tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5773702624644810492..comments2024-03-28T10:44:57.324-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The Faith Once for All DeliveredEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85340892819810905102023-02-21T09:33:06.451-08:002023-02-21T09:33:06.451-08:00Much appreciated DNW.Much appreciated DNW.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60079756095846457182023-02-20T14:14:23.471-08:002023-02-20T14:14:23.471-08:00"bmiller
'DNW,
Do you have any links yo..."<i>bmiller<br /><br />'DNW,<br /><br />Do you have any links you can post?<br /><br />A computer is just souped-up abacus.' </i>"<br /><br />Some good ones. The other Bryan Magee interview not listed here, is a good one too.<br /><br />Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg<br /><br /><br />Debate on AI & Mind - Searle & Boden (1984)<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5a9NJ10iGQ<br /><br />Consciousness as a Problem in Philosophy & Neurobiology (John Searle)<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot4z1UrPvZY<br /><br />An old classic having not much to do with consciousness<br />Ludwig Wittgenstein - John Searle & Bryan Magee (1987)<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2JVMOkoDo8<br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46925556519827261822023-02-20T01:05:53.417-08:002023-02-20T01:05:53.417-08:00@Tony and Miguel Cervantes
I'm afraid we will ...@Tony and Miguel Cervantes<br />I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree once again. For me, it is clear that every so-called "modernist" statement, which has been condemned for the past 150 years, every ambiguous statement made during the Vatican Council II, and even Humanae Vitae, as well as some of the statements made by the current pontificate, all share the same ultimate goal: to avoid obliging anyone to truly and wholeheartedly choose Christ. This trend began with the faithful being more concerned with minimizing their responsibility for their sins and vices for various "good" human and psychological reasons, instead of genuinely converting to Christ.Gaëtan Cantale-Miègehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044462072297524645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83810228403058104782023-02-19T23:33:30.776-08:002023-02-19T23:33:30.776-08:00Gaetan, I don't think any creditable history o...Gaetan, I don't think any creditable history of modernism will provide the genealogy you give. What you are discussing is something completely different and not responsible for the "spirit of Vatican II". Do you have any authorities for this connection between the great Saint Raymond and the fruits of the Council?<br /><br />Tony, the Vatican II phenomenon didn't happen because of the extent of modernist ideas in the Church. That old summary, The Rhine Flows in the Tiber, explains how a minority from a small number of countries got to determine its outcome (with the help of Paul VI). I was a little unfair earlier when I implied that majorities in these countries and North America were behind this "Conciliar Spirit". Even in these regions, modernists were a distinct minority. <br /><br />Vatican II was a revolution from the top. Some of its texts are perfectly equivocal enough to support the interpretations that have commonly been given to them in the "post-Conciliar" Church. The Council is not a symptom or an accident. It must be dealt with. If we won't do this, barking at Francis will be mostly a waste of time. Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41125736088579473872023-02-19T20:32:54.284-08:002023-02-19T20:32:54.284-08:00Guys like Thomas Nagel and Bernardo Kastrup seems ...Guys like Thomas Nagel and Bernardo Kastrup seems to draw similar reactions.<br /><br />Materialism is seen like a obvious truth, the orthodoxy, so there is this tendency of not taking the critics serious. I mean, every intelectual worth of attention knows that it is true, why is these guys denying it?Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13866004226793898532023-02-19T20:28:26.522-08:002023-02-19T20:28:26.522-08:00DNW,
Do you have any links you can post?
A compu...DNW,<br /><br />Do you have any links you can post?<br /><br />A computer is just souped-up abacus.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34953811578533778532023-02-19T14:03:45.185-08:002023-02-19T14:03:45.185-08:00Modernism, in oversimplified terms, has turned thi...<i>Modernism, in oversimplified terms, has turned this guidebook for confessors into a new gospel for salvation. </i> <br /><br />Gaëtan, I don't think your version of the historical details is correct. A kind of improper focus on individual sins and kinds of sins has <i>always</i> been a danger to Christians, and its prevalence has waned and waxed over the centuries. That kind of mistake is <i>absolutely not</i> the sort of error as is found in Modernism, even if it is found in modern times somewhat prevalently among certain groups. Modernism denotes quite a different collection of errors, as detailed by Pope St. Pius X in Domenici Gregis. <br /><br />What is sad is that although both Leo XIII and Pius X outlined how to combat Modernism, their warnings were not taken seriously, and seminaries in certain places were teaching Modernism at least as early as the 1920's and 30's, but (again, sadly) even of the seminaries that weren't pumping out Modernist priests before Vatican II were not actively <i>countering</i> Modernism by properly teaching their students as outlined by the prior popes. Hence at Vatican II there were certainly some mal-formed bishops, and many others ill-equipped to handle the issues involved. Hence both the process under way at VII, and the documents produced, were damaged by Modernism even though the Modernist bishops did not get everything going their own way. <br /><br />Even though it remains true that an unhelpful over-focus on individual sins is an impediment to holiness, attacking that problem will do nothing at all to unwind Modernism present in the Church. As C.S. Lewis comments in <i>The Screwtape Letters</i>, it is a Satanic ploy to get us to attend to (real) problems that are not our main problems, to get us fritter away our efforts on things that won't really move us forward in the spiritual life, and avoid tackling that which is really dangerous. Well, perhaps the same is true of the Church as a whole, and Francis's mindlessly singular hatred of ossified reconstructionist traditional Catholics is an example of it: yes, there are some out there, but THEY are not what is pushing the whole barque of Peter into the depths. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32884887120913017192023-02-19T00:36:19.726-08:002023-02-19T00:36:19.726-08:00@Miguel Cervantes
The issue that became apparent i...@Miguel Cervantes<br />The issue that became apparent in the aftermath of Vatican Council II was the gradual replacement of the central function of announcing the Holy Gospel with an erroneous, non-Catholic theology in the discourse of many Church officials.<br /><br />This erroneous "modernist" theology can be traced back to the 19th century, and its roots can be found in a pastoral discourse that emphasized the attenuation of one's sins rather than a radical and genuine conversion to Christ. This discourse, which can be referred to as "petty-Catholicism," has been more and more prevalent over the last centuries.<br /><br />The origin of this discourse can be traced back to St. Raymondo de Penaforte in the 13th century. He compiled guidelines for confessors to judge cases submitted to them by penitents, but these guidelines were never intended as a guide for spirituality to become saints. Rather, they were intended as a tool to assist confessors in their judgments, and the nitty-gritty considerations in the guidelines made sense from their point of view. However, becoming a saint is not simply about avoiding or minimizing sins, but rather about not committing any sins at all and being of Christ Himself.<br /><br />Modernism, in oversimplified terms, has turned this guidebook for confessors into a new gospel for salvation. To combat modernism and its negative influence on the Church for the past 60 years, we should individually return to the teachings of the Church and bravely accept their radicality in our lives, with the help of God's grace, and discard any attempts to justify our sins and vices through extenuating circumstances, which in reality only serve as aggravating circumstances when examined closely.Gaëtan Cantale-Miègehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044462072297524645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10994211338188323452023-02-19T00:02:15.346-08:002023-02-19T00:02:15.346-08:00@EmpoweringBeing
I personally can accept people wh...@EmpoweringBeing<br />I personally can accept people who do not accept that "we are all different and we must accept that", simply because this is accepting the Principle of Reality: that we are all different is a matter-of-fact, including people who might think it is not the case.<br />This, nonetheless, does not oblige anyone to agree on the rightness and the goodness of a difference: e.g. conversely to my elaborate point of view about "modernism" you expressed another simplified opinion about the notion of "hatred", and I simply stated that I accept that we have two very different stand-points, but not that I deemed your position as much correct or complete or whatever as mine.<br />I wish you a nice Sunday of the Quinquagesima<br />Gaëtan Cantale-Miègehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044462072297524645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67897294754373928612023-02-18T17:30:30.936-08:002023-02-18T17:30:30.936-08:00It’s funny when they admit they’re not swayed by r...It’s funny when they admit they’re not swayed by rational arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55011197831112785502023-02-18T11:45:15.037-08:002023-02-18T11:45:15.037-08:00Quasi off-topic comment.
Been binging on YouTube ...Quasi off-topic comment.<br /><br />Been binging on YouTube videos featuring your old philosophical mentor (if that is not too strong a characterization) and it occurs to me after six or seven hours of viewing over several days, that there is a kind of analog thread that runs through or maybe parallel to the will vs intellect issue seen here. It is in Searle's body of work.<br /><br />And I am not referring specifically to the matter of the question of how consideration of intentionality and consciousness and semantics on the one hand logically refutes AI strong computationalism and mere syntax based personhood on the other, per se. But rather how it becomes obvious that the responses to his arguments by his critics is so will-driven (and even wilfully childish) in some cases.<br /><br />There seems to be a peculiar and consistent dynamic in the exchanges dating all the way from the 1984 discussion between Searle and Boden right through to the 2009 Google talk before the Singularity group.<br /><br />It's as if a grown man is laying out sound arguments before clever, self-regarding and smirking children, some of whom, possess a malicious streak only thinly veiled with a patina of politeness. <br /><br />That smug malice does not seem directed at him personally; and they seem able to appreciate his wit and arguments as elements of a tour de force or at least legacy performance.<br /><br />But they are obviously driven by some possibly emotion based conceit to refuse to respectfully acknowledge the intellectual force of the arguments.<br /><br />They seem to believe, even as their multipronged attacks fall short of the mark, that they shall eventually triumph in creating a conscious calculating machine (given enough causal/sensory inputs and layered programming) which will be somehow entitled to the same right to personal consideration which they would see fit to grant human beings. <br /><br />And this would apparently obtain whether this simulacrum of a mind were created to output through bronze gears, cams, cranks and spindles ( his beer can illustration) or silicon. <br /><br />If one wishes to witness clever pseudo-philosophical will on display, arrayed against careful and critical reason, I cannot think of a better illustration than Searle's engagement with the "Man is nothing, We are gods" A.I. crews.<br /><br />If they manage to become the gods they believe themselves to incipiently be, what would a kingdom produced by so many slightly twisted little godlets look like?<br /><br />One in their own image and likeness,one might reasonably suppose ...<br /><br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38372131191857973062023-02-18T03:27:47.640-08:002023-02-18T03:27:47.640-08:00Read first something about the controversies betwe...Read first something about the controversies between the jewish and gentile early christians, like the Jerusalem Concil parts on the Acts of the Apostles, and them reread Romans 9 and 10, EB, things will become clear.<br /><br />Your view do apply somewhat, but there is more there. Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19248357327786085422023-02-17T23:02:08.505-08:002023-02-17T23:02:08.505-08:00@Gaëtan Cantale-Miège
we are all different: we mu...@Gaëtan Cantale-Miège<br /><br /><i>we are all different: we must accept that.</i><br /><br />Hmm... it seems like this is vulnerable to a retorsion argument.<br /><br />We are all different, we must accept that. But we can't accept people who don't accept that "we are all different and we must accept that", because they are different and we won't accept that.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71350955707382187012023-02-17T22:34:49.837-08:002023-02-17T22:34:49.837-08:00Gaetan, being a mere mortal, I may not have unders...Gaetan, being a mere mortal, I may not have understood you. No doubt you are quite entitled to leave me wallowing in my ignorance. <br /><br />However, you can't let the Council off as a "symptom" of something generalised in the Church prior to it. <br /><br />The spirit and the law issue has always existed. Nor was most of the Catholic world in 1960 bourgeois, petit or otherwise. Fashionable new ideas and modernist tendencies were spread during and after the Council from a handful of countries around the North Sea and North America to the other 80% of the Catholic world where nobody was asking for it. The modernist mentality minimises sin, so its beans turn into some kind of paste that can't be counted - a very different problem to the issue you mentioned. Of course, modernism has its new woke sins, but we're talking about worldly ideas. Ideas matter. The Council brought new ones and new problems which were not generalised in the Church previously. The Church was not seething with Vatican II spirit beforehand. For most of it, what was thrown at them in the 1960s was so foreign to past experience they did not know whether or how to react to it. Let's not pretend it's all because of "Francesco". He's just continuing along the 1960s path. Luckily, he's also the last of that generation.Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46424074854627541672023-02-17T11:26:05.080-08:002023-02-17T11:26:05.080-08:00@Gaëtan Cantale-Miège Yes, you are right.@Gaëtan Cantale-Miège Yes, you are right.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4869304849242463722023-02-17T02:50:43.103-08:002023-02-17T02:50:43.103-08:00@EmpoweredBeing
we are all different: we must acce...@EmpoweredBeing<br />we are all different: we must accept that.Gaëtan Cantale-Miègehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044462072297524645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76200033981982759382023-02-17T02:49:38.703-08:002023-02-17T02:49:38.703-08:00@Miguel Cervantes
Unfortunately you totally absolu...@Miguel Cervantes<br />Unfortunately you totally absolutely misread what I wrote down about Vatican II, doctrine, etc.: may be, if you try to read my post again you will notice that.. If not, tough luck: but "c'est la vie"! <br />Gaëtan Cantale-Miègehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044462072297524645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8286676817153353712023-02-16T19:41:46.227-08:002023-02-16T19:41:46.227-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37905848270495954202023-02-16T18:20:56.602-08:002023-02-16T18:20:56.602-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73740201893835133332023-02-16T16:34:05.362-08:002023-02-16T16:34:05.362-08:00Romans 9 theme is more in trying to help the jews ...Romans 9 theme is more in trying to help the jews accept that the gentiles are being brought to justification and eternal life by Jesus while the israelites that reject Him are being rejected. Reading just Romans 10 after should make this clear.<br /><br />My friends, here is a tip on christian theology: if a teaching started with Calvin you can safely ignore it. Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28731326358419306172023-02-16T09:29:45.087-08:002023-02-16T09:29:45.087-08:00@Miguel Cervantes
The Greek word that is the them...@Miguel Cervantes<br /><br />The Greek word that is the theme of 1 Corinthians 13 is Love, not Charity. There is a separate Greek word that means Charity, and Paul never used it in that chapter.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75325862630514842682023-02-15T23:02:32.343-08:002023-02-15T23:02:32.343-08:00It's very unfortunate that you see the divisio...It's very unfortunate that you see the division between the "spirit of Vatican II" and what preceded it as "individual choice to be radically on the side of Christ" versus "bean-counters". Firstly, that is what many who have distorted Christ's doctrine since the Council say to excuse themselves. Secondly, it is not the issue here, unless you wish to begin a thread on schools of spirituality.<br /><br />Of course right doctrine is no guarantee of charity or being a true Christian. False doctrine, however, is never a sign of true Christianity. Since Vatican II, doctrinal falsehood has been much more in evidence than charity, something demonstrated by any survey of lay and clerical attitudes towards doctrines of the faith. There are problems with the "spirit" and the texts of this Council, beans or no beans.Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46827248836058532182023-02-15T18:36:38.985-08:002023-02-15T18:36:38.985-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22601464757974910512023-02-15T14:22:13.000-08:002023-02-15T14:22:13.000-08:00WCB: I don’t believe in God.
Also WCB: God harden...WCB: I don’t believe in God.<br /><br />Also WCB: God hardens the hearts of those who don’t believe in him such that they are incapable of believing.<br /><br />It’s funny when they admit they’re not swayed by rational arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16932027967136305632023-02-15T12:34:16.413-08:002023-02-15T12:34:16.413-08:00I meant Fr Ed. Dr Feser's blog on "An Ano...I meant Fr Ed. Dr Feser's blog on "An Anonymous Saint."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com