tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4940739599251094793..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Around the web with Five ProofsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18200104393454371962017-12-25T19:11:49.721-08:002017-12-25T19:11:49.721-08:00If anyone could answer the following question abou...If anyone could answer the following question about God's relationship with the World. For me, the evidence of God's existence never makes clear the relationship of God to the world. How can something immaterial act on matter? How can a God-type being act upon matter as a pure act? For me, this point is obscure and make the proofs of the existence of God, like the Aristotelian, not be plausible and not intelligible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60559189799488060492017-11-03T10:15:52.715-07:002017-11-03T10:15:52.715-07:00Upvote!Upvote!www.inquisition.cahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17646606229997692731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61189249772113581932017-10-31T08:19:36.879-07:002017-10-31T08:19:36.879-07:00I think I can live with this answer. Thanks!I think I can live with this answer. Thanks!Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922293511230395024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69375991902744859642017-10-31T01:30:59.148-07:002017-10-31T01:30:59.148-07:00Since Bradley Bowen's cirtique of Geisler or K...Since Bradley Bowen's cirtique of Geisler or Kreeft <i>IS</i> a big stinking pile of crap, I doubt he will do a good job. <br />We'll see.FMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13846624385328942172017-10-30T20:23:45.377-07:002017-10-30T20:23:45.377-07:00I posted this at the Secular Outpost on their abus...I posted this at the Secular Outpost on their abuse of Kreeft and Geisler. They took it down. LOL!<br /><br />>The first thing that Feser gets right in his case for God is the length of his case:<br /><br /><br />You are comparing a book length defense of five specific historical philosophical arguments to one chapter each in two separate books that are basically summery arguments? That is like saying a chapter in my 7th grade biology text book on evolution is "a streaming pile of shit" because it doesn't go into enough scientific detail and argument as my College Text Book that deals exclusively with Evolution?<br />I don't want to be mean here but you are not filling me with confidence with this type of fallacious reasoning.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17556640358795295292017-10-30T18:50:35.289-07:002017-10-30T18:50:35.289-07:00A brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. Bu...A brute fact is a fact that has <i>no</i> explanation. But God does have an explanation - found in God's very nature rather than something external to God. <br /><br />If the atheist accuses us of masking God being a brute fact behind clever words, the atheist is completely ignoring the very argument at hand. <br /><br />For something to have its explanation in its own nature <i>does not</i> equal a brute fact. The atheist would basically be asserting that something can only ever have an external explanation or else it would be a brute fact, in which case the atheist is just begging the question against our very arguments!<br /><br />For a thing to have an explanation in its own nature just means it is something the essence of which is identical to existence; something that just is pure actuality and not actualized by any other; something that could not possibly fail to exist; necessary, rather than contingent etc.Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25134994570628626762017-10-30T09:36:49.083-07:002017-10-30T09:36:49.083-07:00Well he does write for a Popular audience. So tha...Well he does write for a Popular audience. So that is to be expected.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4943412038622281652017-10-30T06:52:30.372-07:002017-10-30T06:52:30.372-07:00«Rather, the intellect is already constituted so a...«Rather, the intellect is already constituted so as to grasp only what is universal, whilst grasping no particular accidents»<br />Just two quick notes. One thing is "how different waves of data are specifically received", another is "how from a specific wave we take cognizance of a universal, or a eide". I call the first one "the problem of the sensible" (SP), the second "the problem of the universal" (UP). SP is, in my opinion, well explained by science, UP has to be explained by philosophy since a universal can't be, from my point of view, a data from the senses even if we need data from the senses in order to take cognizance of a universal. I think that the Geach's objection should be read in this "sense": how we can abstract an unknown universal from an known abstracted sensible data if the knowledge of the universal should be the _result_ of the abstraction?. This is problematic, a possible solution is a phenomenologically, in the realistic assumption (Hildebrand), corrected form of the platonic ideas: we take cognizance of the universal, we see it, we receive it as we receive the sensible that extra-mentally comes from a thing that receive the form from the same universal. Please take care that in my point of view the essence is something that also the accidents, relations, values have. Therefore there's a universal for the red. The eye of the body receive the red as a "sensible data" (the red as wavelength for a human person) this data cause the taking cognizance of the "universal data", the red as red for a human person. Human not humean :)Theophiliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950090517602251638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37647531512920410102017-10-30T06:19:43.289-07:002017-10-30T06:19:43.289-07:00A friend of mine, Rodrigo, has convinced me that t...A friend of mine, Rodrigo, has convinced me that the objection does not work against the intellect. Basically, abstraction is not a conscious process in which we are "trying to separate" F from X, in which case we'd already have to be in possession of F to distinguish it from what is accidental. Intellection is not a conscious process like that. Rather, the intellect is already constituted so as to grasp only what is universal, whilst grasping no particular accidents. It's just how it works, it's its constitution: it is directed to grasp the universal, the essential, not the particular.<br /><br />Consider our bodily senses, for example. The eye (and the internal visual organs) doesn't have to "differentiate" between red and blue before being able to see them as distinct; the eye just so happens to be constituted to see color spectres of light. The eye doesn't have to differentate between the light and sound wave frequencies -- it is simply that which is constituted to grasp the first kind of information whilst ignoring the second kind. The ears, by contrast, are constituted to hear frequencies of sound waves. The intellect is constituted to grasp F specifically, and not X, just like the ears hear frequencies of sound waves and not color spectres of light. <br /><br />So the objection doesn't work. In fact, I think now that Geach's objection works only against "abstractionism" as understood by materialists -- in which we somehow just have to grasp what is common between things by "attending" to them in our experience --, not against an immaterial faculty which is specifically directed to encode essential informations while being incapable of encoding material, particular information. Maybe it was the materialist abstractionist that was Geach's target after all.<br /><br />Thanks to all who contributed, though.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73479856975012239692017-10-30T03:31:33.936-07:002017-10-30T03:31:33.936-07:00Thanks for the point George, but even in the corre...Thanks for the point George, but even in the correct "form" of abstraction seems present the "problem" of how we can abstract what is not universal if we don't have a cognition of the universal?<br />Take the experience of the red color, where's the red from? Science says that the physical is colorless, so what makes red the red?Theophiliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950090517602251638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13311579677771685982017-10-30T00:44:09.342-07:002017-10-30T00:44:09.342-07:00Dr. Feser, I got a serious question that's bee...Dr. Feser, I got a serious question that's been on my mind for quite some time now -- What does it mean for a thing to have an explanation for itself in its nature? <br /><br />I've read your Five Proofs, and noticed you mention it several times, but you never seem to go in much detail about it.<br /><br />This is important because since God is the only necessary being, only he can have an explanation of himself in himself. But what does that mean? And is that not circular reasoning? You understand the danger of such a claim, i'm sure as any atheist will retort that you are just masking God being a brute fact behind clever words.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922293511230395024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3954037761305602272017-10-29T15:15:02.059-07:002017-10-29T15:15:02.059-07:00OA, opinion on Feser's reductio argument for t...OA, opinion on Feser's reductio argument for the PSR and whether Keith Parson's reply has any bite? Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33038524869038398722017-10-29T13:44:29.334-07:002017-10-29T13:44:29.334-07:00From what I've read of him, we was too simplis...From what I've read of him, we was too simplistic and jumps around with big conclusions without establishing the basics.Ivan Knezovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02295701842135894524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24397505474224354552017-10-29T11:46:32.503-07:002017-10-29T11:46:32.503-07:00A small point. When Aristotle spoke of "abstr...A small point. When Aristotle spoke of "abstraction", he wasn't saying we abstract the universal (form) from the particular substances. Rather, it worked the other way around. What we abstract away are the accidents; from several dogs of different breeds, we abstract away, not just size, but also things like the shape of the ears, tails, legs, the color of the tongue, habitual behavior peculiar to the breed, etc. The form or essence of dog is that which we <i>cannot</i> abstract away, without losing the recognition that they are all dogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77921337381834852612017-10-29T11:38:34.119-07:002017-10-29T11:38:34.119-07:00I don't know what is wrong with Keefe? What i...I don't know what is wrong with Keefe? What is the bug up this guys arse?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13890769560914274742017-10-29T09:46:53.049-07:002017-10-29T09:46:53.049-07:00One can - as in fact the majority of modern Aristo...One can - as in fact the majority of modern Aristotelians do - endorse the major points of that philosophy (Powers theory, dispositional properties, physical intentionality) without accepting the specific formulation Aristotle & Thomas gave. Ed defends against some of these in <i>General Scholastic Metaphysics</i> but doesn’t perhaps acknowledge how widespread they are. Most contemporary thinkers of that school would reject the Thomist account as being unacceptably ontologically fulsome. The big exception is Mumford who goes as far as to style himself an ‘Atheist Thomist’ – surely just the right fellow to debate Ed!<br /><br /><i>With regards to the PSR section, were Feser's points original to him? Because, for whatever reason, I don't think I've ever come across an indirect argument for the PSR before reading that section.</i><br /><br />Pruss briefly gestures to such arguments in his study of the PSR but out of all the philosophers I’ve read on that topic Ed far and away spends the most time unpacking the implications of PSR denial for epistemology of belief.<br />OA Policenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51034560412290356932017-10-29T08:28:40.643-07:002017-10-29T08:28:40.643-07:00A quick aside: I know they are personally friends ...A quick aside: I know they are personally friends but much more would be gained were Ed to attack William Vallicella's strident and aggressively proclaimed metaphilosophical skepticism.<br /><br />("Look Socrates, that other person is disagreeing we - we should go away and do something else as these questions are obviously unanswerable") OA Policenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61952448502735172442017-10-28T06:59:36.274-07:002017-10-28T06:59:36.274-07:00Thanks for linking my post Ed. I think polytheists...Thanks for linking my post Ed. I think polytheists could benefit from reading your thoughts on henadology, especially as explicated through the works of Edward Butler. My post was more of an invitation than anything. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3068361153442414832017-10-27T16:55:02.595-07:002017-10-27T16:55:02.595-07:00Atheist Aristotelians? Obviously an Aristotelian d...Atheist Aristotelians? Obviously an Aristotelian doesn't have to subscribe to Christianity or any revealed religion, but doesn't philosophical theism (the unmoved mover) pretty much follow from Aristotelian metaphysics and philosophy of nature?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27005146715947002842017-10-27T13:39:28.123-07:002017-10-27T13:39:28.123-07:00Dr. Feser, great to hear your book is receiving th...Dr. Feser, great to hear your book is receiving the attention it deserves!JohnDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068881068162920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85795468918428805462017-10-27T11:00:32.076-07:002017-10-27T11:00:32.076-07:00Anyone who would say that about Geisler is a huge ...Anyone who would say that about Geisler is a huge idiot is the thingAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08634115654045133370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55395631303673869962017-10-27T10:42:17.198-07:002017-10-27T10:42:17.198-07:00lol. That would have been epic. lol. That would have been epic. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18351106237557996622017-10-27T10:25:16.277-07:002017-10-27T10:25:16.277-07:00With regards to the PSR section, were Feser's ...With regards to the PSR section, were Feser's points original to him? Because, for whatever reason, I don't think I've ever come across an indirect argument for the PSR before reading that section. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8693546102947680842017-10-27T09:46:14.454-07:002017-10-27T09:46:14.454-07:00I wonder what Ludwig Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russ...I wonder what Ludwig Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russell would think of the bookAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66592779693178965732017-10-27T08:54:30.506-07:002017-10-27T08:54:30.506-07:00I was perusing your posts here: http://classicalth...I was perusing your posts here: http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/search.php?search_id=1174728000<br /><br />Why the heck aren't you blogging?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com