tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4838825839117804073..comments2024-03-29T08:19:26.011-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: At last, another open thread!Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73449849033188550782018-02-11T03:07:44.755-08:002018-02-11T03:07:44.755-08:00Dear Dr. Feser, I wonder what is your opinion on r...Dear Dr. Feser, I wonder what is your opinion on recently deceased Dr. Germain Grisez? His work/pesonality... <br />I am aware the you are very critical of New Natural Law Theory, but nevertheless you had been to some conference hosted by Robert P. George, so perhaps the critique is good-minded, and you respect each other? :)<br />Mariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2668866935118488572018-02-05T00:05:46.093-08:002018-02-05T00:05:46.093-08:00I'm looking for a good refutation or link to a...I'm looking for a good refutation or link to a refutation for the introspective/meditation part of this view Sam Harris has: "… for Harris there is no free will because in meditation he finds that the contents of consciousness simply appear and disappear without visible cause. On this view — though sounds, tastes, touch, smells, thoughts and sounds also make their appearance — there is no free will."Monroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459948176549835068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81476562116520637032018-01-10T00:11:04.676-08:002018-01-10T00:11:04.676-08:00Speaking of Dr. Feser's works, may I add in he...Speaking of Dr. Feser's works, may I add in here for visibility's sake:<br /><br />Guys! Can you please help publicize Dr. Feser's works on Facebook? There's a fan page that promotes his blog, with links to his actual posts: https://www.facebook.com/edwardfeserphilosopher/<br /><br />With this blog overflowing into Facebook, hopefully more people would get to notice this treasurehold of a blog site. A good start would be to add to the few likes (or shares) that the page has!Albsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5306591378381205502018-01-10T00:08:44.331-08:002018-01-10T00:08:44.331-08:00Guys! Can you please help publicize Dr. Feser'...Guys! Can you please help publicize Dr. Feser's works on Facebook? There's a fan page that promotes his blog with links to his actual posts: https://www.facebook.com/edwardfeserphilosopher/<br /><br />With this blog overflowing into Facebook, hopefully more people would get to notice this treasurehold of a blog site. A good start would be to add to the few likes (or shares) that the page has!Albsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91652864511266467732018-01-07T21:23:48.409-08:002018-01-07T21:23:48.409-08:00I have a question on aquinas
“Considered absolute...I have a question on aquinas<br /><br />“Considered absolutely, being itself is infinite, for it can be participated in infinite ways by an infinite number of things...” (SCG 1.43:363)<br /><br />How do we know this fact being itself is infinite?<br /><br />What does it mean to be participated in infinite ways by and infinite number of things”? How do we know this fact?<br /><br />Travis123https://www.blogger.com/profile/06816679738536486067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15237392033059932462018-01-07T21:20:03.741-08:002018-01-07T21:20:03.741-08:00I have a question on aquinas I am hoping so philos...I have a question on aquinas I am hoping so philosophers here can help me with. <br /><br />Considered absolutely, being itself is infinite, for it can be participated in infinite ways by an infinite number of things ... (act 1.43:363)<br /><br />My questions are<br /><br />Where do we get the fact that being itself is infinite?<br /><br />What does it mean being participated in infinite ways by an infinite number of things?<br /><br />What is the definition of being?Travis123https://www.blogger.com/profile/06816679738536486067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23217997134384703072018-01-04T14:17:15.133-08:002018-01-04T14:17:15.133-08:00Excellent; thanks for the suggestions, guys. Excellent; thanks for the suggestions, guys. ccmnxcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69288146842853215422018-01-02T05:33:46.794-08:002018-01-02T05:33:46.794-08:00Anyone have thoughts on what Pope Francis has said...Anyone have thoughts on what Pope Francis has said about Islam:<br /><br />"authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence"<br /><br />??<br /><br /><br />Is There an Official Catholic Position on Islam?<br /><br />William Kilpatrick<br /><br />https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/11/01/is-there-an-official-catholic-position-on-islam/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19371830721907989762018-01-01T09:38:53.952-08:002018-01-01T09:38:53.952-08:00When will Dr. Feser answer the objections in
www....When will Dr. Feser answer the objections in <br />www.feserismisnotthomism.wordpress.com/<br />Due to lack of clarification on his part (somehow - we were always sure this would never happen), new sections going in shortly.Doc Angelichttp://www.feserismisnotthomism.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86547256620624355592017-12-31T17:45:02.462-08:002017-12-31T17:45:02.462-08:00Don't know much about computer science. Howeve...Don't know much about computer science. However, you should check out Whitehead's Introduction to Mathematics, Berlinski's Tour of Calculus, and Calculus Made Easy (authors escape my memory at the moment).<br /><br />God Bless and happy new year,<br />KarlKarl W/ A Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478713719075274580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18259800877278022242017-12-31T17:39:15.471-08:002017-12-31T17:39:15.471-08:00Thank you for sharing that paper. You'd think ...Thank you for sharing that paper. You'd think it would be more obvious that organisms positively need to weed out change and alteration in anything remotely like a random way in order to reproduce and remain viable: complex things can't be produced just any which way or inclusive of dice rolls to determine procedure or steps or course of action.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66854908956565658702017-12-31T10:14:42.190-08:002017-12-31T10:14:42.190-08:00ccmnxc:
For mathematics, Morris Kline's "...ccmnxc:<br /><br />For mathematics, Morris Kline's "Mathematics for Non-Mathematicians" is good as an overview of mathematics, and takes you through calculus and statistics, as well as covering non-Euclidean geometry. That helps brush up on the general mathematical background.<br /><br />I have heard that "Make Your Own Neural Networks" by Tariq Rashad is a relatively gentle intro to machine learning.<br /><br />With regard to CS basics, Thomas Cormen has a book called "Algorithms Unlocked" that tries to explain algorithms for those without a technical background.<br /><br />In terms of how to think about programs, "Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming" is an "advanced" introduction that covers computation. I suspect it won't be easy going if you haven't done any programming before. Perhaps "Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software" would be gentler, though far (far) less deep.<br /><br />As a side note, it is interesting to hear the philosophical debates about computational theories of mind by people who wouldn't know a functor from an iterative function. So if you can pull this off, you'll be ahead of almost everyone engaged in this philosophical debate. Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22734046108003037502017-12-29T14:42:44.410-08:002017-12-29T14:42:44.410-08:00I'm interested in how Thomist ethics are appli...I'm interested in how Thomist ethics are applied to some moral situations involving theft. My neighbor recently told me (he works at a public agency in Brazil) that he studied using pirated material for the exam used in the selection process to enter. That's not morally right, even though he claims he needed the job as quick as possible for family reasons, but if he were to redeem himself and do the right thing, would it be required for him to quit the job? Luis Takahashihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07956108466431212995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58214864990709212712017-12-29T11:29:32.428-08:002017-12-29T11:29:32.428-08:00Hello. My first time here. I recently received Th...Hello. My first time here. I recently received The New Testament by David Bentley Hart as a Christmas gift. I have seen great reviews on Amazon, but well..that's Amazon. Could anyone here offer an informed review of the translation or the author? I do see that Dr Feser has had debates with Dr Hart so I was hoping for a more competent and complete set of thoughts on Harts translation. Thank you in advanceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62076089877024658052017-12-26T00:05:34.073-08:002017-12-26T00:05:34.073-08:00I can't believe that no one is recommending Re...I can't believe that no one is recommending Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and his God His Existence and His Nature which takes upon itself to wreck the foundations of every modern philosophy. Ivan Knezovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02295701842135894524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18162230663347849042017-12-25T17:16:19.552-08:002017-12-25T17:16:19.552-08:00Hoping I'm not too late to catch people here, ...Hoping I'm not too late to catch people here, but as someone who very little background in mathematics and no background in computer science, can anyone recommend any good texts for either field that introduce concepts and terms in an understandable way that isn't also so oversimplified as to be effectively false? Broad surveys rather than specialized or restricted-scope works would be preferred. Regarding the comp-sci in particular, I am less interested in application so much as the theory and terminiology behind it such that it might be useful for understanding discussions surrounding things such as computationalist theories of mind and the like. Thanks!ccmnxcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7028054732645340382017-12-25T13:39:24.543-08:002017-12-25T13:39:24.543-08:00When I have spoken with Calvinists, who normally g...When I have spoken with Calvinists, who normally go in for compatibilism, they seem to have to redefine the "goodness" of God to get their system to be consistent. So what they mean by "goodness" as applied to God, is what other people would understand to be "evil". <br /><br />So you might be able to make Calvinism consistent, but the price is throwing away the goodness of God.<br /><br />What I would mean by the goodness of God would include that every single person that God creates, God intends good for that person, and has created them in such a way that they have a real chance of finding a happy and worthwhile existence, although that may well depend on how they use their freedom. <br /><br />It should be obvious that this principle-of-goodness isn't going to work with Calvinism, ignoring Calvinist Universalism perhaps. <br /><br />But then, throwing out such a standard of goodness will leave you with what kind of "God"? <br /><br /><br />Greg Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83418329527004728002017-12-25T02:05:00.435-08:002017-12-25T02:05:00.435-08:00Something of interest I’ve just stumbled upon:
“F...Something of interest I’ve just stumbled upon:<br /><br />“Flipping Fisher’s Famous Theorem<br /><br />by William F. Basener and John C. Sanford<br /><br />A recent paper in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x) has uncovered major problems with the historically pivotal Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection. That theorem was proven by Ronald Fisher – one the great scientists of the last century. Fisher’s theorem was published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics...The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.”Matjaž Horvathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299644309277886201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61526341167907544092017-12-24T14:08:57.226-08:002017-12-24T14:08:57.226-08:00I see. Thanks for the interesting discussion! Merr...I see. Thanks for the interesting discussion! Merry ChristmasAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613627123506607663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13495801269436077652017-12-24T13:41:39.631-08:002017-12-24T13:41:39.631-08:00I think the problem of proving the actual standard...I think the problem of proving the actual standards for explanatory adequacy is also soluble only via self-referential analysis plus anticipating allegations of logical errors by grounding the argument on the assumptions of its negations and logical alternatives.<br /><br />This is a strangely missing or glossed-over issue in atheism, naturalism, and natural selection as well.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25466682820948749302017-12-24T13:28:48.533-08:002017-12-24T13:28:48.533-08:00If everything needs an explanation, then both the ...If everything needs an explanation, then both the need for explanation of the series, and the explanation itself, would need explanation, two apparently vicious regresses.<br /><br />I think the only way to prove this would be to point out the implicitly assumed explanation of everything in the very denial or even mere questioning of that necessity.<br /><br />Same problem with the denial of universally overarching meaning, purpose, etc.<br /><br />Boyle would probably say that at that level of basic concepts that explanatory necessity is, the only way to prove it is in the assumptions of its denials or self-reference inconsistency in those denials themselves.<br /><br />Otherwise, one necessarily begs the question and the argued denial always has the advantage because the above method is the only thing that isn't vulnerable to accusations of question begging in any other kind of attempted positive proof.<br /><br />And of course: Merry Christmasmachinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2210649860253919672017-12-24T12:11:41.847-08:002017-12-24T12:11:41.847-08:00"Ok, so it's really the first premise and..."Ok, so it's really the first premise and the assumption that the causal series must have an explanation, that is still in question for me."<br /><br />I think the supposition that the causal series must have an explanation is the default position. It's about as intellectually dignified for an atheist to pull the "that's just how it is, no need to look any further" card as it would be to answer "why is the sky blue" with "it just is, unintelligibly, without any reason whatsoever, so stop asking." If the assumption that change has no explanation is what atheism rests on, then atheism is philosophically bankrupt. <br /><br />Exceptions to the principle that things have explanations need to be justified, and in the absence of some independent argument for the inexplicability of a causal series of changers I think we are well within our right to point to the straightforward theistic explanation. <br /><br />As for your suspicions about premise 1--that "the only possible explanation for how causal power can exist in a series is if it is produced--I am somewhat surprised anyone could find this controversial. What explanatory alternative is there? <br /><br />It would seem that either the causal efficacy in the series is/was produced, or else it "popped into being from nothing"--whatever that would mean, and, again, if atheism rests on the premise that change is explained by the causal force imparted on it by "nonexistence itself", then atheism is philosophically bankrupt. Jonah Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12159391491349205135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48571143583476039652017-12-24T12:08:05.968-08:002017-12-24T12:08:05.968-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonah Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12159391491349205135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17863673950443247432017-12-24T06:29:37.293-08:002017-12-24T06:29:37.293-08:00Merry Christmas, brother!Merry Christmas, brother!Jaimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636155049496953832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28584517395177333242017-12-24T03:17:59.374-08:002017-12-24T03:17:59.374-08:00Merry Christmas, all y’all!Merry Christmas, all y’all!Matjaž Horvathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299644309277886201noreply@blogger.com