tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3743576750303446493..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Review of CoyneEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger588125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41059169785814495392016-02-09T02:24:53.347-08:002016-02-09T02:24:53.347-08:00Life is good when you have your love ones around y...Life is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; <br />( agbazara@gmail.com )bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03361286358896892000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34825002425114783412016-02-08T15:09:40.909-08:002016-02-08T15:09:40.909-08:00Blogger Santi said...
DNW:
You write: &q...Blogger Santi said...<br /><br /> <i> DNW:<br /><br /> You write: "[I]f you took your own claim of epistemic humility seriously, you would keep this truth about your method at the forefront, and refuse to engage in pseudo-arguments which are in principle incapable of any kind of resolution because of the built-in problems of equivocation; problems of which you are perfectly aware, and have in fact placed there."<br /><br /> What you're suggesting, DNW, is that, if the problems inherent in communication identified by Wittgenstein, Derrida, Nietzsche, etc. ("truth is a mobile army of metaphors," etc.) are confronted, I should simply fall into silence (like Aquinas did, I would add, at the end of his life).<br /><br /> This feels too all-or-nothing to me ..."</i><br /><br /><br /><br />You will be glad to know that you need not feel that way, since that is not what I was suggesting.<br /><br />I was stating outright that given your epistemological bracketing of and placing aside systems of truth in favor of a kind of "pragmatism", and given your adoption of a Rotarian program of arguing rhetorically, rather than logically and categorically, you should try admitting this upfront, rather than having it squeezed out of you.<br /><br />It would be an interesting experiment to observe what would happen if you were to say to someone: "Now, what I am saying is not to be taken as universally true, or even true in your case, but I wish you to accede to my request because it makes me feel better and serves my interests even if it does not, yours."<br /><br />It would be akin to the Churchlands whom I mentioned earlier, admitting upfront that they had no minds but that they nonetheless - wished insofar as there was a they, that could "wish" - had registered an impulse which caused them to try and modify your brain state and thus affect your behavior. Not that there was as they would be the first to stipulate, that there was any real "purpose" to it.<br /><br />I am challenging you to give up using traditional moral language in a deceptive and purely rhetorical manner and to adopt a more transparent and less time-wasting mode of interfacing: or, to at least always admit upfront that what you are doing is wheedling, rather than arguing in any traditional sense. I'm challenging you to drop the camouflage as a matter of principle, and not wait for it to be forcibly stripped from you.<br /><br />I'm challenging you to admit that your "arguments" are not arguments in any reals sense but attempts to produce emotional effects in others, and thereby modify their behaviors in a way which you find reinforcing.<br /><br />How far do you think you might be able to get in this project in that open manner and without the camouflaging rags of a habit you have long thrown off?<br /><br />And if you cannot get by in that manner, what does it say regarding your essential life project, and the role of deception in it?<br /><br />You mention the post-moderns. Perhaps you would like to share some of the broader implications of an explicitly anti-logocentric anthropology?DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22879697720448909722016-02-08T13:39:25.605-08:002016-02-08T13:39:25.605-08:00I enjoy following these discussions, though rarely...I enjoy following these discussions, though rarely speak up.<br /><br />What I do find interesting is the variability of 'humanity' that those like Santi like to point out, and that they see as fundamentally different from Thomists and many religious folk, primarily because it eschews an essence to humanity (there isn't a normal human, but humans are varied entities). <br /><br />There seems to be a desire to accept and affirm all life as it occurs in it's various iterations. And, yet, so often those like Santi seem to deny the humanity of a non-fully formed human. Which is so odd, to me, because otherwise these people see themselves as taking the high-road when it comes to affirming 'life'. <br /><br />What I find further interesting, is that despite this progressivism, I sense a changing in the discourse, especially among some 'continental philosophers', which some of like Santi (who pay attention to literary analysis and probably have some background in reading 'postmodern' and 'continental' philosophy) seem to be well-versed in. <br /><br />I wonder which way the winds will blow. And, I wonder if affirming all life, truly, will become more fashionable for guys like Santi, who seem rather inconsistent in their affirming the magic of the vaginal barrier to transform lumps of goo to distinct, living entities. <br /><br />(And, we haven't even broached the subject of the fetishization of choice, which I would think someone with continental sensibilities would note as being marred by the spirit of capitalism [not using this phrase in the Weberian sense, btw])Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23280329215149373222016-02-07T15:30:26.505-08:002016-02-07T15:30:26.505-08:00(New profile picture. Testing.)(New profile picture. Testing.)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38373912686273736252016-02-07T07:21:47.204-08:002016-02-07T07:21:47.204-08:00Santi: That's not a denial of human nature, th...Santi: <i>That's not a denial of human nature, that's combining human nature with what we know about evolution</i><br /><br />Again: you <i>say</i> it's not denying human nature, then in the same sentence you go on to deny it. (Even glossing over that "what you know about evolution" is nothing, because your writings make it clear that you don't understand science in general, let alone evolutionary biology in particular.) You can't prove someone wrong by making up new definitions for the words he's using.<br /><br /> <i>"To shop is human nature,"</i><br /><br />I genuinely cannot tell whether you're trying to be funny or whether that's another case in point.<br /><br /><br />Look, here's an honest question for you — simple and straightforward, and calling for a simple, straightforward answer. No bluffing, no word-soup. Given that the folks here hold the positions they do simply because they find the reasons for them compelling (you may not like them or understand them, but rest assured that we did not arrive at these positions by flipping coins; we really do have reasons), do you think that anyone is going to change his mind just because you wish he would? Do you seriously think that someone with good reasons for his views will suddenly start doubting them just because you don't like them, or you think "doubt" is really groovy? What other than coherent counter-argumentation do you think would convince him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57756480166173982482016-02-06T13:35:42.722-08:002016-02-06T13:35:42.722-08:00(I should perhaps also add that there's nothin...(I should perhaps also add that there's nothing about "human nature" that precludes "variation" in the first place: human nature "combin[ed] with" variation equals human nature.)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49651977046600818932016-02-06T12:16:11.393-08:002016-02-06T12:16:11.393-08:00Ho-hum, it's a lazy Saturday afternoon so I ma...Ho-hum, it's a lazy Saturday afternoon so I may as well while away the time by shooting fish in a barrel. Selecting a paragraph more or less at random:<br /><br />"What I deny is that you can use a generalization about human nature to proscribe what, say, an individual movie-goer's sexual orientation or sexual proclivities OUGHT to be."<br /><br />As writing teachers should probably know, the word we want here is "prescribe," not "proscribe." We don't "proscribe" what things "OUGHT to be."<br /><br />"Because we are variant organisms, with variant natures, some of us will be more along the spectrum of homosexual behaviors as opposed to heterosexual behaviors."<br /><br />Possibly true, but stunningly irrelevant. Some of us are "more along the spectrum of autism," too. So what? Does that make autism less of a disorder?<br /><br />"If you want to know who somebody is, just ask them. They know. You don't."<br /><br />This statement is not only false but dangerously so. ("You really need to cut back seriously on your drinking, Bob." "But, doctor, I self-identify as an alcoholic! It's who I am!" "Oh. Well, okay then. You're the one in a position to know.") And it's especially incongruous coming from someone who claims to be concerned about confirmation bias.<br /><br />"That's not a denial of human nature…"<br /><br />Of course it is. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it and you should pardon the expression, but bloody <i>duhh</i>.<br /><br />"…that's combining human nature with what we know about evolution (that it introduces variation in every roll of the genetic dice)."<br /><br />Evolution doesn't "introduce variation"; it presumes it. In fact, left (so to speak) to its own devices, evolution via natural selection <i>reduces</i> variation, which is why it requires a source of new variation that isn't strictly part of the evolutionary process itself.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51380341464589636322016-02-06T11:41:48.324-08:002016-02-06T11:41:48.324-08:00But I personally see the two of us, you and I, as ...<i>But I personally see the two of us, you and I, as two peas in a pod. We are both interested in religion, speak English, like intellectual stuff, etc.--but you emphasize form and essence, and I emphasize change and variation.</i><br /><br />There is no change unless it is change from something, and there is no variation unless is it a variation of something. You deny the 'something', so undermine your claim re 'change and variation'. IOW, and as has happened before, in going on about change and variation while denying forn and essence, you shoot yourself in the foot. I don't know if you also say, "There! Take that!" But I can well imagine you saying, "Ah, that feels good!"<br /><br /><i>I assume, were a Hitler to arise in American politics, CNN cameras would find both of us on the same street, resisting him.</i><br /><br />As has been noted before, there is a huge gulf between us. In this case, since you're on one coast, and I'm on the other, it is the expanse of the continental U.S. which separates us. In order that those CNN cameras might find us both on the same street, then, you'll have to pay the price (of transportation) to get to where I am. For some odd, unfathomable reason, I don't see you doing that.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64049584952905425312016-02-06T10:28:21.086-08:002016-02-06T10:28:21.086-08:00Santi,
You're prescribing behavior.
Dance, ...<br />Santi,<br /><br />You're prescribing behavior. <br /><br />Dance, Santi, dance.....scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14442455010154982992016-02-06T10:23:40.974-08:002016-02-06T10:23:40.974-08:00Santi,
This fact:
[1] Symbols and context work t...<br /><br />Santi,<br /><br />This fact:<br /><br />[1] Symbols and context work together within concept communique rather than standing magically separated from one another.<br /><br />And this fact:<br /><br />[2] There is not even *one* word which cannot change meaning within the morphing contours of [1].<br /><br />Have no connection, at all, to this:<br /><br />[3] The <i>supposed</i> reality of deflationary (metaphysical) truth values. <br /><br />Metaphysical necessities -- the reach thereof -- are simply <i>untouched</i> by [1] and [2]. <br /><br />You continue in your nihilism where [3] is concerned and seem to think [1] and [2] somehow (inexplicably) buttress that "connection".<br /><br />That you're mistaken is bad enough. But that you merely presuppose said connection and try to build on top of it, rather than justifying the premise that said connection exists, is just the sloppy result of indolence.<br /><br />Then, your dance of equivocation two-steps as you try to equate reason's demand for "logical lucidity" to "demanding that we say nothing in an all or none system".<br /><br />Dance, Santi, dance.....scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68468992530287190612016-02-06T08:03:31.198-08:002016-02-06T08:03:31.198-08:00Mr. Green:
You write: "He denies human natur...Mr. Green:<br /><br />You write: "He denies human nature, yet other people are dehumanising him."<br /><br />No, I don't deny that each human being has a nature, and it may be very similar to the people around her at the movie theater in many respects, but not all. For example, some people are temperamentally set to risk taking, others to caution. That's part of their contingent natures, which they locate when they INTROSPECT. <br /><br />What I deny is that you can use a generalization about human nature to proscribe what, say, an individual movie-goer's sexual orientation or sexual proclivities OUGHT to be. Because we are variant organisms, with variant natures, some of us will be more along the spectrum of homosexual behaviors as opposed to heterosexual behaviors. If you want to know who somebody is, just ask them. They know. You don't. That's not a denial of human nature, that's combining human nature with what we know about evolution (that it introduces variation in every roll of the genetic dice).<br /><br />What Thomists do is overgeneralize about human nature ("women are x, not y; you're feeling and doing y, which is against your fundamental nature...."). I argue that evolution, acting as it does on variation at the level of the individual, renders proscription silly in human nature terms. <br /><br />You might be able to talk statistically, generally, and loosely about human nature--"To shop is human nature," "Everybody loves a grand opening of a new store because it's human nature to hunt and gather," etc.--BUT to then translate this down to an individual--"You ought to like shopping more, it's part of human nature"--is where Thomistic-styles of proscription run up against the way we know evolution works (through individual variation). Santihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158850887371068289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54682447980793998112016-02-06T07:41:09.827-08:002016-02-06T07:41:09.827-08:00DNW:
You write: "[I]f you took your own clai...DNW:<br /><br />You write: "[I]f you took your own claim of epistemic humility seriously, you would keep this truth about your method at the forefront, and refuse to engage in pseudo-arguments which are in principle incapable of any kind of resolution because of the built-in problems of equivocation; problems of which you are perfectly aware, and have in fact placed there."<br /><br />What you're suggesting, DNW, is that, if the problems inherent in communication identified by Wittgenstein, Derrida, Nietzsche, etc. ("truth is a mobile army of metaphors," etc.) are confronted, I should simply fall into silence (like Aquinas did, I would add, at the end of his life).<br /><br />This feels too all-or-nothing to me. I don't think you've got to have a perfectly laid out, God-based, metaphysics to ever really speak again--nor do you have to pretend that Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, etc. never happened in intellectual history--to speak. You just have to treat your speech with greater irony, knowing what it might be accomplishing, and what not, and how it's more akin to play, and not to be spell-cast by it, or imagine that only one language should be--or ever can be--overlaid on the whole of reality. <br /><br />You can't, in my view, unspill the milk here. Once you see the arguments of historicism and linguistics surrounding the spell-casting nature of language and metaphysics, it's hard to go back and say, "God is still not a ghost bird. I'll keep talking about God as if nothing's has happened since the early nineteenth century surrounding our understanding of the cosmos and language." Santihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158850887371068289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43295406651691725372016-02-06T07:23:35.464-08:002016-02-06T07:23:35.464-08:00Glenn:
You write: "I consider it right and p...Glenn:<br /><br />You write: "I consider it right and proper, as well as natural and good, not just to be unlike you, and not just to be noticeably unlike you, but to be so unlike you that there is little danger of someone else mistakenly thinking of you one the one hand and myself on the other hand as being, so to speak, two peas in a single pod."<br /><br />Well, of course, that's an evolutionary strategy, and you see organism make such moves all the time--and it often works in the environment that they happen to swim in. Along a continuum, you can have shark strategies on one end (swim alone, eat alone, drastically limit affiliation), and on the other, bonobo strategies (group sex, lesbian behavior, hippie communal gentleness, males and females close to the same size, etc.).<br /><br />You can thus have a very narrow threshold of affiliation and empathy (your religion, family, nation is best, piss on the rest, etc.), and you're not "wrong," certainly not on evolutionary terms, if that were your position in relation to secular people like me. <br /><br />But I personally see the two of us, you and I, as two peas in a pod. We are both interested in religion, speak English, like intellectual stuff, etc.--but you emphasize form and essence, and I emphasize change and variation. These really make up the non-dual--the larger reality--whereof we cannot wholly speak, and so we end up putting forward a partial description of reality, and take sides, then argue in the context of our own contingency and variation, salivating to even the different emphases we place on the sentences that we write. <br /><br />It's akin to aspect seeing: you're seeing the vase, I'm seeing the faces. You're seeing the butter-side up, and I'm seeing the butter-side down (to use the famous Dr. Seuss analogy in his Butter Battle Book).<br /><br />There are many, many context in which I would be on your side, your ally, in disputes. I assume, were a Hitler to arise in American politics, CNN cameras would find both of us on the same street, resisting him. Santihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158850887371068289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33035046747781628952016-02-06T07:00:35.708-08:002016-02-06T07:00:35.708-08:00DNW:
I don't have a problem with your liberta...DNW:<br /><br />I don't have a problem with your libertarianism. I'm not a libertarian myself, but your vegan example is a good one. I still think empathy could come in, and shared purposes, absent God. Camus thought this as well. Thus the meat eater might be helped with medical bills because he's also a taxpayer who helps pay for the maintenance of streets that lead to, say, a business that I like to frequent. If taxation is equitable, it can bond people to a common purpose, and at least some shared social lifting.<br /><br />Trade functions the same way. Why trade with those people from other religions and cultures? Mutual interest, keeping life more peaceful and distrustful, etc. You don't need God for the logic of empathy, equitable taxation, and trade to work.Santihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158850887371068289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90251068415330107292016-02-04T12:12:37.983-08:002016-02-04T12:12:37.983-08:00By the way, and for what it is worth; I don't ...By the way, and for what it is worth; I don't wish to leave the impression that I imagine there is some functional equivalence between the concept of a tautology and a spandrel. I was - probably obviously - implying the prosaic image of a cluster of tautological statements giving an appearance of a meaningful structure or system when stacked and leaned up against each other at various angles ... the resultant spaces providing the necessary illusion for pattern projecting subjects to go on to ... etc ... etc ...DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72434305188662092552016-02-04T09:35:06.954-08:002016-02-04T09:35:06.954-08:00If you can't talk sense with someone, you migh...If you can't talk sense with someone, you might be able to talk some sense about them. My aim is not to drag out discussion, but to amplify a point I made earlier.<br /><br />For example Santi is on record as saying, "exclusion is dehumanizing". If we take that seriously and literally, rather than as a mere synonym for "you are hurting my feelings" what will this tell us? Say, if we do the logic, and then add a little Euro-style critical thinking re grounds and conditions.<br /><br />Consideration of the following quotes might do as well.<br /><br />- <i> ... what can we have together? Empathy. We're all on the same mortal boat in a fog, cast far out to sea in space and time.We can have solidarity and empathy with beings in the same existential situation. </i><br /><br />The same existential situation? Not convincingly demonstrated. In what way, is the positive "existential situation" of stipulatively <i> Sui Generis</i> entities "the same"? Mortality functions as a kind of logical "spandrel" here, to steal a term so beloved of A-T critics.<br /><br />- <i>We can all understand that evolution makes each of us different; that we are sui generis variants in the dice game of evolution--and yet we can feel empathy and solidarity in our collective flungness. </i><br /><br />Among considerations which arise almost simultaneously, is the realization that there are no good grounds for adverting to "flungness" or "foundness" as conditioning: as the quality of this condition is not equivalent among the "sui generis" set of subjects. And, in order for your flungness to do the psychological work you hope it will do, one must be in a state of disappointed disenchantment ... not mere disenchantment; wherein the impact of this "flungness" is so severely vitiated by a presumptively non-theistic eternal universe in which the concept of "nothing" has no role, that it becomes useless as even a rhetorical lever.<br /><br />- <i>Nothing compels such solidarity, but it's not incoherent, and nothing prevents it. </i><br /><br />Well you seem to think it is compelling, if not compelled. Yet, people, even "flung people", if we can still use the term "people" as if it has a univocal or even coherent sense, make decisions on the basis of perceived interests and returns on investments or life expenditures. But, with "sui generis" entities there is no reason to assume that they have any conditioning interests in common.<br /><br /><i>It's a choice. "We" is a choice. As Sartre used to say </i><br /><br />And Sartre is probably a good example of someone who it is rational to exclude. Certainly Sartre himself was not shy about excluding others from his circle or life project.<br /><br /><i> We can choose one another.</i><br /><br />Aside from the justification of which "one [or] another" we choose to affiliate with invest in and why - since to joyfully choose some is not to glumly accept thralldom to all - there's that problematic presumptive positive class term rearing it's disruptive head through the tissue of any coherent nominalism again.<br /><br />The term "spandrel" has been seen in these comments from time to time.<br /><br />Imagine a class composed of the attributes of a spandlrel, and we have a class wherein the membership is analogous to the membership of Santi's "each other".<br /><br />There is not really anything positive inside there at all.<br /><br />(Just occurred to me that the doctrine of evolution is structured somewhat like that as well; which is probably why much to the annoyance of Mayr, some have referred to the "process" as a tautology. A subconscious recognition of this may have contributed to the New Atheists bright idea of using this term in their polemics)DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56353695574547251402016-02-04T05:21:19.588-08:002016-02-04T05:21:19.588-08:00PCK: If you drop logic you saw off the branch you&...PCK: <i>If you drop logic you saw off the branch you're sitting on and drop reason with it. </i><br /><br />I hate to break it to you, but Santi ain't sitting on that branch. In fact, if you cut it off, sharpened it into a pointy stake and stabbed him through the heart with it, it's the branch that would turn to dust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16746144777200666882016-02-04T05:14:19.587-08:002016-02-04T05:14:19.587-08:00Santi: You can't have the It in "It is ra...Santi: <i>You can't have the It in "It is raining," without the raining</i><br /><br />Uh, well, I'm no professor of English, but I'm pretty sure that's: <b>"It isn't raining."</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21065558177845944432016-02-04T05:09:52.036-08:002016-02-04T05:09:52.036-08:00Glenn: I consider it right and proper, [...] to be...Glenn: <i>I consider it right and proper, [...] to be so unlike you that there is little danger of someone else mistakenly thinking of you one the one hand and myself on the other hand as being, so to speak, two peas in a single pod. </i><br /><br />No chance of that. Perhaps one pea and one pod-person…. (There's a hit sitcom in there somewhere… an extraterrestrial comes to earth and tries to learn to act like a human, but always manages to get it backwards. Catch-phrase: <i><blam!></i> "Take that!")<br />There certainly is an unearthly level of self-confusion in Santi's posts. He denies human nature, yet other people are dehumanising him. Someone expresses hope for him; he sees malice. He expects, implores, berates others for daring to be certain — if only we could consider that Thomism might possibly be wrong! Yet he could never consider that Thomism might necessarily be right. Providing arguments for how evil fits into the world is cognitive dissonance; but making up bits of psychology or history or philosophy constitutes proof. Lots of people disagree with all of us about lots of things, but only Santi is "used to" being shamed, yet never picks up on the common factor. Is it possible to shame someone who has no shame… even when he should? "I thank thee, non-existent Lord, that I am ever so epistemically humble! ...not like that low-down logic-grubbing Thomist over there!"<br />Hey, maybe the trick to reading Santi's posts is to play a laugh-track in the background. (A commercial break every seven minutes to go to the bathroom would really help too.)<br /><br /><br /><br />Laube: Santi Baton Roue<br /><br />Touché.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84613873864248811962016-02-04T02:41:26.918-08:002016-02-04T02:41:26.918-08:00I think there really needs to be some kind of spec...I think there really needs to be some kind of special rules for Santi's posts. His main problem is he can't put forward a straight forward point without obscuring it in waffle. Maybe there should be a 200 word limit on his posts to encourage him to argue more succinctly. <br /><br />Of course, when he does make a genuine point, he often seems to forget just what that point was in his next post. I don't know how that could be fixed.<br /><br />I have grave doubts whether Santi is an honest doubter. Wouldn't an honest doubter try to stay on topic, cut the waffle, and try to argue properly? Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82806069065521788052016-02-03T20:05:30.490-08:002016-02-03T20:05:30.490-08:00Brandon,
You see, Glenn, the problem was that you...Brandon,<br /><br /><i>You see, Glenn, the problem was that you were assuming metaphysical essences, so that when Santi referred to himself as a fly in a bottle, you assumed he meant (as most people would) that he was in need of release from something that could be called a mental prison. <br /><br />In reality, what Santi was doing was self-identifying, and since human nature is just choice, Santi is really a fly in a bottle. Once you remove all the blinders of essentialism and see that if Santi chooses to be a fly, he's a fly, then the logical inconsistency ceases to exist.</i><br /><br />Ah. I confess that the first part is true, and concede the essential point of the second part. (Oh darn, there I go again.)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64320358606522540142016-02-03T15:44:36.804-08:002016-02-03T15:44:36.804-08:00Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger ...Since someone will forever be surprising<br />A hunger in himself to be more serious,<br />And gravitating with it to this ground,<br />Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,<br />If only that so many dead lie round.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57879601923222482342016-02-03T15:20:53.778-08:002016-02-03T15:20:53.778-08:00Gottfried:
"And I can state in total honesty...Gottfried:<br /><br />"And I can state in total honesty that it was mostly pride, hormones, and ignorance that led me to abandon Christianity in my early teens; it is reason and inquiry (as much as my feeble powers will allow), along with some nontrivial encounters with suffering and evil, that have brought me back to the threshold of faith."<br /><br />Thy tale thus far is much like unto mine own.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33527100756393737282016-02-03T15:17:31.498-08:002016-02-03T15:17:31.498-08:00"…then the logical inconsistency ceases to ex..."…then the logical inconsistency ceases to exist."<br /><br />And then it will finally be time to stop marginalizing and dehumanizing gays, women, and people who think they're flies.<br /><br />Words are fluid, not fixed. Language evolves. And when the meaning of a word changes, so does the thing it used to refer to, probably!Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72508059513828882512016-02-03T15:11:59.557-08:002016-02-03T15:11:59.557-08:00I think I'm going to walk back a bit from part...<br />I think I'm going to walk back a bit from part of my last post (which I had thought was one of my nicer posts directed at Santi, but which was, alas, apparently beyond the pale): my pledge seems, in retrospect, a bit dramatic. My hopes of getting through to Santi have gone from very low to practically nonexistent, but if he's going to continue inflicting his presence on us it only seems fair that we get to have a bit of fun with him. <br /><br />I should probably also clarify, as I know some of my comments could be misleading, that I'm not a Christian in any official sense. I'm a longtime agnostic and sometime atheist who has only fairly recently returned to belief in God (Scott guessed correctly!). And I can state in total honesty that it was mostly pride, hormones, and ignorance that led me to abandon Christianity in my early teens; it is reason and inquiry (as much as my feeble powers will allow), along with some nontrivial encounters with suffering and evil, that have brought me back to the threshold of faith. I'm no Pangloss.<br /><br />I'll let Wittgenstein finish for me:<br /><br />"I seem to be surrounded now by Roman Catholic converts! I don't know whether they pray for me. I hope they do." (Recollections p. 148)Gottfriednoreply@blogger.com