tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5003034455750260299..comments2024-03-28T07:47:38.176-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: A final word on Eric MacDonaldEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25160780608832874832013-02-23T22:20:19.392-08:002013-02-23T22:20:19.392-08:00I can't help but see all of this as a scene fr...I can't help but see all of this as a scene from the 1980's Scottish movie "Gregory's Girl". Feser is the old-style gowned headmaster at a Scots high school, spending some of his precious free time at lunch to play his philosophy on Piano. Unwelcome, one of the pupils, a cheeky chap known as Dawkins sidles around the door to disturb the peace with some whining about the cosmological argument and how he's broken it;<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FWovgOzmFUAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37903093308404271692011-08-25T13:12:33.522-07:002011-08-25T13:12:33.522-07:00"The trouble here seems to be that MacDonald,...<i>"The trouble here seems to be that MacDonald, like other New Atheists, thinks in clichés. He already “knows” ..."</i><br /><br />This species of pseudo-thinking, of circular thinking directed toward a predetermined end, is so common - indeed <i>ubiquitous</i> is likely the more apt term - among the new atheists that I've given up on even hoping to find any interesting or truly challenging arguments among that clique.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20722984882903954052011-08-23T21:30:34.375-07:002011-08-23T21:30:34.375-07:00Anonymous,
"It's obvious for me that hum...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"It's obvious for me that humans seek pleasure and tend to rationalise away natural reasons for things in favour of pleasure seeking."</i><br /><br />I agree.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31320422293799743112011-08-23T21:27:19.310-07:002011-08-23T21:27:19.310-07:00Josh,
"Humans can reproduce asexually?"...Josh,<br /><br /><i>"Humans can reproduce asexually?"</i><br /><br />I responded to "could." If you had used "can" I would have explained that the topic is not what is but why it is.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49524086654927470822011-08-23T15:41:30.500-07:002011-08-23T15:41:30.500-07:00Josh,
Wow. Humans can reproduce asexually? Neato!...Josh,<br /><br /><b><i>Wow. Humans can reproduce asexually? Neato! You learn a little something new every day.</i></b><br /><br /><br />Now, if those atheist really follow their conclusion to its end, LET THEM REPRODUCE WITHOUT USING THEIR SEXUAL ORGANS!<br /><br />I'm down with that. More power to atheists!!!bengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92174692642083102552011-08-23T13:02:02.221-07:002011-08-23T13:02:02.221-07:00djindra, the fact that humans can procreate the wh...djindra, the fact that humans can procreate the whole year around, that it takes at least 10-14 days to build up the endrometrial lining and that major changes in sexual drive would probably be disruptive and probably could not occur in isolation in such a complex system (look at the effect of PMT on the 2-5% of women who suffer from it) all indicate to me at least that nature did intend for the process to be procreative. <br /><br />On the other hand it's hard to deny for most (except perhaps those women who suffer from endometriosis or recurrent PID associated chronic pelvic pain) that sex is pleasureful. As with all pleasurable things (eating, rest, even relief of itching, endorphin receptors etc) we tend to overdo things. We proritise eating for pleasure not nutrition, we prioritise rest not to recover from physical exertion but do it in excess or in inppropriate situations and so on which leads to negative consequences. It's obvious for me that humans seek pleasure and tend to rationalise away natural reasons for things in favour of pleasure seeking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33674243716680199872011-08-23T10:12:18.113-07:002011-08-23T10:12:18.113-07:00Steve,
So much for the explanation of my words as...Steve,<br /><br />So much for the explanation of my words as you will have none of it!<br /><br />Of course substituting "and" for "or" changes the meaning. My point is that if "or" is inclusive as you admit, then it may be acceptable to change it to an "and" because it is simply a logical outcome of what has been already said. I disagree, however, that Dawkins' "or" should be taken inclusively, however. So let's just drop it.<br /><br />And I understand the difference between a person and his views as my post clearly points out.<br /><br />If we both stop nitpicking together all of this can stop.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58950889982929779052011-08-23T08:32:46.339-07:002011-08-23T08:32:46.339-07:00"Is there any other [natural] way man could p..."Is there any other [natural] way man could procreate beside using sexual organ?"<br /><br /><br /><i>Yes. Do you know anything about biology?</i><br /><br />Wow. Humans can reproduce asexually? Neato! You learn a little something new every day.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86025971218418535862011-08-23T05:49:05.543-07:002011-08-23T05:49:05.543-07:00beng,
"Is there any other [natural] way man ...beng,<br /><br /><i>"Is there any other [natural] way man could procreate beside using sexual organ?"</i><br /><br />Yes. Do you know anything about biology?<br /><br />Besides, that doesn't address the issue of *primary* purpose, ie, the fuzzy "final cause" concept.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4929476371973910122011-08-23T01:14:21.710-07:002011-08-23T01:14:21.710-07:00Is there any other [natural] way man could procrea...Is there any other [natural] way man could procreate beside using sexual organ?<br /><br />So, what was the purpose of sexual organs again? Huh? You don't get it? Seriously?bengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51830048639697750222011-08-22T21:37:17.720-07:002011-08-22T21:37:17.720-07:00Anonymous,
Maybe it was because we met very young...Anonymous,<br /><br />Maybe it was because we met very young when her cues were exaggerated, and maybe it was because we were almost inseparable from the start, and then she ran poorly on birth control pills so she stopped, and we hated other methods, that for these reasons and others we were very attentive to her fertility cues and figured it out on our own. Most couples don't seem to.<br /><br />So as you know, during each month the window of conception is only about 4 or 5 days. The other 80% of the month the woman is unable to conceive yet desire is still there. It's true that females are slightly more receptive around ovulation. But desire is strong even during that infertile 80% of the time. That's nature's way, not our choice. Therefore nature meant for sex to be used for more than procreation. And if we measure it by time, nature has given procreation only 20% of the overall time. It's hard to believe nature would give final cause only 20% of the month's cycle. It seems much more reasonable that final cause would be found in the 80% portion. And nature did not do this with most other animals. So it's not as if nature had to make sex the way it did for us. For this reason alone it's downright arrogant to presume to know nature's purpose in matters like this.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15248571739279643612011-08-22T14:27:17.877-07:002011-08-22T14:27:17.877-07:00Michael, if you are suggesting that it doesn't...Michael, if you are suggesting that it doesn't change the meaning of a sentence to exchange "and" for "or", I have to suspect that you are ignorant regarding logic, you are a dishonest partisan, <i>or</i> you are a fool. Feel free to substitute "and", but only if you think it's appropriate.<br /><br />Also, if you think criticisizing ideas is the same as criticizing the people who hold them, you'd better take it up with Feser. He seems pretty insistent about the distinction.Steve Rublehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10354805604015803912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67498259882084575052011-08-22T10:37:21.074-07:002011-08-22T10:37:21.074-07:00Steve,
Please re-read what I posted.
"Quest...Steve,<br /><br />Please re-read what I posted.<br /><br />"Question: inclusive "or" or exclusive "or"?<br /><br />Really this all seems nit-picking as both quotes say negative things about opponents."<br /><br />I grant now that my last sentence seems a bit ambiguous and messy, but I deliberately cut it short. Whether it's about the opponent's viewpoint or the opponents themselves, both are negative. Take it for what it's worth; call my explanation of my ill-formed sentence lame if you like.<br /><br />But since you do say that Dawkins' "or" is inclusive, then Feser's rendering is perfectly legitimate because an inclusive "or" includes an "and" interpretation.<br /><br />Seriously, this is nitpicking. It's more profitable to go after the main arguments themselves.<br /><br />I myself am sorry for advancing the nitpicking. I just have a problem letting things go. Perhaps Feser can write an article about philosopher's pride and any cures there might be.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49020804918302937772011-08-22T08:50:45.889-07:002011-08-22T08:50:45.889-07:00"Also it seems obvious nature did not intend ..."Also it seems obvious nature did not intend in us humans that sex be used for procreation every time. Estrus in human females is hidden. Human males and females are ready for sex regardless of female fertility. Nature could have easily made us oblivious to sex when conception was not possible. It certainly did so for most animals."<br /><br />Well, we are fertile the whole year around. So we can get pregnant at any time, depending on the menstrual phase of the cycle of course (which could change unexpectedly). In addition most women seem to have an increased libido around the middle of their cycle (when they're most fertile):<br /><br />"Both the evolutionary advantage of coordinating sexual activity with fertility and the majority of existing literature point toward a midcycle increase in sexuality during the ovulatory phase."<br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_41/ai_n6032944/<br /><br />I don't think nature would necessarily have to make us oblivious to sex at other times as the hormones which co-ordinate this have other functions too.<br /><br />In post menopausal (infertile) women, sex becomes more uncomfortable as estrogen deficiency leads to vaginal atrophy.<br /><br />In pregnancy most women also find a reduced libido - especially in the first and last trimester.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32094804567580058992011-08-22T06:32:03.100-07:002011-08-22T06:32:03.100-07:00Steve Ruble,
"...it seems obvious as well th...Steve Ruble,<br /><br /><i>"...it seems obvious as well that nature did not intend for us to be having procreative sex at every single moment, so I'm not sure what the rationale is for your claim that the sexual capacities should only ever be used for their "natural function" when this rule is not applied to the legs and teeth..."</i><br /><br />Also it seems obvious nature did not intend in us humans that sex be used for procreation every time. Estrus in human females is hidden. Human males and females are ready for sex regardless of female fertility. Nature could have easily made us oblivious to sex when conception was not possible. It certainly did so for most animals.<br /><br />The irony is that I agree with Feser's most important oughts more than he might think. I'm for long-term committed marriages. I'm for honoring the sacred marriage vows. I'm for putting selfish interests aside for the good of the family, especially children. I've lived abiding by these oughts for many years. I'm a witness for them. I applaud people who can promote them. I just think Feser is going about it all wrong.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42660346129778923562011-08-22T05:16:22.458-07:002011-08-22T05:16:22.458-07:00Edward,
What's the procedure for deciding whe...Edward,<br /><br />What's the procedure for deciding whether an action is <i>directly contrary</i> to the end of a natural capacity, as opposed to <i>other than</i> the end? You provide an example in TLS of someone cutting off their leg as a political statement, and I can understand how that could be said to "frustrate nature's purposes" in that you obviously cannot continue to use your legs for walking around if you've cut one of them off. But the natural parallel to sex from that example is self-castration, not sex with some purpose other than procreation. (In TLS you don't expand on the example of throwing up one's food to avoid gaining weight, but perhaps that would be provide a better parallel if you could explain it a bit more.)<br /><br />You also point out that,<br /><br /><i>...holding a table up with one's leg, or holding nails in one's teeth, does not frustrate the walking and chewing functions of legs and teeth, especially since nature obviously does not intend for us to be walking and eating at every single moment.</i> (149)<br /><br />And that makes sense to me, but it seems obvious as well that nature did not intend for us to be having procreative sex at every single moment, so I'm not sure what the rationale is for your claim that the sexual capacities should only ever be used for their "natural function" when this rule is not applied to the legs and teeth. What is the distinguishing factor?Steve Rublehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10354805604015803912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41756413911967826002011-08-21T22:10:52.679-07:002011-08-21T22:10:52.679-07:00No wonder you hope I'll disappear. Your ideolo...<i>No wonder you hope I'll disappear. Your ideological armor is so flimsy it's ridiculous.</i><br /><br />Donald,<br /><br />I don't hope you disappear. My friends and I love reading your posts. They are Hilaaaaaaaarrrrious. Keep on Trollin' Dawg!Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71062494892305973342011-08-21T21:34:19.519-07:002011-08-21T21:34:19.519-07:00Anonymous,
Sorry I missed that.Anonymous,<br /><br />Sorry I missed that.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50791476587199936202011-08-21T21:31:21.569-07:002011-08-21T21:31:21.569-07:00Martin,
"Answered by Ed right above you, for...Martin,<br /><br /><i>"Answered by Ed right above you, for the love of all that is holy: 'How many times do I have to say that what is morally problematic according to NL theory is only what is directly contrary to the end of a natural capacity, and NOT what is merely other than the end?'"</i><br /><br />-- and I pointed out the sex organ example is not any more "contrary to the end of a natural capacity" than the foot example. In fact, I would argue it's *less* contrary to its natural end than a foot massage. At least pleasure is a big part of sex whereas it cannot be considered a big part of locomotion. Again this should be obvious. How dense are you guys? Really? No wonder you hope I'll disappear. Your ideological armor is so flimsy it's ridiculous.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80522372723523089032011-08-21T17:34:07.136-07:002011-08-21T17:34:07.136-07:00That's cool, Ed. Just thought it'd be funn...That's cool, Ed. Just thought it'd be funny to mention those parallels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64271979795029553572011-08-21T16:24:15.200-07:002011-08-21T16:24:15.200-07:00Hi Anonymous,
Sorry to have to have deleted that ...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />Sorry to have to have deleted that link -- I agree that <i>Pulp Fiction</i> has got some funny stuff in it -- but that particular bit not only had strong language (as you warned -- not a big deal) but was a bit too pornographic. And I do have a few younger readers...Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86234527929674562612011-08-21T15:57:34.594-07:002011-08-21T15:57:34.594-07:00Btw, a genuine troll (e.g. djindra) would say igno...Btw, a genuine troll (e.g. <b>djindra</b>) would say ignoring doesn't hurt them bla bla bla yada yada.<br /><br />Really, IT DOES!<br /><br />If you really hate a troll's guts, enrage by his writings, IGNORE HIM!<br /><br />Heck, my continuous suggestions to ignore troll which mention the name of one of the troll (e.g. <b>djindra</b>) give the troll a boost (as shown by the troll's reply).<br /><br />That's how perverse the troll's desire for attention is.<br /><br />Again, seriously, if you're ticked by his writings and his antics IGNORE HIM! IT HURTS HIM!bengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17446863540998549842011-08-21T15:38:34.142-07:002011-08-21T15:38:34.142-07:00djindra,
...using feet for pleasure outside of th...djindra,<br /><br /><i>...using feet for pleasure outside of their purpose (locomotion). </i><br /><br />Answered by Ed right above you, for the love of all that is holy: "How many times do I have to say that what is morally problematic according to NL theory is only what is directly contrary to the end of a natural capacity, and NOT what is merely other than the end?"Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68717809813777520302011-08-21T15:07:35.243-07:002011-08-21T15:07:35.243-07:00Edward,
Using sexual organs for pleasure outside ...Edward,<br /><br />Using sexual organs for pleasure outside of their purpose (procreation) is no different than using feet for pleasure outside of their purpose (locomotion). That should be obvious. Does consistency count, or what?<br /><br />And this ignores the fact that the "final cause" for sex is not necessarily procreation anyway. Many lifeforms generate offspring by other means. Why heterosexual sex at all? Asexual procreation works too. Truth is, we don't actually know the purpose of sex. It doesn't seem to be simply procreation. You are unqualified to decide its ultimate reason for being. It could be variety is the ultimate end. Or it is entirely possible that the Red Queen hypothesis is correct. In this case procreation is a by-product of the war against disease.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90879436588335504722011-08-21T14:02:28.135-07:002011-08-21T14:02:28.135-07:00Oh brother. How many times do I have to say that ...Oh brother. How many times do I have to say that what is morally problematic according to NL theory is only what is <i>directly contrary to</i> the end of a natural capacity, and NOT what is merely <i>other than</i> the end? How many times do I have to say that a natural capacity can have more than one natural end? There is absolutely nothing in what I've said that implies that the activities you describe are immoral, djindra (at least not now that you are married).<br /><br />But wait, I'm violating my own rule: No feeding the trolls...Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.com