5 ms·

Edward Feser doesn’t seem to me to be genuinely interested in challenging his own presuppositions through metaphysics or philosophy, or in communicating the wor

Edward Feser doesn’t seem to me to be genuinely interested in challenging his own presuppositions through metaphysics or philosophy, or in communicating the work of others to a wider audience. If the posts that appear on this site are anything to go by, he seems to specialize in a specious species of polemic and obfuscation designed solely to justify and promulgate his political and religious views. If it lends a sense of purpose to his life, makes him a living or gives him a feeling of self-importance/bolsters his worth among his peers, who am I to criticize? Perhaps it is actually a deep satire with some ulterior motive. As an agnostic, one can only hope that a capital punishment for more catholic thinkers is never re-introduced. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Feser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Feser

pfortuny 5y ago
So you’ve just ad-hominemed him in a suspiciously suspect subscribed text. And by sheer coincidence, catholicism. Great.
- Cybotron5000 5y ago
  …catholic with a small ‘c’: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic https://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic (…sorry I couldn’t resist the pun…). Personally I think there have been many wondrous, uplifting and glorious achievements of the Catholic church/its followers …and, I’m sure you would agree, some not so much, as is the case with many human institutions… What is it I’m subscribed to? Edward Feser may be a wonderful fellow in person for all I know - I would like to think at least that he is a decent, upstanding, law-abiding, moral etc. citizen - he certainly comes across as erudite and indefatigable in his writing… I just get the feeling that the two blog posts I have read of his that have been posted on this site were both designed solely to reinforce his particular presuppositions? Perhaps I am judging him unfairly - would you recommend something else of his that I should read instead? As I say, if his philosophy/faith works for him, gives him meaning and hope and joy etc. and he genuinely believes in those ideas, I wish him all the best… I worry a little about (perhaps less enlightened) people wanting to apply those ideas to society at large though... You must surely also be aware of examples from history where things have not gone so well? (not least for Catholics at various points in time - incl. ancestors of my own). What do you think?
BeeBoBub 5y ago
Is it wrong to be opinionated? Feser quickly remarks on a problem of math: some mathematical constructs reflect the system of math more than reality. If your philosophy never touches the political, the reality, aren’t you merely creating a system of reasoning for its own sake? Moreover, does he need to challenge his own presuppositions? We can do that!
- Cybotron5000 5y ago
  I think that sometimes being overly opinionated and incapable of changing your mind is potentially harmful to others, yes… Is it not potentially dangerous to advocate for various political realities based solely on unexamined/individual opinion-based constructs? Maybe I am wrong, though… I’m curious what you think of the ideas in this article?: https://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2007/08/26/is-philosophy-just-a-matter-of-opinion/ https://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2007/08/26/is-philosophy-just...
  - Cybotron5000 5y ago
    …and yes I think that challenging one’s suppositions ought to be the first task of any aspiring philosopher. Isn’t that the whole idea?
    - skissane 5y ago
      Having read a few philosophers, I don't really see any fundamental difference between Feser's approach and those of other philosophers. All philosophers have their positions and try to construct arguments to support those constructions. Feser's positions are traditional Roman Catholic positions, but your average atheist philosopher (such as Graham Oppy or J. L. Mackie) is doing the same basic thing. I feel like your expectations for how philosophers ought to behave aren't based on any significant familiarity with the work of actual philosophers, just your suppositions about how philosophy ought to be done.
      - Cybotron5000 5y ago
        Good point: perhaps I have an unrealistic, dumb, ill-educated or otherwise malformed ideal/view that philosophers should somehow be constantly challenging their own ideas, using their writing/discourse as an instrument to help them reach better conclusions through statement/contradiction (something like constructing an academic essay using thesis/antithesis/synthesis I guess?) and disputing them internally… Actually, as you suggest, the ‘correct’ approach to philosophy, or at least the only realistically possible approach, is to repeatedly state prior beliefs in the most persuasive way possible and then presumably to defend your a priori views from any challenges by others - only ‘testing’ those ideas in reaction by engaging in external debate rather than an internal one… I wonder though, doesn’t the outcome/process of that debate have to register internally somehow, for one side at least, for it to have any point? …for an evolution of the thinkers involved’s ideas to take place, is it not necessary for one/both sides in a debate to have at least a somewhat open mind, even as they strongly debate their particular ‘side’? …to allow one side to change its mind when the arguments put forward by the opposition are significantly strong - otherwise the debate would inevitably become stale, never-changing and circular? If one side is fixed in its beliefs, why would the other side bother debating them at all? If they were interested in adopting those ideas they should merely ‘receive’ them, rather than engage in an inevitably fruitless debate? I suppose if you have an unshakable belief that there exists an eternal and ever-present truth that you are inalterably sure of, and others who don’t agree with you are simply less enlightened, then you may feel that you should never have cause to change your mind - why should you, as you are already privy to the ultimate truth? Your task then, if you are communicative/evangelical/missionary in some way at least, is only to expound that truth to others? Your writing becomes a vehicle to promote your ‘truth’ - truth informed by mystically or intuitively received wisdom, never conjecture… Your debate/writing etc. is not a way to clarify your own ideas, but rather to show others the folly of contrary thoughts?
alentist 5y ago
Your entire comment is an ad-hominem. And a nasty one at that. Frankly, it sounds like you're projecting all these negative things because you hate to see your assumptions challenged.
- Cybotron5000 5y ago
  What do you consider to be my assumptions? As I said in the comment below, I am not attacking the guy personally (that’s what ad hominem means) - I’m sure he may be perfectly lovely and if he is genuine in his pursuits then I genuinely wish him (and you) all the best in life…
  - alentist 5y ago
    > What, pray tell, do you consider to be my assumptions? I don't know, because you didn't engage with the content of the article at all. You merely casted nasty aspersions on its author. > I am not attacking the guy personally Yes, you are. he seems to specialize in a specious species of polemic and obfuscation designed solely to justify and promulgate his political and religious views. If it lends a sense of purpose to his life, makes him a living or gives him a feeling of self-importance/bolsters his worth among his peers, who am I to criticize? Perhaps it is actually a deep satire with some ulterior motive. So not only do you throw around unsubstantiated aspersions, but you are also dishonest.
    - Cybotron5000 5y ago
      Perhaps you’re right and I was overly harsh or critical of him personally. All I am trying to say, crudely put, is that it seems to me that the author has started from his prior positions and then constructed an argument that reinforces them. That’s fine by me (if he is honest about it), but I hope you can see it is hard to stomach if you don’t agree or can’t see the proof of those prior positions. Specious = “…plausible but false; based on pretense; deceptively pleasing: ‘His incorrect conclusion arose from specious reasoning.’”. For example, a statement like: “…an analysis that simply fails to capture what Aquinas is talking about is hardly rigorous…” (sorry taking that out of context) seems bizarre to me when I consider (the little I know of) the history of philosophical thought since Aquinas… I apologize if I have offended you or the author- that was not my intention - perhaps I am merely showing my ignorance…

pfortuny 5y ago

So you’ve just ad-hominemed him in a suspiciously suspect subscribed text. And by sheer coincidence, catholicism. Great.

Cybotron5000 5y ago
…catholic with a small ‘c’: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic https://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic (…sorry I couldn’t resist the pun…). Personally I think there have been many wondrous, uplifting and glorious achievements of the Catholic church/its followers …and, I’m sure you would agree, some not so much, as is the case with many human institutions… What is it I’m subscribed to? Edward Feser may be a wonderful fellow in person for all I know - I would like to think at least that he is a decent, upstanding, law-abiding, moral etc. citizen - he certainly comes across as erudite and indefatigable in his writing… I just get the feeling that the two blog posts I have read of his that have been posted on this site were both designed solely to reinforce his particular presuppositions? Perhaps I am judging him unfairly - would you recommend something else of his that I should read instead? As I say, if his philosophy/faith works for him, gives him meaning and hope and joy etc. and he genuinely believes in those ideas, I wish him all the best… I worry a little about (perhaps less enlightened) people wanting to apply those ideas to society at large though... You must surely also be aware of examples from history where things have not gone so well? (not least for Catholics at various points in time - incl. ancestors of my own). What do you think?

BeeBoBub 5y ago

Is it wrong to be opinionated? Feser quickly remarks on a problem of math: some mathematical constructs reflect the system of math more than reality. If your philosophy never touches the political, the reality, aren’t you merely creating a system of reasoning for its own sake? Moreover, does he need to challenge his own presuppositions? We can do that!

Cybotron5000 5y ago
I think that sometimes being overly opinionated and incapable of changing your mind is potentially harmful to others, yes… Is it not potentially dangerous to advocate for various political realities based solely on unexamined/individual opinion-based constructs? Maybe I am wrong, though… I’m curious what you think of the ideas in this article?: https://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2007/08/26/is-philosophy-just-a-matter-of-opinion/ https://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2007/08/26/is-philosophy-just...
- Cybotron5000 5y ago
  …and yes I think that challenging one’s suppositions ought to be the first task of any aspiring philosopher. Isn’t that the whole idea?
  - skissane 5y ago
    Having read a few philosophers, I don't really see any fundamental difference between Feser's approach and those of other philosophers. All philosophers have their positions and try to construct arguments to support those constructions. Feser's positions are traditional Roman Catholic positions, but your average atheist philosopher (such as Graham Oppy or J. L. Mackie) is doing the same basic thing. I feel like your expectations for how philosophers ought to behave aren't based on any significant familiarity with the work of actual philosophers, just your suppositions about how philosophy ought to be done.
    - Cybotron5000 5y ago
      Good point: perhaps I have an unrealistic, dumb, ill-educated or otherwise malformed ideal/view that philosophers should somehow be constantly challenging their own ideas, using their writing/discourse as an instrument to help them reach better conclusions through statement/contradiction (something like constructing an academic essay using thesis/antithesis/synthesis I guess?) and disputing them internally… Actually, as you suggest, the ‘correct’ approach to philosophy, or at least the only realistically possible approach, is to repeatedly state prior beliefs in the most persuasive way possible and then presumably to defend your a priori views from any challenges by others - only ‘testing’ those ideas in reaction by engaging in external debate rather than an internal one… I wonder though, doesn’t the outcome/process of that debate have to register internally somehow, for one side at least, for it to have any point? …for an evolution of the thinkers involved’s ideas to take place, is it not necessary for one/both sides in a debate to have at least a somewhat open mind, even as they strongly debate their particular ‘side’? …to allow one side to change its mind when the arguments put forward by the opposition are significantly strong - otherwise the debate would inevitably become stale, never-changing and circular? If one side is fixed in its beliefs, why would the other side bother debating them at all? If they were interested in adopting those ideas they should merely ‘receive’ them, rather than engage in an inevitably fruitless debate? I suppose if you have an unshakable belief that there exists an eternal and ever-present truth that you are inalterably sure of, and others who don’t agree with you are simply less enlightened, then you may feel that you should never have cause to change your mind - why should you, as you are already privy to the ultimate truth? Your task then, if you are communicative/evangelical/missionary in some way at least, is only to expound that truth to others? Your writing becomes a vehicle to promote your ‘truth’ - truth informed by mystically or intuitively received wisdom, never conjecture… Your debate/writing etc. is not a way to clarify your own ideas, but rather to show others the folly of contrary thoughts?

alentist 5y ago

Your entire comment is an ad-hominem. And a nasty one at that. Frankly, it sounds like you're projecting all these negative things because you hate to see your assumptions challenged.

Cybotron5000 5y ago
What do you consider to be my assumptions? As I said in the comment below, I am not attacking the guy personally (that’s what ad hominem means) - I’m sure he may be perfectly lovely and if he is genuine in his pursuits then I genuinely wish him (and you) all the best in life…
- alentist 5y ago
  > What, pray tell, do you consider to be my assumptions? I don't know, because you didn't engage with the content of the article at all. You merely casted nasty aspersions on its author. > I am not attacking the guy personally Yes, you are. he seems to specialize in a specious species of polemic and obfuscation designed solely to justify and promulgate his political and religious views. If it lends a sense of purpose to his life, makes him a living or gives him a feeling of self-importance/bolsters his worth among his peers, who am I to criticize? Perhaps it is actually a deep satire with some ulterior motive. So not only do you throw around unsubstantiated aspersions, but you are also dishonest.
  - Cybotron5000 5y ago
    Perhaps you’re right and I was overly harsh or critical of him personally. All I am trying to say, crudely put, is that it seems to me that the author has started from his prior positions and then constructed an argument that reinforces them. That’s fine by me (if he is honest about it), but I hope you can see it is hard to stomach if you don’t agree or can’t see the proof of those prior positions. Specious = “…plausible but false; based on pretense; deceptively pleasing: ‘His incorrect conclusion arose from specious reasoning.’”. For example, a statement like: “…an analysis that simply fails to capture what Aquinas is talking about is hardly rigorous…” (sorry taking that out of context) seems bizarre to me when I consider (the little I know of) the history of philosophical thought since Aquinas… I apologize if I have offended you or the author- that was not my intention - perhaps I am merely showing my ignorance…