tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4820430382528171500..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Doubting ThomistRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89093093527214637152014-07-26T18:32:15.130-04:002014-07-26T18:32:15.130-04:00I have had considerable interaction with Anderson,...I have had considerable interaction with Anderson, and to a lesser extent, Gangadean (I was a member of their congregation for a number of years before being asked to leave). I have also recently started a blog about some of our philosophical differences. <br /><br />http://reasontodoubt.blogspot.com/ <br /><br />Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15771327060199302523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85490345513636416882014-04-30T13:34:47.338-04:002014-04-30T13:34:47.338-04:00Ismael said:
He never said ID is wrong because &q...Ismael said:<br /><br /><i>He never said ID is wrong because "it's not Thomism". Read his blog posts on ID theory and see for yourself.</i><br /><br />There's a difference between describing a position and noting the functional outworking of that position. The latter is not a misrepresentation of someone's position, but rather a description of what that position entails.<br /><br /><i>Like Plantinga or Craig views have NEVER been challenged right?</i><br /><br />How is that evidence of <i>misrepresentation</i> of Fesser or Thomism?<br /><br /><i>Feser has mentioned Ansacombe and Geach many times, in a positive light.</i><br /><br />I don't understand how that resolves the issue Steve was addressing or, really, how that shows a "misrepresentation" of either Fesser or Thomism. Speaking highly of those philosophers "many times" does not necessarily entail propositions that adjudicate whether Anscombe and Geach either misunderstand Thomism or corrupt it (for lack of a better word).<br /><br /><i>Also being a "popularizer" is not bad. Isn't W. L. Craig a popularizer?</i><br /><br />It depends in what sense. I don't think you understand how the term is being used in this context.<br /><br />And what's with the references to WLC? It's not like he's a hero around here. How does this demonstrate a <i>misrepresentation</i> of Fesser or Thomism?<br /><br /><i>Also there is a difference between "Books for laymen" and "Scholarly work". Many scientists and philosophers write pop-books or introductory textbooks but it is not all they do. Most of their contribution to the field is in papers published in journals.<br /><br />"Steve" evidently does not know how accademia works.</i><br /><br />Evidently you don't realize that Steve Hays (not "Steve") has worked in academia.<br /><br /><i>This whole blog post by "Steve" is a collection of nonsense. These were only a few selected examples in order to stay in the "4096 characters limit"</i><br /><br />It's hard to claim that his "whole post" is "nonsense," when a lot of his comments on the Reformed world are accurate descriptions of the movement and its limitations. I think you're exaggerating for effect.<br /><br />Now, if that is the best on offer, then I'm really not sure you can demonstrate that Steve misrepresented Fesser and Thomism. There's a lot of grasping at reasons to reject Steve's post as invalid, but no real work done to show the charge that Steve has misrepresented both Fesser and Thomism.<br />Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784922935749497931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87864900331787663252014-04-30T13:03:40.455-04:002014-04-30T13:03:40.455-04:00@Gene Callahan
"Someone doesn't understa...@Gene Callahan<br /><br />"Someone doesn't understand the word "generally"!"<br /><br />Of course, "specifically" you were speaking in reference to Steve. And what Matthew Schultz and I have said are enough to overturn your point with respect to Steve.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54944576676012560332014-04-30T13:00:52.375-04:002014-04-30T13:00:52.375-04:00@Gene Callahan
"Someone doesn't understa...@Gene Callahan<br /><br />"Someone doesn't understand the word "generally"!"<br /><br />How about this? Given your comments thus far, let's call it square since you obviously don't understand basic logic.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87910870129352398672014-04-30T12:59:28.885-04:002014-04-30T12:59:28.885-04:00@Gene Callahan
"Wow, just who hasn't rea...@Gene Callahan<br /><br />"Wow, just who hasn't read "Steve"'s post? You'd better go search for the word 'basically' on this page!"<br /><br />Let's say for the sake of argument it's true Feser is basically a popularizer. How would the fact that one has never <i>not</i> done any popularization, or indeed one has in fact written popular level works, undermine the fact that one is basically a popularizer? If anything, it'd support it.<br /><br />"Yep."<br /><br />I appreciate you conceding the point. That's honest.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65712327276079142992014-04-30T12:52:54.209-04:002014-04-30T12:52:54.209-04:00@rockingwithhawking:
"serious writers genera...@rockingwithhawking: <br />"serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?"<br /><br />"No, not always."<br /><br />Someone doesn't understand the word "generally"!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81583168909738614122014-04-30T12:33:56.316-04:002014-04-30T12:33:56.316-04:00Thanks for the feedback, it's instructive.Thanks for the feedback, it's instructive. CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92147550650329317532014-04-30T12:16:44.571-04:002014-04-30T12:16:44.571-04:00"By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to ..."By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to devote an entire post on the topic. "<br /><br />Yep.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57026627631280148272014-04-30T12:15:36.937-04:002014-04-30T12:15:36.937-04:00@rockingwithhawking: ""Feser did not cla...@rockingwithhawking: ""Feser did not claim he has NEVER done any popularization! But 'Steve' says he is 'basically a popularizer.'"<br /><br />'That's likewise not what Steve (or I) claimed.'<br /><br />Wow, just who hasn't read "Steve"'s post? You'd better go search for the word 'basically' on this page!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38101002010837302602014-04-30T12:09:55.499-04:002014-04-30T12:09:55.499-04:00@ Matthew Shultz
OK some examples:
"Now, ...@ Matthew Shultz<br /><br /><br />OK some examples:<br /><br /><br />"Now, ID-theory is fair game. However, it's philosophically unenlightening when philosophers like Feser (and Francis Beckwith) criticize ID-theory because it isn't Thomism. Unless you grant that Thomist epistemology and metaphysics should be the standard of comparison, that objection is uninteresting. "<br /><br />He never said ID is wrong because "it's not Thomism". Read his blog posts on ID theory and see for yourself.<br /><br />So "Steve" is attacking straw men.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><br />"he problem is compounded by the fact that Feser's understanding of Paley and ID-theory have both been challenged. Consider the running debates between his blog and Uncommon Descent. "<br /><br />Like Plantinga or Craig views have NEVER been challenged right?<br /><br />Read "Naturalism Defeated Essays on Plantingas Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism", edited by James K. Beilby. Here several philosophers dispute and critique some of Plantinga's arguments against naturalims and in the final chapter Plantinga himself responds to the critiques.<br /><br />---<br /><br />"It isn't clear to me if Feser is saying philosophers like Anscombe, Geach, and Kenny misunderstand Thomism, or if they adulterate it with foreign influences. If the former, then I'd simply point out that, in my estimation, they are Feser's superiors when it comes to original research. Isn't Feser basically a popularizer? By contrast, Geach, for one, did groundbreaking work on Frege. "<br /><br />Feser has mentioned Ansacombe and Geach many times, in a positive light.<br /><br />Also being a "popularizer" is not bad. Isn't W. L. Craig a popularizer?<br /><br />Also there is a difference between "Books for laymen" and "Scholarly work". Many scientists and philosophers write pop-books or introductory textbooks but it is not all they do. Most of their contribution to the field is in papers published in journals.<br /><br />"Steve" evidently does not know how accademia works.<br /><br /><br />MOREOVER "Steve" does not seem to be aware that there is a far bigger world in Thomism than "Analytical Thomists". Ansacombe and Geach represent but a very small fraction in Thomism. This does not mean they do not deserve the fame they have gained, but still Analytical Thomism is but a branch of Thomism.<br /><br />I would also add that a Thomist might and will criticize another Thomist if he thinks some of his work is worth critiquing.<br /><br /><br />====<br />This whole blog post by "Steve" is a collection of nonsense. These were only a few selected examples in order to stay in the "4096 characters limit"<br />Ismaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09192266454479639329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3022359294599082712014-04-30T02:21:21.135-04:002014-04-30T02:21:21.135-04:00His posthumous magnum opus, _Van Til's Apologe...His posthumous magnum opus, _Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis_, is a fine work. <br /><br />His other apologetic writings tend to be superficial. His spread himself rather thin. And because he died in his 40s, it's unclear how he would have developed.<br /><br />It's possible that his particular approach had limited potential for further development, or that he himself lacked the creativity to develop it much further.<br /><br />Towards the end of his life, Bahnsen was studying the transcendental arguments of John Kekes, in an effort to flesh out TAG. <br /><br />He was, of course, famous or infamous (depending on one's viewpoint) for his advocacy of theonomy. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74045077336526041312014-04-30T01:20:34.555-04:002014-04-30T01:20:34.555-04:00@Scott
"Why? Steve devoted a post to a criti...@Scott<br /><br />"Why? Steve devoted a post to a criticism of Feser based on what Steve himself admitted was only a cursory reading of a couple of bits; why would Feser need to be familiar with Steve's entire oeuvre in order to respond?"<br /><br />1. The comment you quote from me never so much as suggests what I personally happen to think Feser should do or shouldn't do.<br /><br />Rather, I'm responding to "Gene" on his own grounds. If it's true "a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response" (not, say, an appropriate response) to someone who "starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker," then Feser's fairly lengthly and detailed (and frankly overly defensive) response went above and beyond "Gene's" criterion, given Feser writes as if Steve only recently came on his radar and so presumably hasn't read much of what Steve has written. So would "Gene" be happy to also say Feser's response is something other than "the appropriate response"?<br /><br />2. No, Steve didn't admit it was "only a cursory reading of a couple of bits."<br /><br />Here's what Steve said: "As a rule, I read enough of a writer to make a preliminary judgment on whether or not I think it's worth my time to read more by him." Also: "But I admit this may mean I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion of Feser." <br /><br />This is hardly equivalent to "Steve himself admitted was only a cursory reading of a couple of bits."rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30006970038214304332014-04-29T23:41:52.006-04:002014-04-29T23:41:52.006-04:00I'm aware of the connection, but I haven't...I'm aware of the connection, but I haven't studied it. <br /><br />I have it on good authority that Owen Anderson is a waste of time. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81547672012408135962014-04-29T20:53:48.463-04:002014-04-29T20:53:48.463-04:00"Steve" (sorry, couldn't resist!), c..."Steve" (sorry, couldn't resist!), could you elaborate on your view of Bahnsen? <br /><br />I've read, and re-read a number of his works and have purchased and listened (and re-listened) to dozens of hours of his lectures and find him to be among my favorite dead theologians (the corpse abuse of many Clarkians not withstanding).<br /><br />In your view what's his stature among reformed philosophers, and would you recommend him to aspiring reformed philosophers, and Christian-theistic armchair philosophers?CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68828419072391319492014-04-29T20:45:31.402-04:002014-04-29T20:45:31.402-04:00@rockingwithhawking:
"By your logic, it was ...@rockingwithhawking:<br /><br />"By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to devote an entire post on the topic."<br /><br />Why? Steve devoted a post to a criticism of Feser based on what Steve himself admitted was only a cursory reading of a couple of bits; why would Feser need to be familiar with Steve's entire oeuvre in order to respond?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65075101552032715892014-04-29T19:26:33.050-04:002014-04-29T19:26:33.050-04:00By "contributions" I include past contri...By "contributions" I include past contributions, potential future contributions and missing contributions (think, deleted multiple blogs [heh]).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86615157925341460422014-04-29T19:17:23.526-04:002014-04-29T19:17:23.526-04:00Steve wrote:
I'm going to discuss growing pai...Steve wrote:<br /><br /><i>I'm going to discuss growing pains in Reformed philosophy...</i><br /><br />I'm wondering if other folks also wished Steve mentioned and commented on the contributions of our beloved Paul Manata in the area of Reformed philosophy. If Steve could mention Gerety, Shannon and Cheung, why not all the more Manata?ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79897397919922954722014-04-29T12:54:33.492-04:002014-04-29T12:54:33.492-04:00@Gene Callahan
"No, when someone starts out ...@Gene Callahan<br /><br />"No, when someone starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker they are 'critiquing,' a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response."<br /><br />By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to devote an entire post on the topic. <br /><br />Also, you're ignoring the context in which Steve made the remark. In a sense this means you've barely read what Steve wrote, yet you're "critiquing" him. Ironic.<br /><br />"Feser did not claim he has NEVER done any popularization! But 'Steve' says he is 'basically a popularizer.'"<br /><br />That's likewise not what Steve (or I) claimed. So how's your point releveant?<br /><br />"http://www.edwardfeser.com/articles.html"<br /><br />I mentioned Feser's two books because Feser himself provided the very link to his own two books in his post ostensibly so others could evaluate his scholarship.<br /><br />"And as for the quotes around 'Steve,' well, serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?"<br /><br />No, not always. There are plenty of "serious writers" who don't "generally use their entire name." For example, many "serious writers" use pseudonyms or pen names. Take C.S. Lewis when he first published his book <em>A Grief Observed</em>. The original publication said it was authored by N.W. Clerk. Anyway, you're entirely wrong here.<br /><br />Besides, why should they?<br /><br />For the record, Steve has stated his "entire name" on this weblog. Regular readers of Triablogue know this quite well. But I guess you've only "barely read" Steve and his work on Triablogue but decided to comment. Maybe "a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response"?rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38480759570557818652014-04-29T12:46:03.464-04:002014-04-29T12:46:03.464-04:00No, when someone starts out admitting they've ...<i>No, when someone starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker they are "critiquing," a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response.</i><br /><br />One does not need to read everything or even most of what a thinker believes if the subject of critique is narrow and so only requires a small sampling. That is why my question was what, exactly, Steve misrepresented in Feser and Thomism. If neither you nor Ismael wish to answer that (because, perhaps you are already dismissive and suspicious of Steve and think he deserves only to be marginalized), fine, but that is hardly helpful to people (like me) who are interested in trying to evaluate the discussion on its merits, rather than view it as an opportunity for partisans to score zingers to defend their preferred author/writer/rockstar/hero.<br /><br /><i>But "Steve" says he is "basically a popularizer."<br /><br />Um, no:</i><br /><br />You can be published in many serious journals and still be something of a popularizer. My grandfather was that sort of scholar.<br /><br /><i>And as for the quotes around "Steve," well, serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?</i><br /><br />Steve's full name appears on most (all?) of his more formal publications. I'm not really aware how someone's blogger ID is representative of the quality of their work; that is the intellectual equivalent of mocking a philosopher for the size of his nose. It strikes me as partisan rather than principled or "serious." Fesser, and you, distract from serious charges (misrepresentation) by putting Steve's name in quotes. Perhaps now we can get to substantive issues rather than superficial ones?Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784922935749497931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55058177446961147632014-04-29T12:17:23.260-04:002014-04-29T12:17:23.260-04:00@rockingwithhawking:
"Hm, why isn't a fa...@rockingwithhawking:<br /><br />"Hm, why isn't a fair chunk of your academic work reasonably categorized as popularization?"<br /><br />Feser did not claim he has NEVER done any popularization! But "Steve" says he is "basically a popularizer."<br /><br />Um, no:<br /><br />http://www.edwardfeser.com/articles.html<br /><br />And as for the quotes around "Steve," well, serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55675561085054002482014-04-29T12:10:41.944-04:002014-04-29T12:10:41.944-04:00@Matthew Schultz: "That would be more helpful...@Matthew Schultz: "That would be more helpful than a dismissive, sarcastic one-liner."<br /><br />No, when someone starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker they are "critiquing," a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54677452761576297322014-04-29T11:50:47.989-04:002014-04-29T11:50:47.989-04:00For what it's worth, I've written a few co...For what it's worth, I've written a few comments over on Feser's post which I'll post here as well:<br /><br />As a side note, I don't read that Steve is "awfully perturbed" in his post. Rather, it seems like a matter of fact post to me. So I think you're imputing a state of mind or the like to his post which simply isn't there. If this is the case, then perhaps it tells us more about how you were affected by his post than his own state of mind? Just a thought.<br /><br />-<br /><br />Hm, why isn't a fair chunk of your academic work reasonably categorized as popularization? For example, your book <i>Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction</i> is an introduction to the topic without breaking significant new ground, no? Likewise, you've contributed two papers to your book <i>Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics</i>. The first is an introductory article which offers a lay of the land, whereas the second is on "Motion in Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein," but, for starters, it seems there's more historical survey and overview and less critical analysis. In addition, hasn't similar stuff already been said and done by other scholars?<br /><br />That said, popularization needn't have a negative connotation in case that's what you might think. It's a necessary good in society. <br /><br />And not sure what's up with the scare quotes around "Steve"?<br /><br />-<br /><br />As I read his post, I don't think Steve is suggesting you're "corrupting the Calvinist youth." I think his post is saying it's better to go to other philosophers rather than yourself for the reasons stated in his post. Saying there are better role models besides yourself for young Reformed philosophers isn't tantamount to saying you're "corrupting the Calivinist youth." <br /><br />Plus, Steve does state your work is quite useful for young, philosophically-minded Calvinists. That's a good thing.<br /><br />As such, your spin on his post isn't a fair characterization. And if the anonymous commenter who states "Using profanity is far less serious than intellectual dishonesty (e.g., willful misrepresentation of someone's philosophical outlook)" is correct, then that's something to keep in mind as well.<br /><br />-<br /><br />"Hmm, I'm betting rockingwithhawking = Steve."<br /><br />Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not Steve. Although if I were it'd certainly be an improvement over who I am!rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29542579701139635972014-04-29T11:31:44.916-04:002014-04-29T11:31:44.916-04:00Where did Steve misrepresent Feser and Thomism? T...Where did Steve misrepresent Feser and Thomism? That would be more helpful than a dismissive, sarcastic one-liner.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784922935749497931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53921340419311602452014-04-29T10:50:03.540-04:002014-04-29T10:50:03.540-04:00Maybe you should read Feser's criticism f your...Maybe you should read Feser's criticism f your "criticism":<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2014/04/corrupting-calvinist-youth.html#more<br /><br />Next time you might want to read what actually Feser writes and what Thomism actually says, by the way.Ismaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09192266454479639329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18650143379927421202014-04-28T20:54:15.254-04:002014-04-28T20:54:15.254-04:00Steve,
Are you familiar with the thought of Surre...Steve, <br />Are you familiar with the thought of Surrendra Gangadean and Owen Anderson? I've been looking for good critical interaction with their work. Anderson's work has been highlighted at the EPS blog. They seem to garner a certain kind of Reformed follower but I've seen little critique.Richard Klaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04355169960122137791noreply@blogger.com