether the proposition is "I don't like Louis XIV" or "I don't like Donald Trump" [when we successfully substitute definite descriptions] or "I don't like my neighbor who lives in Apt. 3C," it doesn't seem to matter how much we splinter the object of my dislike in the way you suggest. The issue is, if "exists" is a quantifier, then the problem of how to predicate "exists" analogically seems to disappear, or to be revealed as a pseudo-problem. The differences lie not in the senses of "exists" but in the objects and what's predicated of them. Same with "Hamlet is fat" vs. "Fatty Arbuckle is fat" [under definite descriptions] vs. "the pres of the US is fat." "Is" remains rigid; what differs are the objects "fat" is quantified over.<br /><br />I think we agree on how analogical predication will vitiate a demonstrative syllogism. ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.com