tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post666483069113099818..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The metaphysics of romantic loveEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35512694841777828202024-02-24T14:54:34.238-08:002024-02-24T14:54:34.238-08:00What about those in Limbo? What about those in Limbo? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74999739723383248722016-02-07T23:32:54.215-08:002016-02-07T23:32:54.215-08:00Hi Ed, have you read Scruton's "Sexual De...Hi Ed, have you read Scruton's "Sexual Desire, A Philosophical Investigation?" He follows Kant a lot, but I make this suggestion in the hope that you would benefit from his work (and eventually improve on it too!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90520076436764227632012-02-24T09:58:56.006-08:002012-02-24T09:58:56.006-08:00>"Procreative and unitive", "pro...>"Procreative and unitive", "procreative or unitive" - what's the difference?<br /><br />What's the context moron?BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73535435848171790982012-02-24T09:43:14.882-08:002012-02-24T09:43:14.882-08:00BenYachov - hairsplitting over two alternate conju...BenYachov - <i>hairsplitting over two alternate conjunctions (i.e. and vs or etc)"</i><br /><br />"Procreative <i>and</i> unitive", "procreative <i>or</i> unitive" - what's the difference?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50783930898703010542012-02-24T09:38:47.126-08:002012-02-24T09:38:47.126-08:00Bobcat patiently dispatched it.
Patiently, maybe....<i>Bobcat patiently dispatched it.</i><br /><br />Patiently, maybe. Effectively? I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. For future reference, maybe you'd want to say something like:<br /><br />'Dawkins infamously described critics of evolution as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked[footnote]. However well-meaning this or that individual liberal secularist may be, I maintain his <i>creed</i> is all four.'<br /><br /><i>"Really, Ray, is this chickenshit stuff the best you can do?"</i><br /><br />Well, I dunno. Like I said, so far in your book all I've seen is Appalachian Brag about what you're <i>going</i> to do. Perhaps it'll be different once we get to something substantial...Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38791598192858036752012-02-24T08:51:34.727-08:002012-02-24T08:51:34.727-08:00Gnus are mentally inferior. Not all Atheists are ...Gnus are mentally inferior. Not all Atheists are Gnus. Thus not all Atheists are mentally inferior. But those Atheists who are Gnus are mentally inferior. Like religious Fundies.<br /><br />They can't be bothered to learn or craw out of their little boxes. They have replace one set of narrow simplistic dogmas with another and continue in their self-defeating ways!<br /><br />>(Yes, changing that one word definitely changes the meaning of the phrase in critical ways.)<br /><br />Maybe for someone with an IQ less then 3.<br /><br />I would respect the non-Gnu Atheist who reads Feser's book and attempts to argue Moderate Realism is wrong and either Conceptionlism or nominalism is correct. Or attempt to refute Feser's critiques of Strong Realism, Conceptionalism etc.<br /><br />But "Dawkins said "or" not "and"! Misrepresentation!".<br /><br />Plueeze!<br /><br />Dawkins claiming the "argument from motion" refers to physics and not a metaphysical description of change is a misrepresentation.<br /><br />A YEC who claims the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics refutes evolution or has anything to do with it is a misrepresentation. <br /><br />Ray is just not being serious.<br /><br />I'm still pissed.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22210294083014030372012-02-24T08:49:23.928-08:002012-02-24T08:49:23.928-08:00Oh brother. Someone else tried this pathetic &quo...Oh brother. Someone else tried this pathetic "gotcha" in the combox to this post:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/final-word-on-eric-macdonald.html<br /><br />where, as you'll see, Bobcat patiently dispatched it.<br /><br />Really, Ray, is this chickenshit stuff the best you can do?Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56233906631079279842012-02-24T08:30:39.444-08:002012-02-24T08:30:39.444-08:00@Ray
>Okay, the book's at home, not here, ...@Ray<br /><br />>Okay, the book's at home, not here, but towards the end of the preface, he says something about how atheists are (and again, this is from memory for now):<br /><br />>Like I said, that's from memory, but the last five words and the double-quotes are definitely there. Particularly the 'and'.<br /><br />Get off your arse go home and get it & cite a page # & the actual quote so I can look it up in my copy when I get home.<br /><br />Put up or shut up.<br /><br />BTW taken at face value hairsplitting over two alternate conjunctions (i.e. <b>and</b> vs <b>or</b> etc) & trying to trump up a charge of "misrepresentation" from it is beyond asinine.<br /><br />So if Dawkins writes somewhere "I went to the train station" & Feser writes elsewhere "Dawkins said he went to the railway station" I am suppose to conclude Feser is "misrepresenting" him?<br /><br />GNU ARE YOU F***ING SERIOUS! <br /><br />What kind of idiot makes that type of lame argument and even hopes he can be taken seriously? <br /><br />I can't imagine dguller making a lame arse argument like this?<br /><br />Are you so threaten by the possibility Feser may have something this is the best you can do?<br /><br />I'm going to go calm down. <br /><br />You sir are a fundie without god-belief. Do yourself a favor & get over it(i.e. the fundie part the without god-belief is more forgivable by an order of magnitude)!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70332440191027013972012-02-24T06:55:59.059-08:002012-02-24T06:55:59.059-08:00Okay, the book's at home, not here, but toward...Okay, the book's at home, not here, but towards the end of the preface, he says something about how atheists are (and again, this is from memory for now):<br /><br />'to paraphrase Dawkins' infamous comment about those who dispute evolution, "ignorant, stupid, wicked, and insane".'<br /><br />Like I said, that's from memory, but the last five words and the double-quotes are definitely there. Particularly the 'and'.<br /><br />Now, using double-quotes when those aren't actually Dawkins' words is iffy, but Feser <i>did</i> say he was going to "paraphrase" Dawkins. But a paraphrase is supposed to preserve the <i>meaning</i> of what's being paraphrased.<br /><br />The thing is, Dawkins didn't say that people who disbelieve evolution are "ignorant, stupid, wicked, and insane". What he <i>actually</i> said was: "<a href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p88.htm" rel="nofollow">It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).</a>"<br /><br />Now, Feser was somewhat careless, stupid, and wicked to write what he did. No, wait - I meant somewhat careless, stupid, <b>OR</b> wicked. (Yes, changing that one word definitely changes the meaning of the phrase in critical ways.)<br /><br />If Dawkins is such an ignoramus, it shouldn't be necessary to misrepresent his words to show it. Personally, I'm reasonably sure that Feser was just sloppy. But like I said, if I can't even get through the preface without him misrepresenting his opponents, in a book that's supposed to display rigour and sound argumentation... it's not a good first impression.<br /><br />I've read most of the first chapter, but I <i>still</i> don't know if Feser can argue, since he's just making "bold claims" about what he's <i>going</i> to prove, but hasn't actually gotten around to proving them yet. He's already <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Spell-Breaker.aspx" rel="nofollow">misrepresented Dennett and the whole 'brights' thing</a>, and I noticed another one I can't recall right now. Oh, well.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61818536276103112692012-02-23T14:04:01.246-08:002012-02-23T14:04:01.246-08:00@Ray,
I second that respectfully.
Put up or shut...@Ray,<br /><br />I second that respectfully.<br /><br />Put up or shut up. How does Feser misrepresent Dawkins a man who is admittedly a competent biologist and expert on Evolution but a total incompetent and ignoramus in regards to philosophy?<br /> <br />One clear example please.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46009346839733964702012-02-23T13:23:00.081-08:002012-02-23T13:23:00.081-08:00Oh I will probably hate myself cometh the dawn, bu...Oh I will probably hate myself cometh the dawn, but <i>how</i> exactly does Dr. Feser misrepresent Dawkins?Scott W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74430230280732757462012-02-22T17:35:13.136-08:002012-02-22T17:35:13.136-08:00Well, I've got "The Last Superstition&quo...Well, I've got "The Last Superstition"... but I can't say I'm hopeful. Apparently Feser can't even get through the <i>preface</i> without misrepresenting Dawkins. :(Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48215586730255286222012-02-22T11:56:13.777-08:002012-02-22T11:56:13.777-08:00"I would heartily recommend reading Feser'...<i>"I would heartily recommend reading Feser's book(s)"</i><br /><br />Well, I'll see if I can check out "The Last Superstition" from the local library. They don't have "Aquinas", but theoretically that'd be enough of an intro to see if "Aquinas" is worth the time.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25778472701115829712012-02-21T07:13:34.872-08:002012-02-21T07:13:34.872-08:00Let the straw manning begin.
I wonder why you di...<i>Let the straw manning begin. </i><br /><br />I wonder why you didn't announce that back when you started it. <br /><br /><i>I question the double standard of 'perverting' the biology of the body with poison. 'Frustrating' the liver.</i><br /><br />There's no double standard. Nobody said "it's wrong to frustrate one's faculties… except for frustrating the liver with alcohol, then it's fine." Rather, what was said was "it's wrong to frustrate one's faculties, but limited amounts of alcohol do NOT frustrate the liver, UNLESS you drink too much in which case that IS IMMORAL". So either you think that some alcohol is ok and we all agree, or else you think that ANY alcohol works against natural human biology, in which case you are disagreeing not with any claim about natural law per se, but with the commonly understood effects of alcohol. So like I said, feel free to present your medical argument to the contrary, just don't confuse it with the metaphysics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29692770586250416832012-02-20T18:21:31.358-08:002012-02-20T18:21:31.358-08:00Let the straw manning begin. I didn't say drun...Let the straw manning begin. I didn't say drunk. You did. I'm not saying you have a problem with alcohol. I'm saying you have a problem with your reasoning and the impossibility of 'divining' final purpose.<br /><br />I question the double standard of 'perverting' the biology of the body with poison. 'Frustrating' the liver.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16237468796689059812012-02-20T18:03:42.926-08:002012-02-20T18:03:42.926-08:00Scott W. said...
Why might that be?
Covering the...<i>Scott W. said...<br />Why might that be? <br />Covering their ass from liability primarily.</i><br /><br />Well, that and it's just not realistic to come up with a million rules to cover every type of person, type of alcohol, etc. Anyway, it isn't even relevant to natural law in particular; any moral system says it's wrong to get so drunk that you go around crashing planes, this is hardly an extraordinary claim. If anon think that drinking any amount of alcohol under any circumstances will make anyone drunk, then sure, that would make it immoral under natural law, as it would under almost any other moral system. And if he wants to make a medical case that alcohol is that destructive to the human biology, go ahead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17101608376252649562012-02-20T11:21:59.224-08:002012-02-20T11:21:59.224-08:00Why might that be?
Covering their ass from liabil...<i>Why might that be?</i><br /><br />Covering their ass from liability primarily.Scott W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24716149780752241672012-02-20T08:41:06.970-08:002012-02-20T08:41:06.970-08:00Ray Ingles: it should be possible to address a few...Ray Ingles: <i>it should be possible to address a few questions. Mr. Green started to, and I was glad of it, but then... nothing.</i> <br />Alas, I don't have half the time to spend here that I wish I did, nor half the expertise. Of course, comment sites are rather ill-suited for serious philosophical conversations in the first place, and when people do have time, they naturally respond to whichever posts strike their fancy. <br />Anyway, God <i>can</i> plant thoughts or experiences in a disembodied soul, but the natural way for a human soul to act is via a human body. A man in heaven is still supposed to be a man, not something less or something different. And you can by fully human without engaging in digestion at any particular moment, but not if you don't have a body at all.<br /><br /><i>As I've said before, "I'm trying to determine if it's worth my time to check out a book like Feser's 'Aquinas'." Hence asking for, y'know, examples of the premises and reasoning involved, especially about things which strike me as odd or questionable.</i><br /><br />I would heartily recommend reading Feser's book(s). Partly because, as recent works, they specifically address modern notions and vocabulary that can make Thomism seem harder than it really is; but also because a modern mindset makes it really hard for the whole thing to sink in. It's necessary to absorb a lot of Scholastic philosophy just in order to being making sense of it — much as you might need to jump in and surround yourself with listening to a new language or new kind of music before you can go back and begin to understand it more methodically. Plus there are all the "boring" foundations without which the more interesting bits don't make sense (just as you'll never really get a good handle on quantum mechanics if you don't have a decent grasp of all the less exotic physics that comes before it). Any other books you find on classical or mediaeval philosophy that have a style you like are probably worth reading also.Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17698730931577262792012-02-19T17:10:38.140-08:002012-02-19T17:10:38.140-08:00"Of course it is wrong to, say, drink so much..."Of course it is wrong to, say, drink so much that you can't think straight. "<br /><br />So how much poison can you knowingly ingest before it's a perversion or a frustration of the body?<br /><br />As a pilot. I can't drink a drop of alcohol closer than 8 before flying. Would you be willing to let me? I can't take ANYTHING on the FAAs list of prohibited drugs.<br /><br />Why might that be? Do you think it affects judgement?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73073734943801612062012-02-19T17:02:46.607-08:002012-02-19T17:02:46.607-08:00"The only thing obvious to some of us about t..."The only thing obvious to some of us about the alleged counter-examples are how obviously wrong they are."<br /><br />Meh. Of course they are.<br /><br />Explain to me how consuming alcohol or smoking a cigar (poisons to the body, 'perversions' and 'frustrations' to the natural order) to relieve stress or relax are any way different than, say, moderate marijuana use or occasional masterbation?<br /><br />Maybe you could just use your 'free will' and change your body chemistry and 'be' relaxed. <br /><br />What happens to the soul when you are 'self medicating'? Does it remain stressed and tense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11351329218716866442012-02-19T16:16:25.583-08:002012-02-19T16:16:25.583-08:00Anonymous: Sex is just the most obvious example of...Anonymous: Sex is just the most obvious example of the rigidity of this thinking.<br /><br />It beats the loose sloppy thinking that seems to inform objections to natural law. And don't confuse your particular whims, misunderstandings, or training to think about sex in certain ways as "obvious". The only thing obvious to some of us about the alleged counter-examples are how obviously wrong they are. In particular, your claim that it is acceptable to pervert the rational abilities of the brain is bizarre. Of course it is wrong to, say, drink so much that you can't think straight. Some moderate drinking, to an extent that does <b>not</b> disrupt one's reasoning is acceptable. To get plastered, to an extent that one posts things like your comment above, is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23692031051387373142012-02-19T14:47:59.238-08:002012-02-19T14:47:59.238-08:00@Scott W
“One thing I've wondered about is th...@Scott W<br /><br />“One thing I've wondered about is the Catechism's description of marriage as procreative and unitive. The problem it seems to me is that it treats them as if they are equal parts.”<br /><br />I am with you on the problematic aspect of co-equal ends of sexual relations. How can a human act have two different ends which define the nature of the act? Perhaps this is salvaged by referring to “aspects,” as distinct from “ends”…<br /><br />Rather, is not hierarchy the proper way to understand the importance of the procreative end? The unitive end is at the service of the procreative end because creation is the basis of authority. Thus God, who is infinite in creative power, has absolute authority over creation (causing its existence). And the husband has authority in marriage (headship), since he causes conception to occur. Likewise, both husband and wife together must place themselves at the service of the procreative end of marital relations. This is the virtue of purity: love awaiting (desiring) fecundation (Bishop Sheen).<br /><br />It seems to me that there is no more unitive activity of husband and wife than to conceive and bring to eternal happiness other human beings! The pleasures are manifold, long-lasting, and rejuvenating.Fr. W. M. Gardnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47487318274848832162012-02-19T14:11:46.134-08:002012-02-19T14:11:46.134-08:00Sex isn't even the point. How do you rationali...Sex isn't even the point. How do you rationalize an ultimate purpose and when you can usurp it or convieniently ignore it? <br /><br />Sex is just the most obvious example of the rigidity of this thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20844094154975017122012-02-19T13:17:59.805-08:002012-02-19T13:17:59.805-08:00I should have guessed you were thinking about sex....I should have guessed you were thinking about sex.berenikehttp://exlaodicea.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75318472869039157972012-02-19T11:08:52.404-08:002012-02-19T11:08:52.404-08:00"...alcohol can calm nerves, and soothe sorro..."...alcohol can calm nerves, and soothe sorrow. ...likewise having a slivovic when one is a bundle of angsty nerves and can't settle down to getting anything done, is entirely rational."<br /><br />To which I wouldn't argue. But, this is why natural law is a muddled mess. <br /><br />The natural purpose of sex is procreation, and any use of it for other purposes is “unnatural.” Yet the "perverting" of the rational abilities of the brain does not of necessity exclude ancillary advantages. The occasional recreational smoke (ingesting know carcinogens) is permitted yet it does damage to natural purpose of the body. The purpose of eating is to sustain life, but that does not make all eating that is not necessary to subsistence “unnatural. Heaven forbid should someone rub one out or participate in protected sex for any of the same reasons. <br /><br />This use of natural law amounts to special pleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com