tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6573957864076488537..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Is Islamophilia binding Catholic doctrine?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger165125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40426800158747837802021-05-17T18:49:58.664-07:002021-05-17T18:49:58.664-07:00There is no Catholicism anymore, and one might as ...There is no Catholicism anymore, and one might as well convert to NeoPlatonism as to Catholicism, because they will be "going their own way" with even less support than a MGTOW either way they go.MGTOW Platonistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58849673750664393122016-09-15T19:54:33.935-07:002016-09-15T19:54:33.935-07:00Msgr Swetland: "magisterial teaching on what ...Msgr Swetland: "magisterial teaching on what authentic Islam is”... That's an almost Islamic way of thinking about things. He thinks the Magisterium is like the Hadiths. Now it makes sense why he was considering joining Islam. He's just that kind of guy. <br />In the talk, he was passive-aggressive, whiny, cruel, demeaning, and seeming to derive some sort of joy both from "being persecuted" - he was laying traps to get others to put down anything Catholic - as well as from putting others down without offering anything even resembling a strong argument. <br />You almost get the sense he went to talk it up with "the girls" after this in order to get reassurance and confirmation about what a jerk that gruff Spencer was and how much more loving and just plain right ("so right guys!!") he is. <br />He's not an expert on Islam, but he might be one on victimology. That's too bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14559306038615967082016-09-03T13:29:39.809-07:002016-09-03T13:29:39.809-07:00Justin,
Your poiny is that your argument is silly...Justin,<br /><br />Your poiny is that your argument is silly and fallacious? Okay, was a pleasure to help you realise this.<br /><br />OceanD,<br /><br />I agree. I made the same point above. It is others, like Justin the genius, who insist on trying to tall about the historical examples of Christians and Muslims (or, even worse, their own clumsy, inaccurate views on them).Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65222730050629101362016-09-03T09:54:05.165-07:002016-09-03T09:54:05.165-07:00Thanks for making my point, Jeremy.Thanks for making my point, Jeremy.Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63172999756031358182016-09-03T08:07:32.449-07:002016-09-03T08:07:32.449-07:00OceanD,
My point is simply that Christianity has ...<i>OceanD,<br /><br />My point is simply that Christianity has a history as war-like and intolerant as Islam. I do not see how your anecdote undermines that. I am not saying Christianity always, or even mostly, was spread by force.<br /></i><br /><br />I see what you mean, but I still disagree, because you are equating bad behavior of some christians with Christianity. My point is that if christians have been intolerant towards, Jews or gays for instance then they are simply <b>not</b> following Christianity, you cannot judge an entire religion by the bad behavior of some of it's followers. Jesus's teachings are exceptionally clear about how you treat others. OceanDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33170215397363634592016-09-02T20:51:43.760-07:002016-09-02T20:51:43.760-07:00I think that is a point grossly fallacious, as sho...I think that is a point grossly fallacious, as should be obvious to all. You are equating the contemporary West with traditional Christianity without giving any argument for it. This is hugely controversial. The relationship of liberalism and the so called enlightenment to Christianity is complex, to say the least. One simply cannot claim modern Western tolerance, etc., for Christianity unargued for. Neither can one, actually, equate the modern Islamic world with the traditional one - it too has been changed by modernity.<br /><br />I think a fairer question would be, would you rather be a Jew in 12th century France or 12th century Al-Andalus. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8051314650396605742016-09-02T19:16:17.468-07:002016-09-02T19:16:17.468-07:00Last one for Jeremy,
If you think Islam is on par...Last one for Jeremy,<br /><br />If you think Islam is on par with Christianity, would you rather be a Christian in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Indonesia, or Pakistan; or a Muslim in America?<br /><br />I think that answers the question well enough. <br /><br />Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18847234143566804612016-09-02T16:04:43.099-07:002016-09-02T16:04:43.099-07:00- that should be good example.
Sorry, for the typ...- that should be good example.<br /><br />Sorry, for the typos,using my phone, and was never a good proofreader, anyway.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71208770045635527512016-09-02T16:02:37.229-07:002016-09-02T16:02:37.229-07:00OceanD,
My point is simply that Christianity has ...OceanD,<br /><br />My point is simply that Christianity has a history as war-like and intolerant as Islam. I do not see how your anecdote undermines that. I am not saying Christianity always, or even mostly, was spread by force.<br /><br /><br />Justin,<br /><br />I know DNW and I haven't given a toid example, but let's try and keep to it civil. <br /><br />Anyway, I don't think someone who seems to only be naking bald, simplistic, indeed false assertions should be complaining about others not offering arguments.<br /><br />What does it mean to say that Islam spread by the sword? Islamic civilisations have often been war-like, but so have Christian ones. Generally, most were not forced to convert to Islam, and in many places Islam spread without accompanying armies. The history of traditional Islam and Christianity does not show the former as standing out as more intolerant or even war-like, I would say. Do you have any proper response to this beyond to just make the same unargued for assertion?<br /><br />You were the one focusing on the empirical nature of Islam, which you are correct to say us different to the internal teachings of a faith. But Islam, or the Koran, simply doesn't teach conversion by the sword. I don't think you have read the Koran.<br /><br />I am not sure what good it is to compare the modern West and modern Islamic world. We are not talking of levels democracy or of technology. Besides, the relationship of the modern West to traditional Christianity us complex. It would be hugely controversial to claim either liberal democracy or modern technology for traditional Christianity. Liberalism and the so called enlightenment, for example, although they grew of Christianity, are not branches of Christianity. <br /><br />I am not sure you know what a gnu is. I would say it was more like a gnu to say a religion was obviously evil or whatever and then not back up that assertion, or even explain it. Son of Anonymous did just that sort of thing.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43463044749056589652016-09-02T13:35:58.809-07:002016-09-02T13:35:58.809-07:00Jeremy,
Obviously you enjoy trolling and not actu...Jeremy,<br /><br />Obviously you enjoy trolling and not actually intellectually honest discussions.<br /><br />To say that it is false history that Islam was in fact spread by the sword is simply revisionist, dishonest history. And to ignore the fact that one philosophy simply and clearly does not advocate its adherents to convert people by force, while the other does, is also dishonest.<br /><br />And you ignore modern empirical evidence. In Islamic states, they are clearly third world or worse, deal with a much more brutal system of government, are more poorly educated, are less peaceful, etc.<br /><br />So, you haven't made a single positive point to back up your continuously spammed claim that we should take Islam seriously, much less respect it. You end up sounding more like a gnu. Nothing to offer, denial of everything else.<br />Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63174952633870571642016-09-02T09:30:37.384-07:002016-09-02T09:30:37.384-07:00Then what were you suggesting? I am talking about ...Then what were you suggesting? I am talking about experiences of people living in the subcontinent at that point in time and the stories that they told their children. Yes it is a very small sample size then a full research would show but my point is to show that Christianity was not spread by coercion at least in the Indian subcontinent, I am simply stating what I have obtained from talking with people. Furthermore, Christianity is a religion that would not make sense to actually even promote via coercion. If some christians did that in the past then they were <b>not</b> following Jesus Christ in the truest sense.OceanDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53980925447909771242016-09-02T08:41:39.684-07:002016-09-02T08:41:39.684-07:00I'm not sure how that proves what I said untru...I'm not sure how that proves what I said untrue, even if we leave aside its purely anecdotal nature (I'm sure you didn't actually mean to say you'd asked most Christians in India). I certainly wasn't suggesting all, or even most, Christian converts were coerced.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70643087903352835642016-09-02T08:04:40.904-07:002016-09-02T08:04:40.904-07:00@Jeremy Taylor
Christianity originally didn't ...@Jeremy Taylor<br /><i>Christianity originally didn't spread by the sword, and missionary work was often important later on, but it has been far from uncommon for Christianity to be spread by conquest too. And traditional Christian societies were probably less tolerant and more ready to coerce conversion than Islamic ones</i><br /><br />This is actually untrue, in the Indian subcontinent atleast since the 19th century the British empire brought the Christian faith with them. Yes that was not their main objective but only a side effect since their main objective was to increase the British empire and also to bring economic wealth to it. Many generations of Christians still live there because of it, and if you ask most of them as I have, they were not coerced into the Christian faith at all. Most were looking to either get out of the Hindu caste system or were fearing their lives from Muslims. I personally know of a few generations removed christians who's ancestors were very respected religious Sufi pirs who converted to Christianity (even though they had a great influence on people) because of a genuine change of heart. OceanDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71864927924364272472016-09-02T01:40:54.594-07:002016-09-02T01:40:54.594-07:00And just to hamner home the complexities of the hi...And just to hamner home the complexities of the history, I think you will find many of the more oppressive Muslim states were of Mongol or Turkic orugin, especially those converted not too long ago. This correlates with the oppression non-Muslim Mongol and Turkic conquerors (Genghis Khan was the equal of any twentieth century despot).Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22551400677602891992016-09-01T15:13:00.578-07:002016-09-01T15:13:00.578-07:00Justin,
That is an very simplistic, even false, p...Justin,<br /><br />That is an very simplistic, even false, perspective on the history. Certainly, Islam has often been war-like. But then so were many, many pre-modern (and modern) societies. Conquest was quite normal, and civilisations expanded when they could. The Islamic conquests of the Middle East and North Africa, for example, were launched against Empires, Byzantium and Sassanian Persia, who had done their fair share of conquest and subjugation, and had often invaded the Arabs and used them cynically in proxy wars. I'm not sure how we'd measure the relative martial spirit and aggression of each faith, but Christian civilisations have certainly been aggressive as well. Just ask the indigenous peoples of the Americas. <br /><br />It is often said that Islam spread by the sword. Certainly, the early Islamic conquests helped to spread the prestige and knowledge of their faith, but it was not usual that people were forced to become Muslims (though incentives, negative and positive, were often given to convert). And often Islam was by spread missionaries, often Sufis. This is the case in much of Central, Southern, and South-Eastern Asia, as well as parts of Africa and the Caucasus. In this sense it was a spread of ideas. Indeed, even in those areas of the Middle East that Muslims conquered, there was a clear exchange of ideas. Christianity originally didn't spread by the sword, and missionary work was often important later on, but it has been far from uncommon for Christianity to be spread by conquest too. And traditional Christian societies were probably less tolerant and more ready to coerce conversion than Islamic ones.<br /><br />I think a good argument can be made that together Islam and Christianity have the worst record amongst the great religions for aggression and intolerance, perhaps by quite a bit, but I don't see how one can easily claim that Christianity is a lot better than Islam in this regard.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4975697685975507202016-09-01T14:40:34.017-07:002016-09-01T14:40:34.017-07:00"Edward Feser said...
DNW,
Your com...<i>"Edward Feser said...<br /><br /> DNW,<br /><br /> Your comments keep getting stuck in the spam filter, and it sometimes takes me a while to moderate them.<br /><br /> September 1, 2016 at 2:15 PM"</i><br /><br /><br />Wasn't at all concerned that you might have deleted some of the rather harsh rejoinders I directed; feel free anytime. I have no problems with it. Your blog, your standards. Lord knows we do our best to drag them down sometimes.<br /><br />But I was hoping and then glad to see that the reference to the <i>traslatio vetus</i> finally made it through.<br /><br />It was I thought directly relevant to an earlier assertion which seemed to imply Aquinas', and in fact all of Europe's, dependency on Gerard of Cremona's translations of translations of translations - and to suggest in it something in the manner of a generous gift from Arabia to Europe, as well. Alfonso's conquest and his cultural tolerance as the real source, puts paid to that notion.<br /><br />I also thought it might be one of those sometimes significant things which some - of your readers for example - who had studied philosophy per se, rather than the history of philosophy, might have missed mention of.<br /><br />I had almost forgotten it, until the dubious claim put forth by Anonymous, put me back in Walter Turner's classroom.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42860827595275837742016-09-01T14:37:49.914-07:002016-09-01T14:37:49.914-07:00"Your comments on the empirical nature of Isl..."Your comments on the empirical nature of Islam and the Muslim world need unpacking. Islam traditionally can be intolerant and warlike, certainly. But not more than traditional Christianity, and generally less so (at least so far as intolerance is concerned - it would be hard to gauge the level of aggression, given all the historical exigencies). Otherwise you confuse liberalism and Christianity (I presume), the modern and the pre-modern world, which makes your claims and judgments very hard to evaluate."<br /><br />I think a simple look at the history and the condition of majority Islamic states and see a noticeable difference that doesn't require writing a dictionary first. Dig under many of the prominent mosques in existence today and you'll find a Christian church or Jewish temple. Islam spread much like a dog that marks its territory in the neighborhood, not through a battle of ideas. And they do the same today.Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32146216527594282052016-09-01T14:15:49.611-07:002016-09-01T14:15:49.611-07:00DNW,
Your comments keep getting stuck in the spam...DNW,<br /><br />Your comments keep getting stuck in the spam filter, and it sometimes takes me a while to moderate them.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37746178658936266532016-08-31T17:19:23.637-07:002016-08-31T17:19:23.637-07:00Indeed, that is a conclusion, at least about one p...Indeed, that is a conclusion, at least about one particular poster, that I came to long ago. You get the same sort of combination harsh mockery, ignorance, and sophistry. DNW's comments on Corbin, the witless sneering at terms and insinuations of absurdity coupled with research via google search, seem just to underscore this. You could easily imagine a gnu sneering at Thomism or any non-materialistic philosophy (sometimes even all philosophy) in just the same way. Indeed, for most of his comments it wouldn't take much to turn them into the usual gnu jibes at Christianity. <br /><br />In this very thread, Son of Anonymous was only one step below DNW, although at least SoA was briefer and less paranoid and whinny.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33696554339655696872016-08-31T17:06:27.626-07:002016-08-31T17:06:27.626-07:00I am by no means an Islam apologist, but some of t...I am by no means an Islam apologist, but some of the comments of late here are not much different than the typical gnu claptrap one encounters in the blogosphere. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33649012626250435142016-08-31T16:35:01.596-07:002016-08-31T16:35:01.596-07:00" Jeremy Taylor said...
That's the p...<i>" Jeremy Taylor said...<br /><br /> That's the problem when your research consists of quick gogle searchs, you end up looking like an ignoramus (again). Corbin was a Protestant Christian, though a heretical one (he embraced Docetism). Nasr does not mean Corbin was literally a Shia. Corbin never converted. Nasr is talking about the spiritual ambience that Corbin drew from.<br /><br /> August 31, 2016 at 3:37 PM"</i><br /><br /><br />Golly. You are really proving to be an obsessed little combox stalker. Not even 5 minutes of gap that time before you hurriedly inserted your foot into selfsame. mouth<br /><br />And the upshot? Still just more hysteria from the not too smart phone. Try doing yourself a favor by actually reading what your alerts point you to:<br /><br />"Yeah ... kind of depends on who you ask."<br /><br />And by the way, the very charitable surmise that you are tracking my comments through alerts, is the least degrading of the scenarios about you. If you are streaming this stuff, or hovering over an open window ... well it makes you even that much more pathetic, Jeremy.<br /><br />Get a grip. <br /><br />Mohammad was a fake prophet. Not only not holy, but unholy. And Islam I regret to say, is a sorry cluster-flock, even for its better intentioned adherents; and most especially for anyone who has the misfortune to have to deal with either it or its rancid fans ... as you have most abundantly if unintentionally demonstrated.<br /><br />Accept it, get over it, and move on. <br /><br />Being who and what you are, you don't have any better choices, despite the pantomime chest-thumping.<br /><br />It's got to be late night if you are where you have implied you are. <br /><br />Take a pill, pill. And try and get some shut-eye.<br /><br /><br />And with that Ed, I think I'll make it a wrap on this thread. Jeremy's getting kind of creepy, and charity requires that I do as little as possible to unnecessarily further perturb his already highly eccentric, and unstable, orbit.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54572698137841453432016-08-31T15:37:51.357-07:002016-08-31T15:37:51.357-07:00That's the problem when your research consists...That's the problem when your research consists of quick gogle searchs, you end up looking like an ignoramus (again). Corbin was a Protestant Christian, though a heretical one (he embraced Docetism). Nasr does not mean Corbin was literally a Shia. Corbin never converted. Nasr is talking about the spiritual ambience that Corbin drew from.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39258194718742422972016-08-31T15:32:11.440-07:002016-08-31T15:32:11.440-07:00"Anonymous said...
Corbin was a Christia...<br /><br /><br /><i>"Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Corbin was a Christian...<br /><br /> August 31, 2016 at 12:34 PM"</i><br /><br /><br />Yeah ... kind of depends on who you ask.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Seyyed Hossein Nasr mentions in "In search of the Sacred" the following:<br /><br />'S.H.N.: Corbin and I also had a lot of personal human contacts and common interest in various spiritual and intellectual matters, and I knew him very well on the human level. For example, we went together for the ziyarat of Jam-i Karan, the site associated with the Twelfth Imam near the holy city of Qom. He considered himself a "Shi'ite," although I think that he never formally converted to Shi'ism. But he was inwardly converted to it. He always used to say, "nous Shi'ites" that is, "we Shi'ites." We also spoke about intimate, spiritual subjects together, about inner visions and matters like that, which I do not want to discuss here.</i>DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46093379330390442772016-08-31T15:05:52.740-07:002016-08-31T15:05:52.740-07:00
Looks like the citation comments with the links ...<br /><br />Looks like the citation comments with the links are now coming through in a batch ...<br /><br />Anonymous should be pleased, And edifiedDNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29515301561839804182016-08-31T15:01:52.689-07:002016-08-31T15:01:52.689-07:00Since it does not look as though I am being intent...Since it does not look as though I am being intentionally blocked and some comments are making their way through, allow me to one more time attempt to address Aquinas' use of Aristotle's works; and in the instance one Anonymous has presumably referred to: the Metaphysics.<br /><br />As I mentioned several times previously in other comments, I cannot at the moment cite the work of Gilson in which I believe I initially encountered the references to the translatio vetus - and perhaps it was actually from one of my professors who had studied under him. Nonetheless, it is clear that Gerard of Cremona's translations of Islamic translations of Syriac translations of Aristotle, were not the only, or even primary source for Aquinas.<br /><br />As Wiki has it (and note the circumstances under which this material became available - emphasis added):<br /><br />"<i><b>Toledo, which had been a provincial capital in the Caliphate of Cordoba and remained a seat of learning, was safely available to a Catholic like Gerard, since it had been conquered from the Moors by Alfonso VI of Castile in 1085. Toledo remained a multicultural capital, insofar as its rulers protected the large Jewish and Muslim quarters,</b> and kept their trophy city an important centre of Arab and Hebrew culture. One of the great scholars associated with Toledo was Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, Gerard's contemporary. The Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of Toledo adopted the language and many customs of their conquerors, embodying Mozarabic culture. The city was full of libraries and manuscripts, and was one of the few places in medieval Europe where a Christian could be exposed to Arabic language and culture</i>"<br /><br />The main point is to allow a reader here to access the following preview commentary on the matter of the manner of the transmission and the availability of Aristotle's Metaphysics, to Aquinas, in Latin.<br /><br />Use Google to search the following: " aquinas and translation vetus Metaphysics Doig "DNWnoreply@blogger.com