tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3284547014786679060..comments2024-03-28T08:34:20.807-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Pigliucci logicEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10360061583084015942015-09-12T15:27:32.152-07:002015-09-12T15:27:32.152-07:00Pigluucci's incoherence is precisely one of th...Pigluucci's incoherence is precisely one of the properties we should expect from someone who's worldview, at bottom, acknowledges no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27599517478626960812015-09-08T20:59:55.495-07:002015-09-08T20:59:55.495-07:00Pigliucci is clearly a very arrogant fellow.Pigliucci is clearly a very arrogant fellow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18784521226929073392015-09-08T17:55:08.538-07:002015-09-08T17:55:08.538-07:00I'm unclear on how any metaphysics can be &quo...<i>I'm unclear on how any metaphysics can be "non-theological": it would seem to me that the most fundamental metaphysical fact is that the universe has a divine origin. </i> <br /><br />Gene, That the universe has a divine origin may be the most fundamental fact about the universe, saying so is not the same as saying that it is the FIRST fact known in the study of metaphysics. <br /><br />Metaphysics doesn't START with the question "what is the origin of all that is." It starts on other matters, with other questions. Questions like "is there change?", and "Are there real kinds of beings (rather than only the appearances of kinds)?" "What is the nature of cause and effect?" "How many kinds of causality can we speak of?" "What is the distinction between negation and privation?" <br /><br />All these are studied long before one can fruitfully tackle something so difficult, so advanced, and so immersed in prior considerations as "what is the origin of all that is?" <br /><br />Because the above can <i>and should</i> be studied and understood in a manner apart from discussing any relationship with God, an assumption that metaphysics is merely theology wrapped in brown paper is just wrong, and it amounts to demeaning rhetoric. It dismisses a valid study out of a fit of pique, or (more probably) out of fear. A fear that "I won't be able to answer you when your metaphysics shows that act and potency, down the road after many turns, imply natures that imply causality that implies non-contingent Being..." This would be, actually, the reverse end of the telescope: rather than "metaphysics is just theology wrapped in brown paper", what we actually have is "dismissal of metaphysics" is just pre-emptive (prejudicial) atheism gussied up to look better than sheer prejudice. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31430167223464140742015-09-08T17:38:37.810-07:002015-09-08T17:38:37.810-07:00Even putatively rational, fair-minded atheists ine...Even putatively rational, fair-minded atheists inevitably say something unbelievably derpy--this should be the 8th law of thermodynamics. Or something. Just sayin'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025148823781079734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51088785874079828132015-09-08T14:56:34.536-07:002015-09-08T14:56:34.536-07:00Interesting response to the Pigliucci open letter....Interesting response to the Pigliucci open letter. <br /><br />http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/scottreply.htm <br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br />DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64218729715779871152015-09-08T10:27:19.403-07:002015-09-08T10:27:19.403-07:00Crude said...
DNW,
" 'most anti-...Crude said...<br /><br /> DNW,<br /><br />" 'most anti-theistic philosophers or thinkers assume that the very project of metaphysical speculation (understood as first philosophy, or the question of ultimate grounds, or "being per se" ) is historically, merely theology at one 'remove and under another name.<br /><br /> I believe Pigliucci doesn't fall into this camp, and I think I recall he's actually pretty set against it. He has his own metaphysical views he defends (consciously, as opposed to the unconscious way the anti-metaphysicians go about it.)"<br /><br /><br />Thanks. I'll look the topic up: "Pigliucci and metaphysics"<br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79869680701036306192015-09-08T09:14:21.555-07:002015-09-08T09:14:21.555-07:00DNW,
most anti-theistic philosophers or thinkers ...DNW,<br /><br /><i>most anti-theistic philosophers or thinkers assume that the very project of metaphysical speculation (understood as first philosophy, or the question of ultimate grounds, or "being per se" ) is historically, merely theology at one remove and under another name.</i><br /><br />I believe Pigliucci doesn't fall into this camp, and I think I recall he's actually pretty set against it. He has his own metaphysical views he defends (consciously, as opposed to the unconscious way the anti-metaphysicians go about it.)<br /><br />Curio,<br /><br /><i>He spent much of his career as an evolutionary biologist debating creationists, which obviously informed his understanding of theists ever since.</i><br /><br />Maybe, though that would be a conflict in a different area - and again, one I recall that Pigluicci actually had to backtrack on. (See his role in the NABT controversy regarding the teaching of evolution as impersonal, etc.) Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91930423760433601262015-09-08T08:41:39.472-07:002015-09-08T08:41:39.472-07:00" Pigluicci seems to at once treat theism (pa...<i>" Pigluicci seems to at once treat theism (particularly Christian theism) as utterly, completely refuted... but he also absolutely does not want to actually argue that refutation ..."</i><br /><br /><br />I think it is probably fair to say that although Feser can make a good case that his metaphysical philosophizing can be rigorously separated from any theistic presuppositions - at least its starting point - most anti-theistic philosophers or thinkers assume that the very project of metaphysical speculation (understood as first philosophy, or the question of ultimate grounds, or "being per se" ) is historically, merely theology at one remove and under another name.<br /><br />Whether it is Karl Marx or Richard Rorty, the historicist assumption also sees the metaphysical project as somehow an illegitimate deflection from the real concern of mortal man as a committed species being which accepts its inextricable enveloped-ness, mortality, and ultimate meaninglessness yada yada.<br /><br />Their attitude is in effect the admonition to: "Quit looking up at the sky ... the only legitimate focus for you is down here, enmeshed in "the details of the lives of others" ... Or some other horseshit more or less like that.<br /><br />Although existential philosophy and its informing base of phenomenology have been popular with the politically progressive left as providing a ready stockpile of politically useful rhetorical nuggets and cant, I think we all know enough about social history here to recognize that they honor what they can usefully deploy; the actual philosophy and its implications, well not so much. Cause Geez, if its all just a radically free choice then maybe master morality and all that ...DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-946698111329390102015-09-07T21:07:48.549-07:002015-09-07T21:07:48.549-07:00It should be pointed out that this refusal to enga...It should be pointed out that this refusal to engage with the theologically-informed is a recent decision. He spent much of his career as an evolutionary biologist debating creationists, which obviously informed his understanding of theists ever since. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRf5oIc-agACurionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76472096809812832702015-09-07T13:26:32.657-07:002015-09-07T13:26:32.657-07:00Pigliucci just thinks the New Atheists have bad ma...Pigliucci just thinks the New Atheists have bad manners.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57272628943583187432015-09-07T08:01:24.277-07:002015-09-07T08:01:24.277-07:00I'm unclear on how any metaphysics can be &quo...I'm unclear on how any metaphysics can be "non-theological": it would seem to me that the most fundamental metaphysical fact is that the universe has a divine origin. And then there are (false) metaphysics that deny this fact. How can we completely avoid theology in picking between them?<br /><br />Or do you just mean in a narrower sense, e.g., the metaphysics you discuss does not depend on the particulars of God's nature?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52041843968515398012015-09-07T03:44:26.246-07:002015-09-07T03:44:26.246-07:00Pigliucci is clearly guilty of DOUBLETHINK, as Orw...Pigliucci is clearly guilty of DOUBLETHINK, as Orwell would put it.<br /><br />On one hand he likes to think he is not a new atheist and attacks their faults, on the other he clearly commits very much their mistakes.<br /><br />He is ill-informed on theology or philosophy of religion and his critiques of these are puerile. <br /><br />Pigliucci lives in a FANTASY WORLD where he thinks Hume's critique of religion has any real weight (while such critiques have been deemed even "absymally faulty" even by some agnostic or atheist philosphers...).<br /><br />In the end I would say he is WORSE than then new atheist, only because he ought to know better.<br /><br /><br />Although I used to respect him in the past, my respect in him is waning...<br /><br />In Italian (since he is Italian) we would say he's a "coglionaccio".FMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16564469157556524842015-09-07T03:02:37.385-07:002015-09-07T03:02:37.385-07:00http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/g...http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/gary-gutting-on-being-catholic.html<br /><br />Wow. And so the truth comes out.<br /><br /><i>all the metaphysical arguments for the existence of said God are no better than the exactly parallel arguments one could advance in favor of the existence of Santa Claus (which is why no truly self-respecting philosopher should indulge in apologetics).</i><br /><br />Breathtaking. Cruder and more embarrassing than almost anything peddled by the New Atheists (or even Bill Maher).<br /><br />Given the evidence here, has Pigliucci seriously engaged with theism at any point in his life? Of course he hasn't. He's already decided that "exchanges with theologically-informed viewpoints" are not "productive." He knows that engaging with theist philosophers (even on topics unrelated to theism!) is a waste of time, because he knows that all arguments for God's existence are no better than arguments for the existence of Santa Claus. And he knows that all arguments for God's existence are no better than arguments for the existence of Santa Claus, because just look at what a waste of time it is to engage with theist philosophers!<br /><br />The loop is closed. The dogmatism is complete. It is a vicious circle worthy of Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers.<br /><br />What a disappointment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70769267379449324082015-09-06T22:36:13.859-07:002015-09-06T22:36:13.859-07:00What is the purpose of life?
P's preferred an...What is the purpose of life?<br /><br />P's preferred answer is that we make it up as we go along.<br /><br />Given that that is so (that that is P's preferred answer**) -- and assuming both that P has a desire is to maintain a firm grip on his preferred answer and that theologically informed viewpoints are not unlikely to see the purpose of life as involving something more than just making it up as we go along -- it actually makes sense that P "usually do[es] not find exchanges with theologically informed viewpoints productive enough to invest [his] time in them."<br /><br />Or, at least, it would make actual sense if the vague and general phrase 'not productive enough' is a short-hand way of saying, e.g., that the strength of the grip on the preferred answer is not likely to be increased by engaging with theologically informed viewpoints, and that that grip likely would be only maintained at best and weakened at worst in the event of such an engagement.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />** <i>My preferred answer here is, not surprisingly, that we make up the purpose of life as we go, and that we have a (not unlimited) number of options.</i> -- <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-meanings-of-meaning-of-life.html" rel="nofollow">The meanings of the meaning of life</a>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76375070156758186992015-09-06T18:24:14.122-07:002015-09-06T18:24:14.122-07:00"not particularly interested to engage with t... "not particularly interested to engage with theologically-informed authors. Sorry." <br /><br />This professor teaching philosophy would be cutting himself off from quite easily 50% of philosophers of the Western tradition if that is his standard of engagement. And yet, he hasn't offered one bit of convincing argument that they are wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26436201719460598292015-09-06T14:09:11.618-07:002015-09-06T14:09:11.618-07:00"Pigliucci is asked if he has replied to my c...<i>"Pigliucci is asked if he has replied to my critique. Pigliucci responds:<br /><br />'[N]o, not particularly interested to engage with theologically-informed authors. Sorry.' "</i><br /><br /><br />Reading that triggered something that compelled me to come back today and look something else up before I forgot completely.<br /><br />One of Ed's more thoughtful, if occasional, blog commenters, has a great anecdote which I have in another venue several times badgered him to repeat.<br /><br />This link might be the first time he told it. Compensating for light keyboard strikes, one of the sentences should obviously read, " ... his dismissal of metaphysics starting with Plato[,] with [h]is pragmatism ..."<br /><br /><a href="http://neoneocon.com/2013/06/07/an-encounter-i-would-have-liked-to-have-overheard/#comment-610963" rel="nofollow">kolnai drives to a philosophy lecture ...</a><br /><br /><br /><br />Well, time for dinner. All continue to have a good weekend - even if you weren't able to get out of town, or to the shore.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83180150598261600232015-09-06T13:50:42.508-07:002015-09-06T13:50:42.508-07:00There is such a thing as philosophical orthodoxy I...There is such a thing as philosophical orthodoxy I guess. The range may be fairly wide, but don't you dare make arguments for the existence of God, or anything that remotely smells like that. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4107430287570007072015-09-06T13:08:58.579-07:002015-09-06T13:08:58.579-07:00What is amazing is the almost comical asymmetry of...<i>What is amazing is the almost comical asymmetry of his doing to Catholicism in that post, almost all of the lazy, prejudiced things that, above, he says we should not do to Islam.</i><br /><br />Pigluicci seems to at once treat theism (particularly Christian theism) as utterly, completely refuted... but he also absolutely does not want to actually argue that refutation, or even point at a fleshed out argument he thinks is decisive. (I imagine, since then you're inviting people replying to the refutation, etc, and the stance is not going to hold up.)<br /><br />It may be similar to the rumblings we've seen with other philosophical topics: where the very act of debating an idea is threatening, since a discussion implies there's a possibility of being wrong, and the political stakes of possibly being wrong are seen as too high.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32096430914220741962015-09-06T12:25:12.815-07:002015-09-06T12:25:12.815-07:00Of course there are no such arguments.
You could...<i>Of course there are no such arguments. </i><br /><br />You could start at the end and work backwards, i.e. the Beatific Vision is the ultimate Christmas gift. You have to earn this gift through both strong faith and good works. Of course Santa is always watching you and keeping track of naughty or nice.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32612002993371519262015-09-06T11:05:50.457-07:002015-09-06T11:05:50.457-07:00@ Greg
Of course there are no such arguments.
W...@ Greg<br /><br />Of course there are no such arguments. <br /><br />What is amazing is the almost comical asymmetry of his doing to Catholicism in that post, almost all of the lazy, prejudiced things that, above, he says we should not do to Islam.C B Shanane https://www.blogger.com/profile/13390190352266987398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7564705448587214792015-09-06T10:53:32.142-07:002015-09-06T10:53:32.142-07:00@ Boru
Hmm, that is pretty bad. If Pigliucci is s...@ Boru<br /><br />Hmm, that is pretty bad. If Pigliucci is still around, I would be interested in seeing plausible metaphysical arguments for the existence of Santa Claus that look anything like metaphysical arguments for the existence of God.<br /><br /><i>Even so, one could (indeed, rationally should) accept the ethical teachings, say, of Jesus, but reject both the truth of other Church teachings as revealed by God (because there is no such thing as gods, reason tells us), and of course accept that all the metaphysical arguments for the existence of said God are no better than the exactly parallel arguments one could advance in favor of the existence of Santa Claus (which is why no truly self-respecting philosopher should indulge in apologetics).</i>Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90117982393877214692015-09-06T10:50:29.679-07:002015-09-06T10:50:29.679-07:00This is interesting :)This is interesting :)Celinehttps://www.ozessay.com.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74568687003385189032015-09-06T10:49:41.859-07:002015-09-06T10:49:41.859-07:00Admirers of Pigliucci's scholarly intelligence...Admirers of Pigliucci's scholarly intelligence and principled thoughtfulness, might care to take a look at this: <br /><br />http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/gary-gutting-on-being-catholic.htmlC B Shanane https://www.blogger.com/profile/13390190352266987398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66351935379349217132015-09-05T21:20:46.851-07:002015-09-05T21:20:46.851-07:00@Scott
"His final paragraph also implies tha...@Scott<br /><br /><i>"His final paragraph also implies that he won't find any proposed examples of metaphysical necessity "convincing" if they have anything to do with theology."</i><br><br /><br />Okay, at least he's honest, but there's a back door that leads to Aristotelian metaphysics and that back door requires a foray into the fields of philosophy Pigliucci is most interested in. Interest in causal dispositions and essences has made Aristotelianism a live option again among many philosophers of science, as Feser is wont to point out. <br /><br />If Pigliucci continues to insist that this metaphysics is theologically informed then we can be sure the issue is not with the beginning but with the end of the inquiry. The result is unpalatable. <br />CurioMTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64694783923708922502015-09-05T16:59:37.192-07:002015-09-05T16:59:37.192-07:00Wow! That excludes a breathtaking amount of philos...Wow! That excludes a breathtaking amount of philosophy throughout the ages. <br /><br />Well whatever. Unless he starts mouthing off about specific theological points, which as far as I can tell, he does not, then there is not much point in engaging him in discussions. But to refrain from discussing any philosophical points with a person because that person happens to be religious and happens to reflect on theology is just bigotry. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com