tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5872885882810592586..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: It’s the next thrilling open thread!Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger266125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9068395416705040922022-04-14T14:10:03.146-07:002022-04-14T14:10:03.146-07:00One of the deepest sloughs into which we moderns s...One of the deepest sloughs into which we moderns slide consists of a failure as to “ethical traction.” It is not a matter of getting the substance wrong – though we often severely do get it wrong -- but rather of an inability or unwillingness to be guided by any coherent ethical beliefs. The failure of ethical traction consists in a failure to recognize the governance which right and wrong -- good and bad -- ought to hold over our other thoughts, our actions, and all that shapes our lives.<br /><br />Graham Greene affords an eminent example. Recognized by some as the leading English novelist of his generation and as a leader in Catholic letters, his personal life was largely devoted to long, intense love affairs – all taking place after he had deserted his devoted wife, and most involving married women. Plus, he visited bordellos and took opium, and made no attempt to conceal these activities.<br /><br />Do I sound shocked? Well, yes, but many bad Catholics have gone down dreadful roads. The bewildering aspect of Greene’s life is that for decades he carried on in these ways while at the same time going to Mass and emphasizing, even in letters to his friends and lovers, the importance of the Church. Had he invented some alternative moral theology? No, it seems that he had not. Rather, perhaps walking a path which is easier for novelists than others to find, it seems he was able to live without heeding any compulsion to be consistent. So, his is an example of a failure – perhaps a repudiation -- of “ethical traction.”<br /><br />To be sure, ethics continually demands traction, even of people who seem oblivious. Greene, by the end of his life, appears to have rejected much, maybe all, of the substance of the Church’s teaching in addition to its bearing on his own life. <br />One of the deepest sloughs into which we moderns slide consists of a failure as to “ethical traction.” It is not a matter of getting the substance wrong – though we often severely do get it wrong -- but rather of an inability or unwillingness to be guided by any coherent ethical beliefs. The failure of ethical traction consists in a failure to recognize the governance which right and wrong -- good and bad -- ought to hold over our other thoughts, our actions, and all that shapes our lives.<br />Graham Greene affords an eminent example. Recognized by some as the leading English novelist of his generation and as a leader in Catholic letters, his personal life was largely devoted to long, intense love affairs – all taking place after he had deserted his devoted wife, and most involving married women. Plus, he visited bordellos and took opium, and made no attempt to conceal these activities.<br />Do I sound shocked? Well, yes, but many bad Catholics have gone down dreadful roads. The bewildering aspect of Greene’s life is that for decades he carried on in these ways while at the same time going to Mass and emphasizing, even in letters to his friends and lovers, the importance of the Church. Had he invented some alternative moral theology? No, it seems that he had not. Rather, perhaps walking a path which is easier for novelists than others to find, it seems he was able to live without heeding any compulsion to be consistent. So, his is an example of a failure – perhaps a repudiation -- of “ethical traction.”<br />To be sure, ethics continually demands traction, even of people who seem oblivious. Greene, by the end of his life, appears to have rejected much, maybe all, of the substance of the Church’s teaching in addition to its bearing on his own life. <br />Scott FitzGibbonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33050832635078711142021-10-25T13:28:25.758-07:002021-10-25T13:28:25.758-07:00The reconciliation of faith and reason in Thomas A...The reconciliation of faith and reason in Thomas Aquinas by Creighton Rosental. If you read through this, you will be way better informed than anyone who tries to dismiss St. Thomas without having so much as read him. I would read through this and then start engaging them and explaining that they don't know what they are talking about because Francis Schaeffer did not know what he was talking about on this point and they are just mindlessly repeating the tradition they received from Schaeffer.<br /><br />As a side note, I visited a Labri in Minnesota during my graduate work at Wheaton and those who were the lead couple there had originally worked with Francis Schaeffer at the original Labri. The husband recognized to me that Schaeffer did not understand St. Thomas and that this was reflected in his criticisms of St. Thomas.Michael Copashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09861476745241388399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17629615592290981002021-10-08T03:14:26.216-07:002021-10-08T03:14:26.216-07:00I only found Zippy's blog after he was already...I only found Zippy's blog after he was already gone, but regarding social pathologies, I'm yet to find takes as redpilled as his.<br />https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-problem-is-you-and-the-solution-is-repentance/Aizenhttp://www.imageriametafisica.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15870664080109329492021-10-07T20:46:45.935-07:002021-10-07T20:46:45.935-07:00On A-T, do all species on the biological sense hav...On A-T, do all species on the biological sense have a diferent substancial form or are they reserved to more general types?<br /><br />Like, there are several types of primates like chimps, gorillas, we etc, do all the species have a substancial form or just the primate group? <br /><br />I know that there is at least this broadly division:<br /><br />- inanimate, vegetative, sensitive(or animal), rational animal and rational substance(a angel, i don't know a better term). I suppose that the elements from the periodic table also have all their substancial forms. But how things go in biology? Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9766632125127474762021-10-07T20:38:26.793-07:002021-10-07T20:38:26.793-07:00Well said, Richard. This kantian* approach sadly i...Well said, Richard. This kantian* approach sadly is a common way of looking at morality and it is does not fit with classical or with christian ethics. If you see morality as only avoiding certain desires by following arbitrary rules them sure being bad will look atractive.<br /><br /><br />*actually a popular caricature, for from what i heard the prussian wanted people to be happy while doing the goodTalmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34551808317171135242021-10-07T20:29:19.461-07:002021-10-07T20:29:19.461-07:00@Albinus
The part were i was wrong is on the lang...@Albinus<br /><br />The part were i was wrong is on the language, really, you were right in pointing that out. Thanks for letting me realize that i need to take care of that. Anyway:<br /><br />"Yes, that seems reasonable. But if the difficulties are sufficiently strong then a different conclusion seems more reasonable. For one thing, it's possible that God created the core of the Faith and intends us to see it as true but that other aspects of Catholic teaching were not intended by God."<br /><br />Yes,that would probably be what a protestant or another kind of christian would say on these catholic miracles that look legit. Maybe also say that a demon could be helping the wrong parts of catholicism being popular. My option also could be used.<br /><br />It is true that there are a lot of ways of seeing the data, that is why i'am not a fan of a pure a priori aproach. If one feels like other worldview is also possible, them compare. <br /><br />And i can totally see someone not being catholic anymore if the evidence for it seems bad and against it strong. While i fully believe that catholicism is true and so no one should abandon it, one can subjectively have reasons to not see it as true, as i personaly had on most of my life. It is strange to say that one can be rational on picking the wrong worldview, but that is life!Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1354944354854151952021-10-07T20:17:10.527-07:002021-10-07T20:17:10.527-07:00That sounds neat, actually. For some reason it rem...That sounds neat, actually. For some reason it reminds me of Walter White from Breaking Bad thing where he took one habit from someone he killed. <br /><br />I don't really see any way that A-T could help there, though. Once the organ is separated from the original body i believe that it lose its organization principle(which was the original owner substancial form), that is why it will decay if alone. Once it gets on the new body and is not rejected them the new owner substancial form will command. I don't see it necessarily creating a memory of the old organization.<br /><br />Maybe the answer is on the level of biology, the new organ creates a type of hormonal(or something like that) change that in a few cases influence the person on taking new habits that the other person had. I speak as a lay-man, of course.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54210553201977686832021-10-07T18:50:11.190-07:002021-10-07T18:50:11.190-07:00Is there a natural law basis for copyright laws? I...Is there a natural law basis for copyright laws? If the virtual property in question isn't limited in principle and doesn't get diminished by use, then is it even analogous to real property at all?<br /><br />It seems to me that piracy, defined broadly as accessing something that isn't free without paying for it, is a solid analogy to theft. However, if piracy is defined as any infringement upon the "terms of use", it gets messy. Say a pdf file is sold on the condition that only the buyer is allowed to view it, or can access the server to download it. None of these would be reasonable demands if it was a physical book being bought, or at the very least giving a copy of the pdf to your brother doesn't sound like obvious theft anymore.<br /><br />Copyright laws, then, are only partially analogous to laws that protect people from theft. But if that's the case, it's hard to see any natural law basis for it - despite not being contrary to it. It seems to me that catholics are bound by these laws only because they come from legitimate authority, but are bound to them only under pain of venial sin, unlike theft of course. Narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08017770745142918762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17435510285794192632021-10-07T15:18:26.193-07:002021-10-07T15:18:26.193-07:00Hi Tony,
I'll keep this brief. Consider my he...Hi Tony,<br /><br />I'll keep this brief. Consider my height. It's a property of me, but it's not me. So I'm happy to call it an accident. But I would regard it as a very strange way of speaking to say (as Thomists do) that my height is somehow "in me" or even a part of me. Why would anyone want to talk like that?<br /><br />You mentioned Aristotle. I don't "dispute the entirety of the Aristotelian doctrine on accidents," as you claim. I'm simply trying to retain the common-sensical part: accidents are of a substance but not in a substance.<br /><br />Now consider my arm. It is mine in a very different sense. It is not an accident, but a (quantitative) part of a substance. My body parts (taken together) are me, but my properties (taken together) are not. There are just two "properties" (if you could call them that) which, when combined, ARE me: my rationality and my animality, but these are only logically distinct from me, not really distinct, and I wouldn't call them accidents. These are my core attributes, and they make up my substance. That seems to be a sensible way of talking.<br /><br />Mister Geocon,<br /><br />I'm not strawmanning Aristotelian essentialism, as you allege. My point is that knowledge of essences is not a typical case of knowledge: it's the exception, rather than the rule. Also, our understanding of essences is shaky and provisional. So why attempt to make this the paradigm instance of knowledge? I prefer to keep my feet firmly on the ground, and define knowledge in terms of things we know easily and reliably.<br /><br />Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50442086284256688542021-10-07T12:35:11.656-07:002021-10-07T12:35:11.656-07:00Fighters CAN discriminate to what degree of force ...Fighters CAN discriminate to what degree of force they can use ( do it all the time in sparring) BUT the point of full contact fighting is to go full contact. The agreement between to fighters that get in the ring is to do fight their best fight and may the best fighter win. Cheating is frowned upon, as is being a "sore winner" so I would suggest that the immorality of full contact sports is when the motive is not pure (to defeat the other within the rule) or poor sportsmanship. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00711563300399886393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65576274609426401012021-10-07T12:27:53.344-07:002021-10-07T12:27:53.344-07:00Morality in training MMA ( or any MA) or in partic...Morality in training MMA ( or any MA) or in participating in it (competitive fighting) or making money off of fighting someone ??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00711563300399886393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87876086093216643092021-10-07T09:24:02.119-07:002021-10-07T09:24:02.119-07:00Here we go:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-bi...Here we go:<br />https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-bishops-rethink-catholic-teachings-amid-talk-of-schism-11580227907?mod=article_inline<br />Anyway, apparently the synod is now expected to end in 2023, so the schism is postponed by one year.Franznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88539632968089279382021-10-07T08:49:31.708-07:002021-10-07T08:49:31.708-07:00It's supposed to say "isn't sufficien...It's supposed to say "isn't sufficient for salvation".Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725462402313056538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20048367582511549432021-10-07T08:31:18.716-07:002021-10-07T08:31:18.716-07:00When Thomists address the Free-will/Foreknowledge ...When Thomists address the Free-will/Foreknowledge paradox would they argue that the human will is an instrumental cause?<br />Also, would that be a way of showing how humans have the capacity for real choice rather than it being an illusion?<br /><br />If I understand it correctly, an instrumental cause is an intermediate cause that makes a real contribution to the effect, but it can only affect things because the ultimate cause gives it the capacity to act.<br /><br />I know that Feser has addressed instrumental causation in some of his books but I haven't looked into the topic more specifically.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725462402313056538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82803594443103970342021-10-07T08:16:01.382-07:002021-10-07T08:16:01.382-07:00@Tony
They believe in what they call "Common...@Tony<br /><br />They believe in what they call "Common Grace". It's the grace that God gives to everyone, but it is sufficient for salvation*. One verse they use in support of this idea is Matthew 5:45 - "He (God) causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous".<br /><br />*I don't know if my description of "Common Grace" is technically accurate or not.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13725462402313056538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31990959570625858822021-10-07T06:26:47.539-07:002021-10-07T06:26:47.539-07:00Sorry about your cat.
I don't have a lot of e...Sorry about your cat.<br /><br />I don't have a lot of experience with this sort of thing but personally I would frankly tell them what you believe is true on the matter if they ask.<br /><br />That said, if you believe that God can do anything that isn't intrinsically impossible, then I think you have a lot of wiggle room for being hopeful and optimistic...or at least not completely shutting the door to the idea, as a way of catering to emotional needs.<br /><br />Also, if your children (or perhaps you!) struggle with expressing emotions it's a good opportunity for showing that it's okay and healthy to grieve.<br />Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08298940364555837929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74867749410002306412021-10-07T06:07:25.438-07:002021-10-07T06:07:25.438-07:00Talmid,
"i find very unlikely that God creat...Talmid,<br /><br />"i find very unlikely that God created this faith while not intending to us to see it as true."<br /><br />Yes, that seems reasonable. But if the difficulties are sufficiently strong then a different conclusion seems more reasonable. For one thing, it's possible that God created the core of the Faith and intends us to see it as true but that other aspects of Catholic teaching were not intended by God.<br /><br />Your better option than #3 is also something I've considered (and essentially fits under the umbrella of #3) and is pretty difficult for the defender of #1 to exclude.<br /><br />For me, I was long a believer in #1 (or at least a strong believer that the motives of credibility outweighed the difficulties). It wasn't until I realized that the motives are not as strong as I had thought and that the difficulties are stronger than I had thought that #2 or #3 (or some variation thereof) seemed more likely.<br /><br />Anyway, take care...and there's nothing wrong with being young. Hope it didn't come across that way. I'm not exactly ancient myself!Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08298940364555837929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57189896697965981982021-10-07T04:38:09.305-07:002021-10-07T04:38:09.305-07:00...
I wonder if anyone can comment on the phenomen......<br />I wonder if anyone can comment on the phenomenon of cellular memory from am Aristotlian-Thomist point of view. Cellular memory is something which is claimed to occur sometimes when an organ (typically but not always, a kidney)is transplanted from person A into the body of person B.<br />Sometimes person B's personality changes, seemingly to acquire characteristics from person A. From the viewpoint of conventional molecular biology this is ruled out as being completely impossible, and what you regard as impossible you do not tend to investigate. However might it be explicable from an Aristotelian perspective?<br />Unfortunately the characteristics transferred tend to be a bit underwhelming. A person who disliked pizza before receiving someone else's kidney became a lover of pizza; a person who was a couch potato became a rock climber, in both cases the characteristics were possessed by the respective organ donors.(From memory this.)wolfrunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11843055001195545140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42866816139186179142021-10-06T23:56:53.254-07:002021-10-06T23:56:53.254-07:00I've read a few of Geisler's books, and I ...I've read a few of Geisler's books, and I like him. Now I empathize with him even more now that I know he suffered through the Jesuit religion.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12106793433251611342021-10-06T21:50:34.620-07:002021-10-06T21:50:34.620-07:00(Continuation)
"You say that looking at the e...(Continuation)<br />"You say that looking at the evidence "for and against Catholicism is important", but in your listed reasons for accepting Catholicism you do not mention anything in the potentially "against" category."<br /><br />Yes, this part was intended as a defense of #1, which is a a priori rejection of the necessity of investigating the points against catholicism, so i think that adressing the dificulties with catholicism(which #1 sees as unnecessary) would not fit. If i was not defending #1, i would probably try to say something about the dificulties. <br /><br />Personaly, i do think that one needs to compare the evidence in favor of and against catholicism if one is to decide on believing on it or not, at least on normal, non-extraordinary situations. I also would say that one need to analyse catholicism rivals, for if they all are on a worse position them catholicism wins, and one should remember own personal experience of the world and with the diferent worldviews.<br /><br /> This aways with the resources the person has, which will be diferent depending on who is doing it. I hardly would say that a 1433 a.C peasant would need to do a analysis as deeps as what someone like you and me do before being rationally justified in being catholic! Most people will decide based on existencial and emotional reasons and this is fine. <br /><br /><br />"The proponent of #2 or #3 needn't even be a non-Christian!"<br /><br />You are right, i forgot to argue for catholicism! Well, assuming that you got to were i left off them you are already a kinda-orthodox christian. I would say that protestantism fails thanks to things like how a Church hierarchy with concils and clergy is how christianity was for at least most of its existence and how it understood itself, that Scripture does not really fit with protestant doctrines like penal substitution, that on just a few centuries protestantism is already crumbled on a bunch of groups with no unity while the catholic Church survived several bad situations etc. On eastern orthodox, i would say that it loses to catholicism because Scripture does seem to fit more with doctrines like the Filioque and reason too, that since the separation it did exert way less influence on the world that catholicism, that it seems completely stagnated since Palamas while the modern world needs correction, that it had some views on issues like divorce and contraception that seem very unlike earlier Church etc. <br /><br />The only groups that i remember that can accept orthodox christian ideas like the Trinity and the Encarnation besides catholicism seems to be protestantism and eastern orthodoxy, so i think that my adressing of these two is what was left to #1. <br /><br />I would also mention the whole canonization process to being a catholic saint, not only you got so much wonderful people being produced by the Church but you have miracle claims that are studied seriously with modern tools happening every year. After sometime in my parish i founded out that one of the miracles that canonized our patron saints happened with someone from the community! That is a sign of credibility larguely ignored but who i found fascinating. <br /> Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53750348443457311932021-10-06T21:10:56.496-07:002021-10-06T21:10:56.496-07:00@Albinus
Sorry for the language, i admit that i&#...@Albinus<br /><br />Sorry for the language, i admit that i'am young and that i tend to try to not sound too serious when discussing these things. Since it does not fit well here, it will not be used.<br /><br />"The defender of #1 needn't directly address any of the listed difficulties (except the evidence of miracles)."<br /><br />Correct. I was thinking more on this particular combox discussion, where there are already a list of some difficults that catholicism face. The list never being directly adressed can look like a( not intended, i know) point against the catholic position, so as a defender of #1 it does seems like it puts a bit of pressure on the catholic. Of course, this, as you mentioned, is purely a mental thing, for the defender of #1 does not need to adress the list directly, so i could had ignored it. <br /><br />"Argument #3 gives REASONS for believing that it is true, those would need to be addressed."<br /><br />I did directly adress #3 on my first response, but in a bit of a summary. Seeing how a exclusivistic religion like catholicism clearly is not the type of belief system that normaly appears(so God could have used a more "natural" religion), how it helped on the expansion of exclusivistic thinking on religion and the almost death of universalistic thinking in Europe for a millenia and how almost all people who encounter the religion either become catholic(so take it as literaly true) or just outright reject it with not so much thought, i find very unlikely that God created this faith while not intending to us to see it as true.<br /><br />A better option that #3 would be something like this: "catholicism is supposed to be understood literaly and also as false but it existence could be used by God to prepare several populations to receive another exclusivistic, monotheistic, universalistic religion on the future". Going by Maimonides, it is pretty much how judaism sees christianity and islam. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11658918046783791072021-10-06T20:30:03.245-07:002021-10-06T20:30:03.245-07:00Norman Geisler took his Ph.D in philosophy from Lo...Norman Geisler took his Ph.D in philosophy from Loyola University in Chicago back when the philosophy dept was staffed mostly by Jesuits. His book, "The Philosophy of Religion," is excellent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82959169018891790342021-10-06T19:59:04.992-07:002021-10-06T19:59:04.992-07:00Your friends might be suffering "boredom"...Your friends might be suffering "boredom" because they are more focused on merely avoiding sin than doing good. While I'm not a Christian, the idea of doing good goes far beyond what you do not engage in, and the pursuit of the good should instead be vivifying, even ecstatic. Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1248054963931636312021-10-06T17:26:58.719-07:002021-10-06T17:26:58.719-07:00@ficino,
Do the total depravity supporters ever ...@ficino, <br /><br />Do the total depravity supporters ever get around to explaining why perfectly evil people can often do math and engineering correctly, so that the sums add up, the bridges stay up, the rockets land in the place they were meant to land? (This is, of course, easily extended to <i>just about everybody</i> who is not saved: they successfully drive to the store, successfully fill out tax returns, hit home runs in baseball, etc.) Just curious about how they imagine they deal with that problem. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89908782861002955032021-10-06T12:27:00.343-07:002021-10-06T12:27:00.343-07:00I may be mistaken, but I sense a habituated fear o...I may be mistaken, but I sense a habituated fear of addressing any theological question concerning the Jews for fear of being called an antisemite (which, by the way, is a racial bigotry toward Jews, not theological or social criticism of Judaism and the Jews as a political and religious body). Even if that isn't the case here, it certainly is the case in general, and it is certainly the case in the Church today. (Bishop Barron relatively recently made a demonstration in his response to Ben Shapiro during an interview. Shapiro asked about his own destiny, whether he was going to hell, to which His Excellency responded with some evasive, mealy-mouthed mumbo jumbo instead of being a witness to the teachings of the Church and stating her teachings clearly: baptism is necessary for salvation. Jewish-Catholic dialogue is crippled because it isn't a dialogue and because Catholics lost their nerve after Nostra Aetate and either avoid clear answers or dabble in heretical dual-covenant nonsense.) Pugio Fideinoreply@blogger.com