tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post956086613739418307..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Helping Feser thinkRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12441371809866916112014-05-01T11:42:32.481-04:002014-05-01T11:42:32.481-04:00i) To begin with, my post consisted more in raisin...i) To begin with, my post consisted more in raising questions than offering definitive answers.<br /><br />ii) There's also the issue of how much you have to read to figure out a writer's philosophical/theological orientation. For instance, I've read his book on The Last Superstition, in addition to some of his blog posts.<br /><br />Likewise, even if I hadn't read anything by him, I could still learn a lot about his position (e.g. Thomism v. ID theory) by reading responses to him at Uncommon Descent, where contributors quote him, then reply. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11621145674647126692014-04-30T17:51:10.570-04:002014-04-30T17:51:10.570-04:00I believe I need to learn how to write before thin...I believe I need to learn how to write before thinking. I know your what your aim was originally at, and I should of made that clearer. What I still don't get is how you can at length criticize Dr. Feser when your opening statement say's : <br /><br />I'm going to discuss growing pains in Reformed philosophy, using Ed Feser to segue into that larger issue. I'll admit at the outset that commenting on Feser poses something of a dilemma for me. 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. For that reason, I'm not a regular reader of Feser's blog. He's a doctrinaire Thomist who seems to recast every issue in terms of Thomism. I quickly lose interest. I don't share his enthusiasm for Thomist epistemology or metaphysics. I guess that makes me a Doubting Thomist. <br />But I admit this may mean I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion of Feser. With that disclaimer in mind:<br /><br />Please tell me then how can you use Dr, Feser as an example if your not well informed of his work? How can judge someones work when you don't know it? You went to say "That said, from what I can tell (based on my admittedly cursory sampling)". Go ahead and condescend me, but the question remains. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107098298273128164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47483646415379079342014-04-30T15:22:37.574-04:002014-04-30T15:22:37.574-04:00Jacob Steiner
"Instead of judging there argu...Jacob Steiner<br /><br />"Instead of judging there arguments by the standard which is showing ambiguous terms, false premises, or logical fallacies."<br /><br />Since the stated aim of my post was not to disprove Feser in particular, or Thomism in general, or adjudicate the correct interpretation of Aquinas, I don't have that burden of proof. You need to learn how to think. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34664650262109792612014-04-30T12:24:13.124-04:002014-04-30T12:24:13.124-04:00@Ismael
"Than you will be successfull no dou...@Ismael<br /><br />"Than you will be successfull no doubt!"<br /><br />Evidently many elementary school kids would be successful against you in using basic English. But let me try to help you out <a href="http://grammarist.com/usage/than-then" rel="nofollow">here</a>.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73523954841927307232014-04-30T11:39:52.973-04:002014-04-30T11:39:52.973-04:00Than you will be successfull no doubt!Than you will be successfull no doubt!Ismaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09192266454479639329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83572801006337667032014-04-30T10:57:16.219-04:002014-04-30T10:57:16.219-04:00Popularizer? For you that's what Dr. Kreeft an...Popularizer? For you that's what Dr. Kreeft and Dr. Feser (Dr. Steve Long, Mortimer Adler, Ralph McInerny, Brian Davies, G.K. Chesterton, Fr. Walter Farrel, Fr. Lagrange,etc) have done and will continue to do. Instead of judging there arguments by the standard which is showing ambiguous terms, false premises, or logical fallacies. <br /><br />Your right just watching Youtube videos is hardly "scholarly", but if you read his books, articles, and blogs (which you say you haven't) you can conclude he is legit Thomist because in his videos he basically restates what he says in his works. The videos are adding to the current work, but then again you admit in your post "Doubting Thomist" But I admit this may mean I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion of Feser." If you say your not informed enough to make an informed point, then how can you make one then. How can yo go on at length and criticize a persons work which you said you haven't really read or looked into. That's a contradiction. You say your not informed, but then you attempt to give informed objection. How? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107098298273128164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61922655455974502352014-04-30T03:58:42.806-04:002014-04-30T03:58:42.806-04:00I doubt Garrigou-Lagrange read deeply in the writi...<i> I doubt Garrigou-Lagrange read deeply in the writings of those two communions. Yet, I don't think we should have denied him the right to criticize those two theological camps.</i><br /><br />As long as no one cries when criticism is leveled against him for not having read sufficiently. ;-)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47172409212751726652014-04-30T03:09:40.275-04:002014-04-30T03:09:40.275-04:00Bears out Mark Twain's adage that "With i...Bears out Mark Twain's adage that "With ignorance and arrogance, success is assured."stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42655252160839289232014-04-30T02:25:58.341-04:002014-04-30T02:25:58.341-04:00Asking Kreeft would be a case of one popularizer t...Asking Kreeft would be a case of one popularizer touting another popularizer. Youtube videos are hardly the most scholarly way of analyzing Thomism. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47008902718298972662014-04-29T20:30:54.851-04:002014-04-29T20:30:54.851-04:00Feser doesn't come across as being humble.Feser doesn't come across as being humble. CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9529878112383903012014-04-29T20:24:08.741-04:002014-04-29T20:24:08.741-04:00" BTW, he's rather conceited to act as if..." BTW, he's rather conceited to act as if, unless you've read his arguments for Thomism, you're not qualified to judge the merits of Thomism. What if you've formed your opinion of Thomism based on other Thomists who are frankly far more eminent in the field than "Ed"?" <br /><br />What if you've e-mail Dr. Steve Long or Dr. Kreeft and ask them if Dr. Feser's knowledge of Thomism is up to your standard. Or maybe read his books or articles and other blogs, and see if his workmeasures up to your standard. Maybe watch videos on Youtube at colleges like Franciscan University of Steubinville or at Gonzaga or at St. Thomas Aquinas college. Your can see if his video on the Unmoved mover argument is up to the standard. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107098298273128164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71953061203788989692014-04-29T19:06:47.751-04:002014-04-29T19:06:47.751-04:00I wrote:
I suspect Steve has read more Thomistic ...I wrote:<br /><br /><i>I suspect Steve has read more Thomistic literature than many Thomists have read Calvinistic literature.</i><br /><br />A cursory or limited reading of an author or theological camp shouldn't disqualify someone from making criticisms. Especially, if one makes the qualifications and caveats Steve made.<br /><br />For example, (Thomist) Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's book on Predestination doesn't seem to have a good grasp of Lutheran or Calvinistic theology. I doubt Garrigou-Lagrange read deeply in the writings of those two communions. Yet, I don't think we should have denied him the right to criticize those two theological camps.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77892099590365241792014-04-29T18:35:52.179-04:002014-04-29T18:35:52.179-04:00Most, if not all, of the criticisms of Steve at Fe...Most, if not all, of the criticisms of Steve at Feser's blog overlooks (or forgets) the fact that Steve made clear his purpose for the original blog. From the very first sentence:<br /><br /><i><b>I'm going to discuss growing pains in Reformed philosophy, using Ed Feser to segue into that larger issue.</b></i><br /><br />In keeping with that stated goal, the second half of the blog was about what's going on presently in the Reformed camp. And that's why he addresses Clarkians/Clarkianism, Scripturalism, Van Tillians/Van Tillianism etc.<br /><br />If Steve was doing a "drive-by blogging" (as Feser terms it) of Feser's views, then Steve was also doing a "drive-by blogging" of his own Reformed camp since he doesn't hesitate to admit and critique the deficiencies among his fellow Calvinists.<br /><br />While the blog is public, it's main target audience seems to be those folks who do subscribe to Reformed theology. Many of the critics of Steve don't seem to get that the post wasn't written primarily for them (i.e. non-Calvinists). It would be analogous to a Pope issuing an encyclical letter addressing his fellow Catholics and then Protestants later complaining that the document is partisan and doesn't address the finer points of Protestant theology. You'd expect it to be partisan and to focus on what's beneficial or harmful to those within the group without going into to much detail regarding those outside the group. <br /><br />Moreover, Steve was up front about his cursory reading of Feser, and so he wrote "...I admit this may mean I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion of Feser."<br /><br />I suspect Steve has read more Thomistic literature than many Thomists have read Calvinistic literature. Steve is right when he points out (in many of his blogs and hints at in the post critiquing Feser) that as finite creatures we have limited time in order to read the vast literature on any subject. And that's why we've got to be selective and strategic in our reading program/diet in order to be good stewards of our time and talents.<br /><br />Steve wrote in Doubting Thomist:<br /><br /><i>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. </i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com