Tuesday, December 31, 2024

The thread you’ve been waiting for

Let’s close out 2024 and begin 2025 with a long overdue open thread.  Now’s your chance to get that otherwise off-topic comment posted at last.  From plate tectonics to Hooked on Phonics, from substance abuse to substance dualism, from Thomism to Tom Tom Club, everything is on-topic.  Trolls still not welcome, though, so keep it sane and civil.

Previous open threads archived here.

Posted by at

195 comments:

  1. NormDecember 31, 2024 at 12:51 PM

    Happy New Year Prof!
    May this year be full of opportunities to share the good news and the light of truth.

    Speaking of opportunities, This year was the most I heard you speak about offering up our suffering for the sake of Christ, you also shared a video of Eleonore Stump commenting on the same and in your interview with Matt Fradd as well.

    I was wondering if you think the opportunity to imitate Christ itself is a greater good that God derives from the suffering of every cognitively able adult even if they don't use that opportunity? Is the opportunity itself a greater good ?

    Anyone else can also answer.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 6:09 PM

      Dr. Stump has a great website

      Delete
    2. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:32 AM

      Hey Anon

      I know, it's just that I tend to trust Dr Feser more on these matters.

      So I'd like to hear his take on the matter.

      Dr Feser is someone who also often engages with the question of suffering.

      I respect Dr Stump but just as a matter of Thomist Orthodoxy , I prefer to get Dr Feser's take on whether he considers the opportunity to imitate Christ itself as a greater good that God has derived from our suffering even if one doesn't use it.

      My sense is that he does take that to be the case because I remember reading Dr Feser on original sin and he mentions that our first parents are worse of for not having the opportunity that God has given them which suggests that the opportunities themselves are goods.

      Would I be right there Prof ?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:03 PM

      Norm, the Prof doesn't engage with his readers as he did back in the day. Times have changed.

      Delete
    4. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:36 PM

      the Prof doesn't engage with his readers as he did back in the day.

      It's true that interaction here has dropped off, though I have tried to do a little more of it recently. I never really interacted much on open threads, specifically, though, because there are so many topics raised and there's no way I can comment on them all. For that reason, in open threads I've tended not to comment at all.

      Delete
    5. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:39 PM

      Hi Norm, I would say that that is among the greater goods -- particularly where suffering is accepted for the sake of others, since that is especially Christ-like.

      Delete
    6. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:07 PM

      Hey Prof, Happy New Year !
      Thanks for the response

      Oh that's interesting. In what mode is an "opportunity" a good though ? Is it a kind of potency ?

      It does provide a good answer to the question of those who might have faced unjust suffering (in childhood when they were without mortal sin) but eventually ended up damned.

      People might say that their unjust suffering was never compensated but if one were to consider opportunities as greater goods, one could say that their suffering brought for them a great opportunity for a particularly intimate union with Christ, a greater good which they ultimately squandered.

      But it all depends on if an unused "opportunity" in and of itself can be considered to be a good ?

      Since I have you Prof,Could you just clarify the way in which an opportunity might be taken as a good ?

      Delete
    7. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:24 PM

      Anon

      I usually comment in hopes that Prof sees it and somewhere down the line consciously or unconsciously addresses it, it helps if other people are curious as well.

      Prof gets thousands of questions but I have realised that as long as I can be substantive there's a good chance that others will also find it of interest and a chance of it being addressed.

      I always try to elevate the conversation and keep it classy.

      I was particularly heartened to see Dr Janet Smith praise the conversation in this combox, especially in an election year.

      So even in the understandable absence of Prof's response we can still be a model for rational discourse.

      I am formed within Indian culture where we have a special reverence for teachers. In contrast to a world where knowledge and education are treated as goods that one is simply entitled to, we consider it a privilege to be a formed at the hands of a master, this is part of the reason I often do directly address Prof, when you address the teacher, naturally one's question also tends to be substantive, since you want to be worthy of a response.

      Anyways Thanks again Prof, for all that you do!

      Delete
    8. NormJanuary 4, 2025 at 12:09 PM

      Anyone else can also answer as to whether an opportunity or the potency to imitate Christ in his suffering is itself is a greater good even if left unactualised. Although I'd appreciate a response from Prof.

      Delete
    9. NormJanuary 5, 2025 at 11:18 PM

      I just want to confirm if the potency to imitate Christ is itself a greater good that is derived from our suffering even if this potency remains unactualised.

      Delete
    10. NormJanuary 8, 2025 at 2:54 AM

      "If you considered only what happened in this life to, say, the Christian martyrs, you might think they lived among the most unfortunate of lives. But if instead you consider the reward this gained them in Heaven, they would have to be judged as having the most fortunate of lives."

      This was Prof in a response to Sterba.

      Although what if someone who at one point unjustly suffered deeply and admirably for Christ but goes on to commit a mortal sin and become reprobate. What was the greater good that was drawn individually from their suffering in this instance for we can definitely say that whatever that Greater Good might be they will definitely not receive it in the next life since they are reprobate.

      Now one can take my preferred option , that is to say that the sufferings that God permits to happen us need not be for the suffering person's own benefit but instead for the benefit of the transcendent common good which is something that can definitely achieved in the next life.

      If someone somehow feels that the suffering person himself has to have had some greater good bestowed upon him on account of his suffering.

      The only way to do this seems to be to posit unused opportunities of the kind mentioned above.

      Delete
    11. NormJanuary 8, 2025 at 3:00 AM

      Pope John Paul II also seems to think that the unused opportunity itself is a greater good that has been derived from the suffering even if not actualised.

      In Salvici Doris he writes

      "Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ."

      Delete
    12. NormJanuary 8, 2025 at 10:46 AM

      I think I can now finally settle on the question if the unused opportunity itself is a kind of greater good as Aquinas writes

      "Merit, however, can be taken broadly in the sense in which any disposition that confers a fitness to receive something is said to merit it; for example, if we should say that by reason of her beauty a woman merits marriage to a king. In this sense even bodily passions are said to merit inasmuch as those passions make us in some sense fit to receive some glory."

      Aquinas talks of the disposition itself as a good that confers a fitness.

      Delete
    13. TonyJanuary 9, 2025 at 3:52 PM

      Norm, I would suggest, as a cautionary element to your line of thought, that the "opportunity to imitate Christ" carries within its very nature the presupposition of the Son of God taking on human nature in the Incarnation and then suffering in His earthly life. The Apostles and Fathers who speak on this all say "He became man to save us," from our damnation and our sins. So, (a) without sin entering the world, they simply don't speak to Christ becoming incarnate, and then (b) it is impossible to say to what extent the "imitate Christ" even COULD BE a good separate from the ecology of salvation from sin.

      I think it is right to argue that "being able to love God freely, and implicitly being able to repudiate love by sin" is a kind of being that is greater being than that of the animals, plants, and minerals who cannot choose to love. That kind of being is, per se, a goodness, apart from which act the person chooses: you don't fail to be good in the sense of "being human" even when you sin, even though you fail to live up to the higher dignity of ACTUAL love of God when you sin.

      But apart from the sin of our First Parents (and our later sins added thereto), it is not clearly possible that "imitate Christ" would mean something as a distinct category of good, insofar as He came to redeem us from sin, and given sin from which we need redemption, imitating Christ in accepting suffering is in some sense always directed (either distinctly or generally) toward repair for sin.

      It is possible to argue that because the world that contains humans with free wills is a greater universe than one that contains no free will, the universe with humans is a better creation than one without humans even if those humans sin and there is never any redemption from sin. But because we only know of one universe, it does in fact contain humans, sin AND the Redemption, we cannot confidently speak to whether God would have ever permitted a universe with humans, sin, and no redemption. We have no revelation that addresses any such "would be" as to whether it is possible or not.

      Delete
    14. NormJanuary 9, 2025 at 9:56 PM

      Hi Tony

      Interesting Points.

      To be honest, I was just interested in whether opportunities themselves can be considered to be greater goods that God has derived from our suffering even if left unused.

      This opportunity need not strictly be the opportunity to imitate Christ.

      It would be enough to say for example that someone who has suffered the most terrible and worst earthly sufferings (prior to any mortal sin ) but eventually ends up damned had an opportunity to acquire a greater good in heaven on account of that suffering and this opportunity itself was a greater good.

      In that way it seems to me it's possible to preserve the greater good that arises from the suffering specifically for the individual.

      Another way that just occurred to me is that any suffering one faced in life even prior to mortal sin could be used as an opportunity to pay off or reduce the purgatorial debt the least suffering of which far exceeds the worst sufferings of this life. Assuming that all people besides Our Lady and Christ himself are prone to venial sin at the very least, And Aquinas says that venial sin can't practically be avoided in this life, it follows that all human beings apart from the above exceptions of Our Lady and Our Lord will face time in purgatory, so every earthly suffering of someone who goes on to become an adult becomes an opportunity to avoid or reduce that purgatorial suffering which is a greater good.

      But it depends on whether opportunities themselves are goods.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 1:39 PM

    Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 1:46 PM

    Is it good that the philosophy departments in some countries are totally dominated by analytical philosophy? I studied philosophy in Sweden and it was interesting in the beginning when I learned about Platon and Aristotle, but the focus was on the analytical philosophy after year 1900: Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein… It just became more and more boring. And that is sad, because philosophy should be interesting and it should be about questions that people really care about. Surely continental philosophy could be criticized, but I think that a true philosopher should know something about the famous continental philosophers and not only be totally focused on analytical philosophy. Of course, I prefer scholastic thinkers like Aquinas, but the only thing we learned about him in the university was his five proofs, and the teacher spent very little time on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NLRJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:20 AM

      I think a big part of it is that the nature of analytic philosophy makes it easier to do research in philosophy, i.e., publish articles.

      But unfortunately, philosophy is one of subjects that is least capable of being professionalized. You can be a professional teacher of philosophy (whether at a university or a seminary), but real philosophy can't just be produced on command. If people try to do that then the subject ends up getting sidetracked.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:12 PM

      As Etienne Gilson put it: the philosopher take about things, while the professor of philosophy take about philosophy.

      Delete
  4. ficino4mlDecember 31, 2024 at 2:01 PM

    In a colloquium several years ago, Lindsay Judson said that prime matter is not a bona fide Aristotelian concept because it is never found anywhere. I asked him, what persists through a change of air, say, into water, or into fire, so that we can say that something comes is generated "out of" air? If nothing persists, then we merely have a succession of primary elements but not generation "out of." Judson said that what persists is not prime matter but "the extension," i.e. the space that was occupied by the air and is now occupied by fire or water. With a laugh he added that he was nervous about what David Charles might have said had Charles been present.

    Any views on this? I am not asking whether Aquinas has a doctrine of prime matter but whether any participant in Prof's blog has a robust answer from Aristotle (Zeta or wherever).

    Happy new year!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NLRJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:07 AM

      Here's two articles that discuss this: "Aristotle without the Prima Materia", making a similar argument that it's not actually found in Aristotle (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2707550)

      And here's a response, "Prime Matter in Aristotle" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181937)

      I've only read the first one, but those might be a starting point. You can't download articles on JSTOR with a free account, but if you make one you can read up to 100 articles per month online.

      Delete
    2. ficino4mlJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:47 AM

      @NLR: thanks for the references. I do have JSTOR, actually, so I shall check these out. I also found Lindsay Judson's recent published version of what he presented in the colloquium. It will take me a while to assimilate these, though!

      Delete
    3. ficino4mlJanuary 5, 2025 at 6:40 AM

      @NLR: so far I think it makes more sense to hold the traditional notion of prime matter than to say that what underlies substantial change at the bottom level, e.g. water to air, is "the extension." I don't see how a space-time location can be a ὑποκείμενον in Aristotle.

      Ari makes it tricky, though, when he gives fire as an example of πρώτη ὕλη (materia prima) in a given context at Met. 1049a27.

      Delete
    4. ficino4mlJanuary 8, 2025 at 4:16 AM

      I suppose it may be from Met. Z.3 that Lindsay Judson got the idea that "the extension" is what underlies substantial change at the level of the four elements: "But when length and breadth and depth are taken away we see nothing left except that which is bounded by these, whatever it be," 1029a16-18.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousDecember 31, 2024 at 2:05 PM

    Hello Dr. Feser,

    I noticed in Aristotle’s Revenge an excellent bibliography with many scientific books of various difficulty levels for lay people. Any you would recommend for getting up to speed on physics or biology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:55 PM

      There's so much stuff out there that it's hard to single out one or two things. But as a general recommendation for the philosophy-minded reader, works that are written by philosophers who are also very conversant with the relevant scientific ideas are worth checking out. For example, Bertrand Russell and Michael Lockwood wrote useful general books on relativity, and several more recent philosophers of physics and philosophers of biology (of the kind whose work I've discussed in places like AR) have written useful works discussing various specific topics within those sciences.

      Delete
  6. Vini TadeoDecember 31, 2024 at 3:25 PM

    Happy new year, Ed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:09 PM

      Years ago, someone with the name Tadeo said on this blog that they had OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. If that was you. Tadeo, I have prayed for you (as well as for others) every day.

      Delete
    2. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:40 PM

      To you too, Vini (and to everyone else!)

      And Anon, I am certain that is much appreciated.

      Delete
    3. Vini TadeoJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:20 PM

      Hey Anon and Ed!

      Wow, what a wonderful surprise, Anon. It's me indeed. I suffer from OCD, but my OCD is not the typical handwashing/turn the light on and off kind of behavior but more of a 'thinking' kind. So, it's tough to stay out of my head, in the sense of not being overserved by my repetitive, trouble-fabricating thoughts.

      One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how beautiful the community Ed constructed in his wonderful blog is. The world is a dark place and it is very hard to find people who care about each other, pray for others in pain, and practice piety, love, and compassion. I may be young and very inexperienced about life, but one thing I do know more certain than anything else is that people who practice these virtues I've described are a gift to this world (and, in fact, can only learn and practice such virtues and goods from the Summum Bonum Himself by following wholeheartedly His Will!). So, people like you, Anon, are a gift to this world. Thank you so much for your prayers.

      Also, I don't know what surprises me more: the fact that that's been long ago and you still remember my name, or, the fact that you do bear the pain of others and feel compassion and pray for them in the way I described above.

      One other thing that I must also say is how blessed I've been by God. Even though I do suffer a lot from this disease, somehow God touches the hearts of others and extracts a greater good out of it. And, this fact kindly reminds me of how much I owe to Ed. The patience, the teachings, the advice and so much time and effort he invested not only in helping me personally but other countless readers through his vast amount of blog posts, books, articles, and much more.

      People nowadays are easy to forget about how much one has to sacrifice and dedicate to write such an abundant and meaningful amount of work (especially in this gifted, crystalline, and unique way that Ed does). In one of his books, which I think was Aristotle's Revenge, Ed used an apt expression that pretty much describes the intellectual work better than any other expression: chained to the desk.

      So, in the same way, I am very grateful for the time Ed spends chained to his desk I am grateful to you, Anon, for sacrificing your time praying for me. In both cases, it is undeniable that such actions and efforts can only come to fruition when men like you and Ed humbly transform your own wills to serve the will of the Father (either by loving one neighbor or through unraveling the 'hidden treasure' -- to use once again an apt expression highlighted by Ed on his recent talk with Matt Frad-- of perennial philosophy and Classical Theism).

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 2:06 AM

      Hey Vini, you've compelled me to comment for the first time. I also have OCD of the more "mental kind", though I do have various physical compulsions like checking locks excessively. I was diagnosed after rigorous testing and have been battling it for over a decade. If you havent looked into it, cognitive behavioral therapy will change your life. Not talk therapy or any of that other borderline pseudoscience, but cognitive behavioral therapy. Get a book for starters.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 12:50 PM

      Thanks for your thanks, Tadeo. And yours, Ed. I was told by a psychiatrist that I have an obsessive personality, but not OCD. I also have generalized anxiety. Like you, I tend to ruminate a lot and have repetitive thoughts. For OCD, the SSRI anti-depressants like Prozac or Lexapro can help some people. And yes, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy can also help. I have found that 300 to 400 mg of Magnesium (Nature Made found at Walmart) seems to relieve my anxiety. Also, hard physical exercise, running or fast walking, preferably outdoors, is beneficial.

      I pray for many people because it's what Christians are called to do, even though I am not a staunch Christian. St. Dymphna is the patron saint of those with mental affhttps://natlshrinestdymphna.org/site/lictions. Ask for her intercession.


      Yes, this is a supportive community...most of the time. I wish you well.

      Delete
    6. Vini TadeoJanuary 2, 2025 at 1:36 PM

      Hey again, Anon!

      Oh man, I'm really sorry to hear about that. A decade is a really long battle. And I know your pain. In fact, I want to share with you a little bit of my story with you.

      My OCD came to be known through my 14's but it subdued and became mostly unnoticed till my 20-21's. I'm 26 right now.

      My OCD became sparked and buzzing like crazy for philosophical reasons (which is a lot to explain, but I will spare you the details). For almost 2 to 3 years my life simply just stopped. The end of 2019 was like a real hell. There were a lot of times that I couldn't gather the strength to get out of bed due to how depressed I was. The mental pain was so distinct from any other I ever suffered that, even if I'm not in mental pain right now, I can remember exactly how it was in my worst phases.

      OCD feels like the literal hell in the classical Catholic sense because your mind wanders through the same old thoughts (and so the same pre-packaged pain, bad feelings, chest pain, headache, hand shakings) and you don't learn anything through the experience. It's like an infinite unbreakable cycle of pain and torment.

      My mind feels like there is a living sophist/relativist in there. I think OCD could be simply called 'the sophist disease' because it doesn't even matter how solid this or that judgment is my mind will simply trigger the feeling that "something is wrong." It is actually the opposite of myself and how I see myself. I never was a relativist or something like that throughout my youth. But somehow this disease floods my mind with things that, deep down inside, I know aren't true -- and in fact, I don't even believe it at all.

      When I reflect upon my life and ask myself how this came to be the way it is a lot of it breaks down to very bad thinking patterns (learn through the school system) and the large amount of ideologically motivated dogmas that our particular time takes for granted. For example, out of high school, you either end up being a commie, or an empiricist and naturalist who treats 'science' like a kind of unquestionable religion. The university ends up finishing the job and sharpens you up to be a cynical, a better sophist, or even a good pretender. And you don't realize how much these ideas have consequences and change you subtly till it's too late. The bad pattern of reasoning (the knee-jerking, irreflexive, and even the pride), the unreflected ideas... a lot of this is stuck in our psyche and is a pain in the arse to get rid of.

      In my case, I think that's exactly what happened. I graduated in law. Just like psychology and other 'pop' areas, law is the major field where people take metaphysical ideas for granted without even knowing their meaning -- but can't help themselves but philosophize about every single thing, like they're a PhD in every single aspect of reality. Materialism, relativism, and reductionism all play a major role in underlying a lot of laws, doctrines, thinkers, and stuff that we do. So, in a sense, I had everything to turn my mind in this disaster it is.

      (I think that's a lot of text already, I will continue below)

      Delete
    7. Vini TadeoJanuary 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM

      (continuing)

      To explain exactly how all of this fits with my situation is very hard to express through the comment section but I can firmly say that a little bit of everything I expressed above played a major role.

      And, Anon, I am really glad that you mentioned about CBT. Ed also gave me advice and recommended this approach and how effective it is.

      Unfortunately, I don't know if that's a regional kind of phenomenon, but it's very hard to find a good professional with this approach where I live (I'm Brazilian, by the way). Recently I found a guy who works with CBT (after some very troubling appointments with some oddballs), but, even though he's a nice guy it feels like the sessions/treatment is not going anywhere (paradoxically, Ed himself, which is professional philosopher gave effective advice better than the 'professional psychologists' I've met).

      In short, I don't know if it's the lack of good professionals that we have here but it's very hard to find good help. So, if you could share some names or even recommend some books that I may find across the web to buy, I would be very glad!

      PS: I have a bad feeling that some of my countrymen may say that I'm being an 'Americanist' in this comment section, but I will live with the consequences of what I wrote!

      Delete
    8. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 8:08 PM

      Tadeo is offered in Brazil. Google "cognitive behavioral therapy Brazil. "
      Also Google " transcranial mental stimulation Brazil."It's used to treat OCD and other psychological disorders.
      I speak some Spanish but no Portugese. "Que lata."

      Delete
    9. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 8:22 PM

      Dr.Feser
      Thank you for taking time from your very busy schedule to engage with your readers. That's why you have the best philosophy blog on the Internet, and why your books are all best sellers.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 2:32 AM

      I guess since I'm anonymous I should clarify that I am the fellow "decade long" sufferer.

      Interesting what you've written, particularly about OCD being a sophist-like. Paraphrasing what you said, it doesn't matter how strong the evidence is, you'll doubt the conclusion. Complete certainty is a hallmark of OCD. I too have recognized some philosophical parallels. Adopting certain metaphysics shouldn't impact treatment, but I do think dualism or at least a non-reductionist/materialist theory gels better with mental disease, particularly OCD. Therapists are tough to come by. Try a book. Happy to recommend if you're sincerely interested.

      Delete
    11. NormJanuary 3, 2025 at 10:48 AM

      Dr Feser indeed does have the best philosophy blog!
      I always wonder about the chain of events that led me to it, the memories seem rather fuzzy. But I am glad it happened either way.

      Delete
    12. MJRJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM

      Norm, That was providential that you were led to this blog.

      Delete
    13. Tadeo (the original)January 4, 2025 at 2:46 PM

      Hi, anon.

      I was browsing the website idly, and noticed you were speaking about the "original" Tadeo.

      I'm here, lurking around. I used this nickname once, since having OCD is often shunned - I mean, questions and fears run the mind, but they're not "honest" like it's done by a philosopher or a "true" truth seeker.

      OCD obsessional thoughts are, well, obsession. I've slowly started to feel more at ease, to lock these OCD panics and attacks into manageable bits. And the periods between are getting more and more separated.

      To be honest, I'm turning 36 in a few months. My OCD is due to a comorbidity from another genetical disease, which is a motor disease - the infamous DY-T11 myoclonus dystonia.

      I'm getting Deep Brain Stimulation surgery by the end of the month (Jan 30th), which should help me live a normal life "motorly" speaking. The OCDs will most likely get "more manageable" as my self confidence will increase.

      I felt compelled to reply to your initial comment. Thanks for praying for me.

      And thanks Prof. Feser for giving philosophical arguments as weapons against OCD. For when you have OCDs, the ills of the world hit stronger.
      Thus, when you find a rational argument, the OCD cowers the obsession into a non rational fear, which you can easily ignore.

      Thanks for all, people, and God Bless you all.

      The "original" Tadeo, a French guy who's reading you.

      Delete
    14. Tadeo (the original)January 4, 2025 at 2:49 PM

      Just forgot : I spent a few days in rest in an abbey to take a break before such a big surgery.

      But heh, there was a priest there who was fantastic. As he said : "time doesn't matter, either God is and everything is accounted for; either God isn't and you can kill yourself on the spot. But God is."

      He had an amazing impact on me. Indeed, eternal life in Heaven =/= immortal life on Earth.

      I'll make a short post here once I'll be done with the surgery, promise. :)

      I'll pray for y'all in the meantime!

      Delete
    15. Vini TadeoJanuary 4, 2025 at 5:35 PM

      Hey Anon!

      Sorry for taking so long to answer back.

      I heard of Prozac (here it is called fluoxetina). I tried it some years back, but my blood pressure would rise and my head felt like (well that may sound like an odd comparison) when I was a kid and put my hair on the tube television in my grandma's house!

      Recently, my psychiatrist prescribed me the 'cousin', let's say, of fluoxetine so I'm taking paroxetine (in the US, you may know it by the name Paxil).

      Oh, and I must say that I was not acquainted with St. Dymphna and her story. Thank you for your elucidation about her! Here in Brazil, we pray for St. Antony of Padova, even though he is traditionally known as the patron of married couples. There is a very interesting history about him that goes back to Portugal. It is about a woman who was suffering mentally at the hands of evil but never lost her faith in St. Antony and kept asking him for intercession and help. After a long time, she had a dream where she was shown a powerful prayer -- that became one of the hallmark prayers associated with St. Antony.

      The prayer goes like this: "Ecce Crux Domini. Fugite partes adverse. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda Radix David. Alleluia. Alleluia." Even though originally (following the dream of the woman) the prayer used the expression "Crucem", the correct wording is, in fact, "Crux." The meaning of this prayer is something like this: This is the Cross of the Lord. Flee away/run away enemies. The Lion of the tribe of Judah won (in the sense of Jesus winning and triumphing against the powers of evil).

      PS: if you could have the opportunity to travel to the Vatican, you can find the prayer I've mentioned engraved on the obelisk at Saint Peter's Square :D

      Delete
    16. Vini TadeoJanuary 4, 2025 at 6:32 PM

      Btw, it's so heartwarming and beautiful to see Ed getting the love and respect he deserves!

      For some people, I know I may sound like a devoted fanboy, but the truth is that I have a profound amount of respect and appreciation for Ed and everything he has done (not only for me but for other innumerable amount of people too). In fact, behind the blog posts, there is a man with an enormous heart, intelligence and care for others -- especially care and respect for the Truth Itself.

      Ed has an incomprehensible capacity to make difficult philosophical matters comprehensible. Not only that but the large amount of different matters he engages in (e.g. issues related to the empirical sciences, religion, philosophy of nature, modern physics, and so much more) and transforms this content into something accessible and comprehensible to the common man.

      A lot of people say that Jordan Peterson is like an 'Internet father', in the sense that the matters he engages in and the importance of this matters for young men in their formations. Now, I would argue that Ed is more of an Internet father than JP. Ed may not be as present in the public debate and public appearances as Jordan, but I can confidently say that Ed moved more people closer to God than JP (me included). In another sense, while Peterson's move is to make young men grasp meaning in their lives, Ed's move is to make people (not only young men) closer to the Meaning of All Things, which is God Himself.

      I think Ed is the modern Ambrose to a generation of young Augustines and for that, I am very, very grateful for him and all his years of work. There is much, much more that I can say (and would love to say) but for now, I just want to express my love and gratitude for this man and all of his work in changing people's lives through philosophy.

      Thank you, Ed.

      Delete
  7. WeouroDecember 31, 2024 at 3:52 PM

    What is the deal with the CTMU of Chris Langan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CosmicCatDecember 31, 2024 at 5:36 PM

      Be careful. Every thinking type is "very smart".

      "Clothes are the enemy." - Satsuki Kiriyuin.

      Delete
  8. TonyDecember 31, 2024 at 7:19 PM

    In light of the solemnity we observe tomorrow, I would like to know if there are any reasonably reliable traditions in the Church for a couple of things about Mary, the Mother of God: (1) had she been dedicated to serve at the Temple as a child; and (2) did she make some kind of perpetual commitment to virginity, and if so, what was the practical expectation for her marriage with Joseph?

    I have heard suggestions that some of this (perhaps) is found in some non-canonical "gospels", like the gospel of Thomas or James or something. And I know that there are some claims from private revelation - including by people of high repute (Blessed or Venerable) about this stuff, but of relatively "recent" vintage (within the last few hundred years). What I am looking for especially is whether there is any early traditions cited by the Fathers toward this stuff. And where to find it.

    Along somewhat similar lines but slightly differently: what can we reasonably surmise that Mary (and her parents) told Joseph about why she was going off to visit her cousin Elizabeth, that gave him a good reason to be comfortable with his just-betrothed "wife" to go off for 3 months? (The gospel both refers to them as "betrothed" and as married - which strongly buttresses the historical position that at that time the marriage process was a 2-part process, one for the giving of vows, then later for the husband to receive his wife into his now-made-ready home.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MJRJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:21 PM

      Tony, Google " Brant Pitre perpetual virginity of Mary." He is a brilliant Catholic theologian.

      Delete
    2. JordanJanuary 2, 2025 at 12:54 PM

      Hi Tony,

      For the dedication to the temple and the vow of virginity, the earliest surviving written source of that tradition that I know of is the Protoevangelium of James that you mentioned. It was written and circulating in the second century, but we don't know the author. Your mileage may vary on whether you consider that a reliable source. Like a lot of literature from that time, there's likely a mixture of truth a legend, but without a great way of separating out which is which. St. Augustine concludes that Mary must have taken a vow of virginity because of her response to the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:34 (How can this be, since I do not know man?"). You can read that in his treatise Of Holy Virginity (https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.v.iii.v.html). I believe there are other Church Fathers who concluded likewise, but I don't have any other quotes handy for you. There is a ton on her perpetual virginity, but not as much specifically on the two points you mentioned.

      As far as the reason for visiting her cousin, I've always concluded from the text itself that Mary was going to help her during her pregnancy. Gabriel says Elizabeth is six-months pregnant. Mary hurries to see her and stays for three months, meaning until the birth of John.

      Peaceful days,

      Jordan

      Delete
    3. TonyJanuary 4, 2025 at 11:06 AM

      Jordan, thanks for that reference from Augustine. I hope there are other, and earlier, Fathers who also mention it. I also hope that they do not base their position solely on an inference: while there is nothing wrong with making such inferences, it is notoriously likely (in cases like this) to be at best a probable argument.

      As to the visitation to Elizabeth, I agree with you that the text gives Mary's reason for going. What I was wondering about is Mary's explanation to Joseph, e.g. explaining HOW SHE KNEW this news? Did she tell Joseph that she had a visit from an angel to tell her? If not, how else did the news arrive? If so, ... did she leave out the BIG part of the news the angel announced? And if so, why/how would she have done so? She would have had to craft her explanation with a lot of elisions in order to not indicate any part of the news that Mary herself and the conception of the Messiah was the primary purpose of the angel's visit. Would she have had a particular reason to craft an explanation to Joseph that avoided the business of the Incarnation event?

      Even if a typical now-pregnant new wife would be rather hesitant to broach the issue of "by the way, I am now pregnant, and obviously not by you" to her new husband right off the bat, Mary was not typical and would have understood perfectly well that eventually an explanation would need to be made. She would have an excellent understanding of the possibility that waiting until the pregnancy is obvious could create more problems than discussing it before that point, and without any concupiscence or clouding of the mind, she would have wanted to take the BEST COURSE about the matter, even if an emotionally troubling one for Joseph. Did she have a concrete reason to think "that explanation is not mine to make" or "not at this time"? What would be the foundation for thinking such?

      Delete
    4. bmillerJanuary 4, 2025 at 7:03 PM

      Tony,

      What indicates that Mary knew she was pregnant herself? Gabriel spoke of a future event at the Annunciation and Mary left immediately after that to visit Elizabeth, so may a trip of a week or less.

      She must have left immediately because
      Elizabeth was in her 6th month and Mary stayed for 3 months apparently till the birth of John. So her pregnancy must have been extremely recent when she arrived.

      If she didn't know she was pregnant she wouldn't have known to discuss it with Joseph.

      Delete
    5. JordanJanuary 5, 2025 at 2:26 PM

      Thanks for the clarification Tony. I don't see any reason to conclude that she hid the reason from him. She might simply have sent him a message and left. Obviously we don't actually know. Are you just curious or is there some larger significance to the question for you?

      Peaceful days,

      Jordan

      Delete
    6. TonyJanuary 5, 2025 at 8:27 PM

      bmiller, I grant that Mary might not have known it immediately, and so it might not have been a present fact when she discussed the trip with Joseph. Until just recently, I generally assumed that this was the case. I suggest that her not knowing when the conception was going to occur would only slightly attenuate the problem I outlined above. And even if she did not know she was pregnant, she did not know that she was not, and she had no specific reason to expect a delay.

      This Christmas, in meditating on the Joyful Mysteries more than ever, I became convinced that there is good reason to believe Mary knew it right away. Some of the saints point out that along with the singular grace of being conceived without sin, Gabriel's expression naming Mary as the singular one who is "Full of Grace" implies more, and in particular they indicate that she had a constant attendance of many and superlative actual graces, among them much infused knowledge. Part of the point of this infused knowledge would have been to enlighten her with those truths she needed (or as were specially fitting) for her distinctive role as Mother of God. And even aside from her infused knowledge, because she did not have the clouding of the mind that came with sin, she would have as perfect memory as a human can have, and she would have always been able to see more clearly than we can the vastly many interconnections in Scripture that God intended to help the Jews prepare for the Messiah. When you compare St. John the Baptist's leaping for joy when Mary enters, with King David's leaping for joy when the Ark of the Covenant returns to Israel (2 Samuel 6), it is clear that Mary is the new Ark of the New Covenant - and she would have recognized the connection. When Elizabeth recognizes Mary as the Mother of the divine Messiah (by a grace enlightening Elizabeth as to the specific cause of John's movement), it is unreasonable that Mary herself did not already know her condition as mother, I feel it unfitting for her to have discovered her condition because of Elizabeth's exclamation. It at most a week's walking from Nazareth to Zachariah's home, and there was nothing along the way to make her more likely to discover her motherhood, so I urge that she knew from the beginning of her pregnancy, which was immediately upon her assent to Gabriel's announcement. I opine that Mary consciously was carrying the Lord to Elizabeth, the "first Eucharistic procession" in actual intent, not accidentally.

      Also as a result of her condition free from the consequences of sin, and the supreme excellence of her virtues, she more probably had superior knowledge of her own body's interior activities (e.g. so that her virtues regarding the concupiscible appetites proceeded even in minute aspects with clear knowledge and free choice), and she may well have had a conscious role in directing her body to behave rightly according to its needs and condition. If so, she could have recognized the changes in her condition in respect of the needs of her womb to become fit for the embryo.

      Delete
    7. TonyJanuary 6, 2025 at 7:33 AM

      She might simply have sent him a message and left. Obviously we don't actually know. Are you just curious or is there some larger significance to the question for you?

      Jordan, I am unsure of the specifics of the Jewish culture on this, but I think "just sending Joseph a message" is highly unlikely. As history indicates, apparently the Jewish cultural situation of "marriage" at that time was that marriage was a 2-step process, the vows were exchanged, and the bride then stayed with her family until her husband prepared their home and came to get her, a period often of weeks or even a few months. It is because the vows were marriage vows - the actual consensual gift of persons, not merely a promise to do so in the future - that in Matthew, the angel Gabriel refers to Joseph as her "husband" and Mary as his "wife", before he had come to bring her into his home. It seems to me incredibly implausible, in a culture that took great care to ensure a young woman was under the protection of her parents and then her husband, and where they were expecting Joseph to come at some point to retrieve his wife, that Mary (and her parents) would have felt free to send Mary off to Elizabeth for a 3 month period without Joseph's explicit consent. What if he had been planning to come get her in 1 month?

      As to why I want to know, I think understanding the details better makes for a better understanding of those parts of Scripture - like the fact that Jewish custom separating the vows part of marriage from the point at which the wife changes which household she is in - which alone explains why both Matthew and Luke call it "betrothal" but then affirm they were husband and wife. Indeed, it is probable that God's plan pre-arranged that Jewish culture at this time had this two-step process for marriage precisely so that Mary would be married but not yet in Joseph's home and (by presumption) sleeping with him. This way, Mary would NOT be an unwed mother (contra all the nonsense claimed these days) and yet Joseph would have been able to know with absolute assurance that the child was not his own. And Joseph willingly receiving Mary into his home as his wife meant that the child was - for ALL LEGAL purposes - his child, which gave Jesus his Davidic lineage. God protected His Mother while also completing His plan for the Messiah.

      Delete
    8. bmillerJanuary 6, 2025 at 8:20 AM

      Tony,

      Of course you may be right. But there is a different scenario that can accommodate this view. Maybe there wasn't time for her to discuss it with Joseph.

      You seemed unsure about the Jewish 2-part marriage process at the time of Christ. This is what I found:

      "It was a two-part process in Jewish culture, with the first part being the betrothal, or kiddushin, and the second part being the nisuin, or elevation.

      I didn't research much further than to verify that the Jewish Encyclopedia discussed those terms. During the first part of the marriage, the wife resides at her parents house and is not living with her spouse.

      Since she left immediately after the Annunciation, she must have already had her bags packed and maybe the taxi was honking it's horn (so to speak). So although she knew, she didn't have time to contact Joseph without missing her ride.

      This is the story from Matthew:
      This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[b] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

      20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”

      I notice it says "she was found to be pregnant", not that she necessarily told him herself and so maybe he heard about it from another relative since there being no cell phones and such. It seems that Joseph had to be told by the angel that that "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit". If Mary discussed it with him, why would the angel not just explain to Joseph that what Mary told him was true rather than tell him again that her child was conceived of the Holy Spirit?

      So Mary could have known immediately but was unable to discuss it with Joseph since she was already on her way to tend to Elizabeth. Once there, relatives knew she was pregnant and word got back to Joseph. Joseph was unaware of the fact that the conception was due to the Holy Spirit until the Angel told him and so Joseph proceeded with the second part of the marriage by taking her into his home after the angels visit and explanation.

      Delete
    9. JordanJanuary 6, 2025 at 1:53 PM

      Hi Tony,

      Gotcha. We can construct multiple reasonable scenarios for what might have happened. For example:

      1. Mary and Joseph get engaged with an agreement to be married in two years, both of them understanding that Mary has taken a vow of virginity and thus Joseph's role is that of guardian rather than sexual partner. (perhaps following the rules laid out in Number 30:13, for example)

      2. Three months later, Gabriel visits Mary.

      3. Mary tells her parents what happened and her desire to go help Elizabeth. Her parents agree and send word to Joseph. Something like, "We have just learned that our relative Elizabeth is pregnant, and we are going to help. See you after the baby comes." (Obviously the text just mentions Mary going, but I would assume her parents went with her. It'd be similar to a situation in our current historical context where if I told you I traveled from the US to Japan, then you'd assume I took an airplane, even if I didn't mention it.)

      4. They go.

      5. They come back. Word gets out that Mary is pregnant, so Joseph prepares to divorce her quietly.

      6. Angel visits Joseph, etc.

      The details within those steps could be changed in lots of ways and still be reasonable. For example, maybe her parents received word simultaneously from a human source about Elizabeth, so that Mary didn't have to tell them. Maybe they had a conversation with Joseph in person, and he just assumed some message from their family had come. Etc. The narrative of the Gospel fits in reasonably with the historical context you laid out, as long as we understand that a lot of details are intentionally being left out.

      Peaceful days,

      Jordan

      Delete
    10. TonyJanuary 9, 2025 at 2:45 PM

      We can construct multiple reasonable scenarios for what might have happened.

      Right, using probable arguments to find the most probable solutions. This is just what Augustine was doing in inferring (probably) that Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity: he found an explanation that fits with later events and provides an explanation – but that it fits as AN explanation does not prove that this is the actual reason.

      1. Mary and Joseph get engaged with an agreement to be married in two years,

      Turns out that (at least according to all the sites I saw), the period was “up to 1 year”, not longer for various reasons. I could not determine explicitly whether the arrangement was more usually for a definite period made determinate up front, or was left indefinite e.g. “when you have made the new home ready” whether that turned out to be 6 weeks or 3 months or 9 months, but the impression I got was more the latter, so that the final celebration was “to be determined” but with presumption within 1 year.

      both of them understanding that Mary has taken a vow of virginity and thus Joseph's role is that of guardian rather than sexual partner.

      Agreed: If Mary had made a vow of virginity, then the marriage discussions would certainly have included a discussion of that point.

      3. Mary tells her parents what happened

      Nice gloss. Can you imagine THAT discussion?

      and her desire to go help Elizabeth. Her parents agree and send word to Joseph. Something like, "We have just learned that our relative Elizabeth is pregnant, and we are going to help. See you after the baby comes."

      I don’t think so: Before marriage, the parents would of course have full freedom to decide when and who goes on trips. After the marriage is completed, they have no say over whether Mary goes somewhere. But after the marriage vows are exchanged, but before Joseph has taken her into his home, it’s more complicated. It’s no longer that they are taking care of their daughter as her absolute guardians with full authority to decide her welfare, now it’s also that they are acting to protect Joseph’s wife, temporarily in their custody - acting on his behalf. A middle state – their daughter, but his wife. For day to day stuff around Nazareth, no real tensions between those. But for a somewhat long, potentially dangerous journey away from their home, expected to last well into the period where Joseph might have intended to come and take her home? No, for that they would have needed to consult with Joseph, not send him a note (or word). (Also, Nazareth was (on our standards) a small town, fewer than 1000 people. You can walk anywhere in town to discuss something in 7 minutes.)

      Obviously the text just mentions Mary going, but I would assume her parents went with her.

      I had not thought about it fully, but I think this is likely, or that they entrusted her to the care of family or friends who were otherwise traveling to nearby Jerusalem. Extremely unlikely that they sent her on her way alone, that’s way too dangerous.

      Alternatives: For example, maybe her parents received word simultaneously from a human source about Elizabeth, so that Mary didn't have to tell them.

      I think it highly unlikely: (a) news didn’t just “get around” all that easily. Neither did people, especially the poor and daily laborers. (b) If the news WAS going to get there virtually simultaneously, Gabriel wouldn’t have needed to announce it.

      Maybe they had a conversation with Joseph in person, and he just assumed some message from their family had come.

      Possible but implausible: again, getting news was difficult and unusual, and therefore celebrated, announced. Most people didn’t read and write much, sending a “letter” was an involved affair of hiring a scribe, reciting what you wanted him to write, and then paying for it to travel with someone in a caravan, who agreed to try to deliver it, not always successfully.

      Delete
    11. TonyJanuary 9, 2025 at 2:46 PM

      And you would be likely to SAY “we received a written letter!!! For the not-written method: someone from town X might visit town Y, but then they would carry broadcast news of all the news worth repeating, i.e. a fairly public event.


      @ bmiller:

      She must have left immediately because
      Elizabeth was in her 6th month and Mary stayed for 3 months apparently till the birth of John.

      The numbers are approximate: (a) “in her 6th month” leaves fair wiggle room. Mary stayed “about” 3 months (a loose period), and she wouldn’t have left ON the day John was born – the very day she was MOST needed. She would have left a while later. Luke could be referring to anywhere from 2.51 months to 3.49 months.

      Since she left immediately after the Annunciation, she must have already had her bags packed and maybe the taxi was honking it's horn (so to speak).

      A couple of times you mentioned this “immediately”, but that’s not what’s in the text, it says she left “in haste”. As Jordan has already said, we need to interpret such language within context: she wouldn’t have left without putting on shoes, and grabbing a cloak. And without taking food and probably a water flask. And most likely getting some money (for 5 to 7 days walking and staying somewhere at night), which certainly means discussing it with her parents. But far more significantly, she likely would have been sent with relatives or a trading caravan of known repute, not alone, and that takes preparation.

      Consider a family leaving for a vacation, on the way out the door to the airport, they “scheduled” to leave at 9:00, it is now 8:45, and there are 30 minutes of additional preparations to make. They will “make haste” to shorten the time taken, but they still won’t leave the house until (a) they make sure they packed the charging cords and have the tickets, (b) all the lights and water are off, and (c) locked the windows and back door, and (d) took out the trash, even if it means they leave at 9:05. “In haste” is relative, more describing not going about the process leisurely than an absolutely immediate action. In fact, the actual text includes the phrase “in those days” Mary arose and went with haste. This implies room for leaving a day or a few days after the Annunciation, if it took that long to prepare. The notion she had her bags packed (before receiving the information) is unnecessary and utterly improbable.

      It seems that Joseph had to be told by the angel that that "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit". If Mary discussed it with him, why would the angel not just explain to Joseph that what Mary told him was true rather than tell him again that her child was conceived of the Holy Spirit?

      Right, these are good questions. I think we can with sufficient probability dismiss the idea of any leading assumption on Mary’s part, that IF she was going to discuss the entire annunciation message with Joseph (and, indeed, with her parents), and she ran into disbelief or at least doubt, she could just assume the angel would come in to settle the doubt. She could not command angels to do her bidding or solve her difficulties, and had too much humility to expect they would.

      I don’t think we can assume, though, that the fact that divine intervention is what did in fact solve Joseph’s doubts about his pregnant wife by telling him the real source of that pregnancy, means automatically that Mary didn’t ALSO tell him about it, before her trip. Maybe she did, and he was…in doubt? It isn’t a contradiction to say Mary first told them, and Gabriel later appearing to Joseph in a dream is what resolved his concerns. Gabriel could have said “what Mary said is true” (if Mary had first told Joseph), but it’s also not in any sense more likely than that he simply declared the original truth itself, as a more independent testimony.

      Delete
    12. TonyJanuary 9, 2025 at 2:48 PM

      Even if we assume Mary left without discussing her own pregnancy with them, there is room to try to understand why, since having that discussion would be such an obvious thing for her to have done, its absence needs a reason. The “left in haste” is (with very high probability) insufficient as a reason, so it bears looking for another reason. I have heard it suggested that Mary didn’t consider it her place to report the news, but to me that doesn’t fit very well, as she certainly needed to discuss something with her own parents (at least the angelic news of Elizabeth’s pregnancy), and it seems to me unlikely that she formulated a definite reason to announce ONLY that and nothing about herself, (and craft her description so as to not create apparent gaps and holes) in the absence of some specific reason to be so selective in what she reported. And one could well imagine that if she felt free to tell them about Elizabeth because of their operational need for that information, (so they could help prepare her trip), they might just as well have had operational need to know Mary was to be the Mother of God (or, at least, it would have been reasonable to believe her parents had such need, and Joseph certainly needed that info a little later).

      Maybe Mary assumed that the information was so unlikely to be believed that there was little use trying to assert it to Joseph? Would that also apply to her parents? That might explain an initial silence, but she would still have the problem that the evidence would soon be manifest, and then Joseph (and her parents) would need an explanation. The best timing of that explanation is subject to rational consideration, and Mary would have done so. In point of fact, Gabriel is the one who actually made the explanation, but if we think Mary didn’t presume upon further angelic intervention, she MUST have taken thought about how that explanation would be made. I have heard it piously suggested that her attitude was “God will provide”, and while I agree this would be part of her attitude, she would ALSO have asked “what is my proper role, if any, in that ‘providing’ info to Joseph? Is it my role to take information revealed to me and pass it along where needed?” And it isn’t immediately obvious to us (even with hindsight) why she would have known her best role was to wait in silence for God to intervene. It is easy to propose that “she had interior grace telling her to wait for further developments”, and that might indeed be the true answer, but we should not settle on that as our preferred solution unless natural solutions won’t fit the facts. Which means LOOKING for natural solutions, and weighing them for plausibility.

      I think the above discussion, illustrating the process of proposing possibilities and discarding implausible ones, and the results here, suggests it is at least somewhat plausible that Mary would have done her best to pass on the information to her parents and to Joseph; she would have known in advance that most people would have some reason to not give immediate and total assent and belief in her account; without outright repudiation they might simply withhold assent and wait for more evidence; (coordinate with the pious suggestions she would “wait upon the Lord”), Mary could shrug her shoulders and say “I did my part in giving the information, it’s God’s part to bring about belief”. Thus it is possible that while Gabriel’s appearing to Joseph in a dream was indeed a necessary part of God’s plan, God prepped that part of the plan by having Mary first plant word of the Annunciation, i.e. a two-stage unfolding rather than Gabriel’s vision being altogether unprepped. And, by the way, this both/and option never occurred to me until just now – demonstrating there is benefit to proposing options to many others to see what sifts out.

      Delete
    13. bmillerJanuary 9, 2025 at 7:19 PM

      Tony,

      But far more significantly, she likely would have been sent with relatives or a trading caravan of known repute, not alone, and that takes preparation.

      That was the point I was trying to make. Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant at this point so I doubt Elizabeth's pregnancy per se was a secret and so it's plausible Mary (and family) had already made plans to visit her. It could have been that Mary and family already knew that Elizabeth was pregnant and only the miraculous circumstances were revealed at the Annunciation. The text doesn't say Mary suddenly made a decision to travel to visit Elizabeth only that she left in haste. If a caravan had been arranged already to take her to Elizabeth and was heading out in the morning, she may have had to leave in haste to be part of that caravan. Maybe her parents were part of the caravan and she told them then or maybe before she left and perhaps there was no time to talk to Joseph or he was out of town. It's a topic one would want to have a sincere face to face about, so a note or leaving a message with someone else would probably be out of the question.

      Another point to consider would be if the Holy Spirit revealed to Elizabeth that she was in the presence of the Messiah when she was in the presence of Mary, why Joseph wouldn't have also been so informed if he discussed this personally with Mary. Why by an angel sometime later?

      I don't have a strong opinion, but I also wouldn't be upset if I found out Mary couldn't humanly have had the discussion before she had to take her trip.

      Delete
  9. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 12:09 AM

    Hi Ed,

    Thank you very much for publishing this blog. More than anything else, you have moved me from an atheist/materialist to a classical theist.

    A little while ago, you wrote a post called "Could a theist deny PSR?"

    I have a follow-up question -- does every version of atheism lead to accepting "brute facts"? Or is it possible for an atheist to reject the idea of brute facts while still holding to atheism?

    This may be a fruitful question for a future blog post, I'm not sure.

    Please have a happy, healthy, and productive 2025.

    - AKruger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:44 PM

      Many thanks for the kind words! As to your question, I'd say that while there can be atheists who accept some version of PSR, the problem is that once you do that, it is very hard to avoid accepting the reality of some ultimate explanatory principle that is going to entail theism of some kind (insofar as that principle will be necessary, or pure actuality, or what have you). To be sure, without further argumentation, that could amount to an impersonal absolute, or pantheism, or some other brand of theism I wouldn't accept myself. But it wouldn't really be atheism anymore in any interesting sense.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:17 PM

      Hi Ed,

      Thanks for the response. I get what you're saying, and I am coming to accept the same conclusion myself. Theism really does just seem to be a commitment to a thoroughgoing intelligibility of the world -- which seems highly plausible even at first glance, given the consistency of the natural order.

      I appreciate the time you took to write the response. Cheers.

      -- AKruger.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 2:10 PM

      What do you think of Feser’s “God is above morality so it’s ok for him to do whatever to us that a human court would never exonerate a human for doing” response to the problem of evil?

      Delete
  10. TeoneJanuary 1, 2025 at 2:15 AM

    Any plans for translating your books to Arabic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:48 PM

      I'm not certain, because almost always translations are initiated by someone other than me or my publishers (for example, by an individual translator or publisher in another country who acquires translation rights from the original publisher). Sometimes the person first inquires with me personally about it, other times I hear about it from a publisher, and sometimes I just find out after the fact that something has been translated. Re: Arabic, I don't remember for certain if I heard tell that one of my books was going to be translated -- I'll have to check into that.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 5:08 AM

    This is my understanding of St Thomas' answer to the problem of universals as I understand it. In particular, I emphasize the difference between a material thing's essence and its form. Can people let me know their thoughts and if (where) I've gone wrong in my understanding?

    A material species, qua species, does not have existence. Of course, even an immaterial substance does not per se have existence -- that's only true for God. But a material species lacks existence in an additional way to an immaterial substance. The latter is the same as its species. The essence of the angel is its species. Therefore its form can receive existence as it is. It requires nothing to be added to its essence for it to exist; it 'only' needs the act of existence. The form of the angelic species IS the essence of this angel. For any given angel to be what it is, it requires nothing other than its form. The form is complete in its essence, and requires only the act of existence to make a concretely-existing angel.

    Material things are different. The lower material things are more complex, not less, than the higher angelic things. The form of a tree is NOT the same as a concrete tree. If it were, then to destroy one tree would be to destroy the form of all trees, which is clearly false. The essence of a concrete tree is not the same as the form of a tree. Instead, the essence of a concrete tree is the form of a tree united to a particular chunk of matter (sometimes called signate matter). It is of the essence of a concrete tree to be a combination of a particular form, and a particular lump of matter. The form alone is not able to receive the act of existence, unlike an angelic form. Therefore, not only does a material species not have per se existence -- in this it agrees with the angels -- but it doesn't even have the per se capacity to receive existence. Something must be added to it in order for it to be able to receive existence. Its act of existence involves matter being united to it.

    As far as the species of a tree is concerned, it is of its essence to be the combination of a particular form, and matter-in-general (sometimes called insignate matter). A species of tree can't have existence without the addition of signate matter. This means that the species of a tree, qua species, can never act in and of itself. It can't grow, or make acorns, or grow leaves in summer and shed them in winter. It is false to say that the species is pure potentiality, because it can act as a power: for example, it is in act relative to its genus, and it can also act on our intellect. A bit more on this below. But it can't receive existence in and of itself, in the manner that an angelic species can. (Potentiality must be proportionate to act in order to receive it, as the Master says.) Therefore, species do not have an existence independent of the things that instantiate them.

    So the form is not the essence. The form is shared among all concrete trees. But the essence of a concrete tree is distinct from that of another concrete tree. It is the common form that makes them instances of the same thing. It is the distinct matter that makes them different. The form is therefore multiplied. It remains the same in kind, but increases in number, according to the number of composites that actualize it.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 5:08 AM

    ... continued from previous post

    The species of the tree is, of course, shared among all trees, just like the form (I'm not sure if the form is a synonym for the species, but I think not). The species exists virtually as a part of the composite. This means that it exists as a power of the composite. It is as a power, and only as a power, that the species can act; just as 'sight' can only act as a power of the person, never as some free-floating substance of sight. The composite has the power to move our intellects by means of its species. The species as such is immaterial and unchanging, and is therefore able to actualize our intellects -- ie to give us knowledge. The composite is material and changing, and thus cannot move our intellects other than by its species, but can move our senses by means of its material powers, such as reflecting light. (Indeed, no created substance can EVER operate, and can therefore never be known, except by means of its powers.) The active intellect is beyond the scope of this post, but that is the power by which the species is abstracted from the concrete.

    Is this a reasonable summary of St. Thomas' thought, as far as it goes? I am a little confused about one thing, which is that form seems to be, in some sense, in potency to the composite, but I thought the form was the principle of act (whereas the matter is the principle of potency). Precisely what is actualizing the form in order to make it exist? Obviously not the matter. Is it the act of existence, which acts by means of uniting the form to the matter? This seems a good way to answer the question. Any thoughts? Thank you very much!

    In any case, this seems to avoid the problems associated with both nominalism and extreme realism, as well as the version of moderate realism that identifies form with essence in material things (and therefore falls to the objection that to destroy one tree would be to destroy them all).

    ReplyDelete
  13. ScottDJanuary 1, 2025 at 9:26 AM

    Any reasonably accessible resources for understanding theories as to how grace exerts causal power without frustrating free will? Or, similarly, what powers demons can exercise, in light of both free will and generally-obtaining laws of nature/properties of substances?

    Both would be helpful in answering objections to the faith that are rooted in skepticism of the effects of supernatural causes on the everyday lives of the faithful (e.g., if the sacraments are efficacious grace, why aren't many Catholics more virtuous than they are/than non-Catholics?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Casual ThomistJanuary 1, 2025 at 11:24 AM

      Hey ScottD,
      A fascinating question! Quite funny to me that you posted this immediately before my question about divine foreknowledge, which is on an adjacent topic. Your first question on the efficaciousness of grace is starting to heat up again in Catholic circles, as a follow-up to a big twentieth century "Intra-Thomistic" debate. That debate pitted a so-called "classical-thomist" understanding of actual grace (the grace that brings us to perform virtuous actions) as infallibly efficacious against the accounts of so-called "revisionists" (Jacques Maritain, Francisco Marin-Sola, Bernard Lonnergan among others) who posited that grace had to be frustrable in some way or God was responsible for evil. I know its not quite the question you were asking, but if grace exerts its causal power infrustrably, even if we can still somehow call the will "free," it is hard to see how to avoid implicating God in evil when he "allows" the sinner to fall by not giving him that grace alone by which he could avoid sin.

      The "classical thomist" view (called Bañezian by its critics as it finds its genesis in sixteenth century thomist commentator Domingo Bañez) has received a rather clear treatment in English recently in Taylor Patrick O'Neill's Grace, Predestination and the Permission of Sin, which is quite accessible if you have basic knowledge of Aristotilean categories: https://www.amazon.com/Grace-Predestination-Permission-Sin-Thomistic/dp/0813232546

      For an easy look at a partial response that's quite accessible in a few minutes, Pat Flynn published a few blog posts that cover the gist of the "revisionist" positions in his own personal synthesis: https://www.chroniclesofstrength.com/predestination-debate-a-response-to-dr-taylor-patrick-oneills-critique-of-jacques-maritain/

      Also, DBH did an article back in '09 that offers an alternative metaphysical view that views the Thomistic conversation as based on a grave category mistake: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/hart-on-impassibility-as-transcendence.pdf

      All of the above authors at least discuss the attached issues even if they don't address your first question directly.

      I don't know enough to address your second question with resources, though I believe that St. Thomas has something in the Summa on it. Everyone agrees, at least, that no creature can directly influence the will by its very nature...

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:36 PM

      That is an excellent question , Scott. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to it. You can Google the question and get a number of links, though, that attempt to answer it. Or talk to a knowledgeable Catholic priest.

      Delete
    3. TonyJanuary 1, 2025 at 1:52 PM

      This addresses only in part, and the less difficult part at that: One way actual graces can act is to shine a "brighter" light on the better (true) good, so that its betterness is easier to grasp (or, perhaps, it takes more effort to turn away from the better to a lesser good?) This way would act more on the intellect than the will itself.

      Another way would be for grace to simply strengthen the will bearing an onslaught of temptation. One of the damages we suffer from as a consequence of original sin is "weakening of the will", so countering that damage by grace would support the will's freedom without impinging on its being free.

      Neither of these puts the crosshairs right on the central action of grace on the will, and would not explain the conversion of someone formerly bent on evil to turn to the good.

      From what I have heard from exorcists (online), demons cannot "read your mind" as such, they do not listen in on your interior conversation. Nor can they act on the soul in a manner like to how grace acts. They can read your outward actions with a more powerful intellect brought to bear, and inferentially estimate what your interior conversation was up to.

      It appears from the stories of angels in the Bible that they can affect material things around us by their powers, and very probably can create images for us to see that are comprised of nothing more than complex light activity such that our eyes are operating normally in seeing "an angel" - our eyes acting on the light received on the retina as usual. Presumably demons can do likewise. On occasion a demon will act so as to physically assault a saint, who comes out of the affair with bruises and welts: It seems apparent that God has intervened and generally forbids demons from acting on the material world around us so as to often and widely defeat natural causality, God lets it occur rarely only, kind of like he does miracles rarely.

      I hypothesize that one explanation of UFOs is that they are really demons performing (in effect) parlor tricks on us, out to perform a significant hoodwinking on the human race, something comparable to what they arguably did in the era before Christ to get lots of people worshiping idols. I don't have a strong argument that this is the real explanation of UFOs, but only (a) that it is possible (within their abilities and what God might allow), and (b) that it would explain a weird, otherwise unexplainable facet of UFOs, that they have played with us for 70 years without making themselves MANIFEST to us, but also without staying fully hidden, which (arguably) they probably could have done if they wanted to.

      Delete
    4. TonyJanuary 2, 2025 at 7:57 AM

      To follow up on what Casual Thomist said above: Another great resource on the general topic is Fr. William Most's "Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God". To give just a one-phrase summary, he clarifies that predestination to heaven (for the saved) does not necessarily imply there is also a co-equal predestination to hell (for the damned). (I think this also matches Pat Flynn's thesis.) But I think his excellence lies also in applying a strict Catholic theological methodology to help sort the problem.

      As to a "category mistake", I suspect that the intra-Catholic debate about actual graces being distinguished into "efficacious" and "sufficient" which fueled the Banezian - Molinist debate, is a something like category error. To help indicate the error, simply consider as a general matter (i.e. not only with regard to a moral act, but to any act) to be a "cause of motion" just is to be a cause of moving the moved to an end. It is impossible under A/T framework to speak of X cause "moving" the mobile Y "toward" without the "toward" being an end, a terminus. And (again, under Aristotle), if the motion is "a" motion, i.e. a one motion, the motion as a whole must have the terminus as its end, there simply isn't any other way for it to be a motion toward an "act", i.e. some definite actuality. In consequence, a cause of motion is ALWAYS a cause that moves the mobile to an actuality, unless some OTHER mover impedes the action - but that is always and necessarily some other motion than the original motion.

      Delete
    5. NormJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:43 AM

      If I may, I'd like to recommend this brilliant article by renowned Thomist philosopher and a highly respected authority on Aquinas, Fr Stephen. L.Brock, for context Fr Kevin Flannery who I suspect is well known to this audience refers to him as the living scholar who knows best the works of Thomas Aquinas.

      He goes into some detail on the issue of grace being discussed here especially in the notes.

      https://www.academia.edu/98802238/The_Causality_of_Prayer_and_the_Execution_of_Predestination_in_Thomas_Aquinas

      Thomists passing by should give it a read including our esteemed host Dr Feser.

      Cheers

      Delete
    6. Casual ThomistJanuary 3, 2025 at 9:22 AM

      Tony, I think you make an interesting point as regards the relationship between sufficient and efficient grace posited by the Bañezian camp. The issue they run into though, is that the Church has explicitly condemned irresistible, numerically single actual grace in its rejection of Jansenism. (cf Unigenitus https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem11/c11unige.htm).

      Now, in their defense, Banez wrote long before this controversy, so its not like the distinction is meant to avoid the condemnation. The question for them seems to be more a matter of how grace could in any sense fail to be efficacious, provided God were the source of the motion. If x is a creature, its movement towards the terminus could be fallible or disrupted (for example, the match igniting the wood could be impeded by dampness in the wood), but obviously God's communication of esse in efficient causality, they argue, must be both towards an determinate end, and not impedible. If God is the source of the motion, in other words, then they fear any frustrability in grace would mean the frustration of the divine will.

      I think that the issue they run into is an implicit conflation of God's will with His effect. You can explain this in at least two ways. One could, with Hart, argue that the idea that God imparts efficient causality in a manner analogous to the one above is to conflate the "ontological" dimension of God's creating "causality" with the garden variety causality of Aristotelian (meta)physics. This approach has a lot of promise, but I'm not quite ready to jettison the entire A-T framework for discussing actual grace yet.

      You can also say, as the French Benedictine Basile Valuet argued in a recent book (sadly untranslated), that while the motion is infallible and impels the will to a certain effect, it does not do so infallibly, precisely because the will's nature is to select its object from among proximate goods. There's a lot of legwork that's required to hold this, regarding divine foreknowledge, the exact structure of the act, and the nature of the divine will, but I think this has some promise. It can equally preserve grace as numerically one and yet frustrable in its ultimate object (it moves the will, but leaves the will the freedom to de-specify the act by rejecting the object), or distinguish between an infallible first move (which impels the choice) and a provisional movement of the will to a given object. Anyhow, not sure this is helpful, and I know there is need for a deeper explanation of the above, but I hope it at least provides some start!

      Delete
    7. TonyJanuary 3, 2025 at 5:25 PM

      It can equally preserve grace as numerically one and yet frustrable in its ultimate object (it moves the will, but leaves the will the freedom to de-specify the act by rejecting the object),

      Right: the person moved by grace toward the good can, as defecting cause, depart from the good act initiated in the grace. There is reason to insist on grace moving irresistably when God's intention is to move resistably.

      Delete
    8. ScottDJanuary 5, 2025 at 10:45 AM

      Thanks to all for your thoughtful replies.

      Delete
  14. Casual ThomistJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:40 AM

    Ed,
    Was wondering if you had any thoughts on predestination, specifically the Thomistic idea of physical premotion. Am a theology grad student and had a class on it this semester. I'll admit that I'm a Ressourcement guy in a Ressourcement school, but it looks like there are a lot of metaphysical assumptions that go into the question that are right up your alley. For example, what does divine simplicity require us to say about the relationship between God's foreknowledge and the course of events within history? It seems like Thomists tend to assume that divine simplicity requires that God's simple knowledge be causal, but I haven't been able to find anyone who argues that out. I know Oderburg defends physical premotion, but it seems like an aspect of the debate that is neglected but very relevant to the work you've done over the years engaging with atheists and ID folks, and yet it seems like we could do with a modern conversation within classical theism about what our position requires of us. Any thoughts on this helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:22 PM

    Thanks, but we want links! We used to fairly often get dozens of links to interesting reading and articles. What gives?

    Seriously, HNY and thanks for all you do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:37 PM

      Thanks, Anon. I'll try to revive that tradition, and I appreciate your telling me that you liked it.

      Delete
    2. NormJanuary 1, 2025 at 10:11 PM

      I liked that tradition too!

      Delete
  16. AnonymousJanuary 1, 2025 at 6:55 PM

    Hi Dr. Feser! I have waited for this moment for months and I hope you don’t mind all this questions (some of them weird). Some may even give you post ideias. I specially ask for answers to the questions number 1, 2, 3, 7 and 10. Really thank you for all your effort!
    1. Are Catholics required to want the illegalization of pornography (and which types? erotic books? AI?), prostitution, drugs, homologous reproduction or the sell of contraceptives?
    2. What does a Catholic have to believe in regards to civil divorce? Can Catholics support no-fault divorce? A legal option where a spouse just has to sign a paper and in that moment divorce happens?
    3. If one has premarital/extramarital sex using a condom, is he commiting the sin of contraception? Or can this sin only occur inside marriage? If it isn’t a sin, can Catholic hospitals allow their staff to recommend contraceptives to unmarried patients?
    4. Can the State permit private schools to promote gender ideology, contraception or socialism? Where do we put the line?
    5. Does a Catholic have to believe (at least in theory) Pride parades or gay kissing should be prohibited by the State? Or does a Catholic have to believe these things shouldn't be prohibited?
    6. Imagine the wife has a permanent dangerous disease which is transmitted through sex. Could a husband wear a condom and because of the principle of double effect (neutral action; good effect bigger than the unintended bad effect) they wouldn’t commit the sin of contraception? If your answers is yes, see Denzinger 2795 and 3638. If your answers is no, why?
    7. The «Vademecum for confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life» (13) permits a spouse in some circunstancies to have sex with a contracepting spouse. One of the conditions is that “the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself” and then there is the 47 footnote, which points to Denzinger 2795 and 3634, which prohibit the wife to cooperate with condoms or the crime of sodomits but allows cooperation with the pulling out method. The National Catholic Bioethics Center approves cooperation with vasectomies by the wife and the pill by the man. Do you agree? And what about abortifacient hormonal birth control (see Vademecum 14 and its footnote)? Or cooperation by the husband with spermicide, IUDs or diaphragms (cf. Denzinger 3917a)? I would really like to have answers to these questions.
    8. Are baptised Catholics who obstinately say abortion is moral (while knowing the position of the Church) automatically excommunicated (because of heresy; cf. CIC 1364)?
    9. What are your views on embryo adoption? If you think it’s moral, who can do it? Married women, single women, nuns?
    10. Is anal stimulation (with a penis, finger, sex toy) a sin inside marriage (inside a sexual session with all sperm in vagina)? And if, hypothetically, there were no health issues?
    11. Provided that there is no risk of ejaculation or reaching orgasm, can a husband penetrate his wife for sexual pleasure (or intimacy/connection), stopping before either of them reaches orgasm (cf. Denzinger 3907)?
    12. Could a wife manual/oral stimulate until orgasm a husband who can’t ejaculate? If yes, would penetration be required in that sexual session? Could it be 3 seconds of penetration and 30 minutes of “mutual masturbation” (which wouldn’t be masturbation in reality)?
    13. If a sex position was discovered to have 10/20/50% of the chances of conception compared to other sex positions, could couples still use it?
    14. Is SSPX in schism? Is it in full communion with the Catholic Church? Is a Catholic sinning for going to an SSPX Mass?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyJanuary 2, 2025 at 12:17 PM

      I will give a suggested answer to #1, to start the ball rolling: It is morally permitted for a Catholic (really, for anyone) to not prefer / not intend / not actually vote and promote for laws that would outlaw acts and the accoutrements of acts proscribed by the natural moral law, within certain constraints.

      The critical factor is a point made by St. Thomas: it is not required for civil law to make illegal ALL acts against the virtues, and it is positively not good practice for civil law to mandate all acts of all the virtues. The civil law should limit itself to a smaller sphere of action than all actions that perfect virtue would require. In particular, generally it should make illegal primarily evils that all men, or nearly all men, can avoid (which is expressing the point as a rough rule of thumb, not as a definitive and absolutely complete standard).

      As a result, in different societies, different kinds and degrees of evil acts may be wisely and prudently ruled out of bounds. If a society has been largely immoral in sexual practices for a long time, with premarital sex, prostitution, divorce & remarriage, and polygamy, new and absolute laws against prostitution would be less prudent than the same laws in a society that had been mainly avoiding these evils as common practices. Even if the (relatively corrupted) society were to be converted 90% to Christianity and now believe prostitution was gravely immoral, the past practices might impinge too heavily to make it prudent to outlaw prostitution overnight, and might lead to worse evils from the moral and social pressures of attempting it.

      So, absent the constraints of particular situations of particular societies and their specific problems, the upright person will broadly and generally want laws that successfully best promote the most virtue in the people, and this general desire will translate into an aggregation of laws that BEST hit a fine-tuned mean: laws that support and promote virtue, and yet leave scope for individual choice free from legal constraint where law is not needed. In a society where 99.999% of all people have such an internal abhorrence of murder that they couldn't even conceive of being willing to do such an act, maybe you don't even need a law against it, whereas in a society where dueling is common, you most certainly do. Given the (fallen) state of humanity, it will be easily predicted that even the best of real, actual societies need a fair number of laws that set forth the basic framework of virtue, because the law is a teacher as well as a punisher of vice. Hence the 10 commandments.

      In the context of the actual US at this time, the repudiation by courts of anti-obscenity rules broadly happened within living memory, and one can conceive of at least the possibility of prudent rule-making that begins once again to limit pornography - it is certain that we need something now that will help stem that tide, even if it is uncertain how one might prudently make such rules now. A Catholic (or anyone) would fail in being wholly upright if they did not at least desire that society become improved against sexual vices now rampant, and would fail to be politically prudent if he or she was not at least willing to consider the possibility of laws that might promote such an improvement.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 1:14 PM

      Dr. Grisez may be able to answer some of your questions.
      http://twotlj.org/ His 3 Vol work on moral theology is free online. He was an orthodox Catholic moral theologian.
      This is a standard work (3rd ed) on Catholic sexual morality by three acclaimed orthodox theologians.
      https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Sexual-Ethics-Summary-Explanation/dp/159276083X
      You could probably Google those many questions you asked inserting the word "Catholic" and get answers.

      I will just say in passing, and in a kind way, not to get too caught up in some of your questions. Be at peace.



      .

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:01 PM

      Correct or incorrect use of faculties pertains not just to a particular function, but the role it plays in human life. Just like how food has a due portion for certain elements, so do sexual acts. You can’t eat just sugar, but don’t freak out about sinning if you don’t eat specific vitamin quantities either. It should be intuitive. If your later questions apply to your own life, I think you’re be overly technical. The Catholic apologetics on sexuality have focused on specific elements because those bare minimum elements are rejected by the culture. However, anyone who’s been intimate with his spouse should be able to tell pretty quickly whether this whole “3 seconds” business, or positions, or irregular forms of stimulation, are natural or unnatural.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 3:19 PM

      In http://twotlj.org/G-3-89.html Grisez says it's acceptable to an organization (that isn´t the Church or one of its agencies) to give a "leaflet listing all nearby providers of contraception and sterilization" to all of its patients in order to obtain funding.
      About the sexual questions:
      6. has real importance for couples with HIV, 7. is really important for Catholic spouses whose partners will just have sex if contraception is used, 10. is not so important but I usually see just health justifications and I wanted to know about Feser's opinion, 11. is important for couples who are abstaining from sex (some even abstaining for life), 12. is not so important yeah and 13. is really interesting because in the past some of the clergy ruled out woman-on-top sex positions because they were considered to complicate conception.

      Delete
    5. TonyJanuary 5, 2025 at 5:49 PM

      In the link to the "The Way of The Lord Jesus" cite that has Gisez's "Difficult Moral Questions", that's a pretty good answer to a narrow window of the problem. But even in that, Grisez has a few lapses. For example, while he correctly notes that there is a serious risk of giving scandal if the entity giving out the names of other organizations that deliver contraceptives is specifically part of the Church, he fails to note that it's ALSO a risk of scandal even if a private entity does so. The degree of scandal might be different, but that's a secondary issue: if there IS RISK of scandal, the entity giving out the information should take what steps it may to minimize the risk, that's part of the obligation if you are going to do something that is material cooperation with evil.

      But more importantly, while the advice reasonably illustrates that giving out the names of contracepting agents is rightly understood as material cooperation with evil, (not formal cooperation), and thus may be upright, it fails to state and explain the second part of the requirement: it must be remote material cooperation with evil to be justified. It's not so obvious that what is depicted there is immediate cooperation with evil, or remote cooperation, but the initial appearance is more that it would be immediate. And if immediate, that would make your (cooperating) act a moral problem.

      And Grisez is, I suspect, outright wrong when he says

      Because doing anything that might contribute to abortion is likely to be unfair to the person who is unjustly killed, such an action is much more likely to be wrong than doing something that might contribute to contraception or sterilization.

      Again, the greater degree of the evil of an abortion is not the issue: if the act you are contemplating is cooperation with evil, and if the evil your act cooperates with is intrinsically evil, then determining whether your own possible act is bad because it's character borrows directly from the character if the evil act that it cooperates with, it is irrelevant the DEGREE to which that other act is evil: if it is evil, and if the connection between the two acts is such that the evil act's character necessarily controls the character of your possible act, then your contemplated act is wrong no matter the degree of evil of the other agent's act. The only case that degree matters is when you have determined that your act is sufficiently dissociated from the other agent's evil act that the character of his act does not inherently control the character of your act: in that case, the accidental connection between the two means that your act may be good if the preponderance of the good effects outweighs the bad effects; and one of the bad effects is the possible scandal that results from the accidental association of the two acts. But in that case, the degree of scandal must be weighed and analyzed, case by case, with all the other good and bad effects, and it is not simply true that "if associated with abortion, then your act is bad" and "if not associated with abortion, your act is OK". It depends on many other particulars, including whether you have a way of mitigating the risk of associated abortion.

      The point is: in the list of questions initially raised by Anonymous, the critical factor is to recognize in them the acts that are intrinsically disordered, vs the acts that are disordered when done in a certain way or with a certain motivation, vs acts that may be upright or not under various conditions. And in that division, not trying to run a costs / benefits analysis on acts that are intrinsically disordered, nor on acts that are formal cooperation with evil.

      Delete
    6. TonyJanuary 5, 2025 at 6:14 PM

      13. is really interesting because in the past some of the clergy ruled out woman-on-top sex positions because they were considered to complicate conception.

      This is a good example of not expressing the principles that drive the upright conscience.

      While "marriage and sex is for children" has always been a part of Catholic teaching, it isn't a laser-focused, single-issue principle. The Church has never taught, for example, that a couple must try to have as many children as they physically can get. It's not "for children" in that sense, as if the # of children is the sole measure of good. There was much more nuance even in the distant past, and JPIIs theology of the body expanded and developed the understanding.

      The idea of "ruled out woman-on-top" on the basis that that would somewhat reduce the odds of conception could ONLY be valid in a larger framework that considers other issues. Just for example, if the guy has a physical impairment and simply cannot be on top, then woman-on-top has a higher probability of conception than no sex at all. And more generally, the odds of one single act of sex causing conception are fairly modest, so doing something that alters those odds by a few % points one way or another cannot be a controlling factor all by itself.

      And the way NFP works, it helps you understand the natural signs of high fertility points; but "high" is a relative matter, and the method allows for matters of degree: if the conditions under which you need to not conceive at this time are extreme, you would use the most rigorous rule, whereas if the need is less extreme, you can use a less rigorous rule: and that just means that the probability of conceiving is one but ONLY one of the several factors upon which good choice is based. (And with many moral decisions, "probability" is only used loosely, we don't actually have explicit numbers to attach as X% vs Y%, we mostly have measures like "very" or "somewhat" likely or unlikely, and "Z becomes more likely if Z' is involved", but we can't say by how much.)

      Delete
  17. William Applied VirtueJanuary 1, 2025 at 9:51 PM

    Hello, Professor Feser! Longtime reader.

    Recently on social media, there was a kerfuffle about immigration - lots of terms getting thrown around like "woke right."

    Ironically enough, it seems as though James Lindsay and others who point and call people "woke right" are the ones adopting 'woke' traits such as narrative thinking or a tendency for name-calling and censorship. My problem though is that these things are not uniquely woke at all. Wokeness is, as you've pointed out before, a paranoid, delusional egalitarian movement, and the people on the woke right tend not to be egalitarians.

    The conflict seems to be between those who see America as a people and thus desire the American government to enact policies that benefit those people and those who see America as a kind of team in an economic competition with other nations and desire policies that make America more economically competitive.

    What are your thoughts on this matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyJanuary 3, 2025 at 7:51 AM

      those who see America as a people...and those who see America as a kind of team in an economic competition with other nations

      I don't think those two views are exactly mutually exclusive: there are in each group those who are also in the other group. To see America as an "us" for which the government should act to help, AND an "us" in competition with everyone else who isn't "us".

      And both POVs are an incomplete expression of the whole truth. Each nation is in fact an "us," a people that is by that fact distinct from the people of other nations. By that distinction, there are things that are good for us in ways that would not equally be good for everyone else. (A simplistic example: an italian-made dish of pasta could be satisfying to an Italian and far, far less satisfying to a Thai person, because of their developed tastes being different.) Different nations need their own separate governments to see to their own good as a people.

      At the same time, the whole truth includes also that all peoples are also brethren, all children of Adam and Eve, all intended to be brothers and sisters in the eventually complete Communion of Saints. Hence, the real and appropriate competition with which the peoples and nations aim for achieving goods that are goods for them rather than goods for everyone should always also be tempered by the ultimate union the the whole brotherhood of men in the family of God.

      In general, competitive seeking for advancement that is at least in principle with others also advancing is morally upright, and competitive seeking for advancement that advanced by putting others down is not so much. Think in terms of a sport like track & field: Dick Fosbury gained an advantage over all other high jumpers when he invented a new way to leap. But doing so wasn't tantamount to kicking other jumpers' legs out from under them - once they learned his technique, they too advanced: the advance was in principle an achievement over lack of knowledge, not by knocking others down. The same principle should hold in competitive business: a business that invents a new technique for faster production, that smooths out some wrinkle that holds other businesses back, is not hurting the other businesses except as reflected in their LACK of advancement - which they eventually can repair by making the same adjustment. Competition that overcomes natural problems can (in the long run) lift all boats, not just your own boat.

      It is natural for a people to want itself, i.e. its own nation, to do well, and while there will be a temptation to measure that "well" as against other peoples, that can be a somewhat damaged attitude, it should be measured against "the ways in which we used to be NOT doing well", i.e. our own past defects and limits. And while there is something fine with being the first people to come up with some advance (e.g. the first to the moon), there is something even finer about showing others how to also match that new excellence alongside you. We should want other peoples to live just as well as we live, while they do so with their OWN peculiar styles and methods of doing it.

      Delete
    2. William Applied VirtueJanuary 4, 2025 at 9:13 PM

      Tony,

      There is a difference between wanting America to do well as a people and wanting America to do well as an economic zone. They are always mutually exclusive, but there are ways in which they do contradict.

      For example, Elon Musk believes that the way to make America competitive is to import a bunch of laborers from India to fill the ranks of the tech sectors. Vivek Ramaswamy suggests that this is good thing because Americans are lazy underachievers who the jock and the prom queen over the math olympiad and the nerd, and Indians like himself (he'd imply) are have a superior culture that's more conducive to excellence.

      Meanwhile, people who see America as a people like Auron MacIntrye would look aghast at this proposal. In the first place, it's questionable whether importing more Indians to America is necessary for America to compete with China (If Indians are such quality workers, then why isn't China recruiting them? Why didn't Canada, which did import Indians, form a booming tech center?). And even if Ramaswamy and Musk are correct that American culture is not conducive to being economically competitive, why not instead invest in the people living there? Why not change the education system to teach Americans the skills required for them to remain competitive? Why have them compete with foreign workers who will accept lower wages?

      To people like Musk and Ramaswamy, America is like a sports team competing in a global economic competition, and they are headhunting the best and brightest from around the world - and oftentimes, they're doing so at the fraction of the cost, since they're trying to import people who will work longer hours for less money. What is good for the American people doesn't enter into their equation. In fact, they might see it as racist for Americans to oppose Indian laborers coming over. James Lindsay himself claimed that it was a form of "wokeness" for a nation to prefer its people over those of other nations.

      To people like Auron MacIntyre, the point of a nation is to help the people who make up its citizenry. It doesn't mean denigrating other people, but it does mean prioritizing their health and well-being. And importing foreigners to compete against them for jobs is not good for them.

      Delete
    3. NLRJanuary 5, 2025 at 1:07 PM

      Rule #0 is, is the individual in good faith? If yes, you can actually have a discussion. If no, he is just trying to get you to do or think something that benefits him.

      When it comes to a member of their own families, would Elon or Vivek refuse to help him to get a job and then shrug their shoulders when he can't find one because "it's just economics"?

      We all know the answer to that question.

      Maybe there were people who actually believed that countries were just economic zones back in the day. It would be worth debating them. But at this point, no one in public life actually believes in it. It's all just attempted manipulation.

      Delete
    4. TonyJanuary 5, 2025 at 2:18 PM

      There is a difference between wanting America to do well as a people and wanting America to do well as an economic zone.

      Agreed: doing well as an economic zone is, per se, only a portion of "doing well" simply speaking, which necessarily includes doing well economically as well as in other ways.

      They are always mutually exclusive, but there are ways in which they do contradict.

      I think you dropped an "aren't" in there, as "aren't mutually exclusive", as otherwise the "but" clause doesn't quite scan. I will assume so.

      It is true that if "the good" is thought of exclusively as economic good, that will entail actions and priorities that will conflict with actions and priorities that are decided by thinking of the "the good" as more comprehensive. The better way to say it is that some of the parts that comprise "the whole good" are in tension with other parts, when viewed separately as if they were independent, but when properly integrated into a hierarchical view of the good as a whole, there will be reasonable ways to resolve the tensions into a course of action that reasonably balances intermediate goods so as to pursue "the good" as a whole most fruitfully. If it is TRUE that Musk and Vivek both view economic view as the whole of "the good", then that would mean their methods of achieving good will be counterproductive toward parts of the good that are not economic. But I have not seen evidence that this is how they view the good as such. I have seen at least indirect evidence that they are aware of goods that sit outside of the economic sphere.

      Elon Musk believes that the way to make America competitive is to import a bunch of laborers from India to fill the ranks of the tech sectors...America is like a sports team competing in a global economic competition, and they are headhunting the best and brightest from around the world - and oftentimes, they're doing so at the fraction of the cost,

      I have not seen them promote this, so I don't have particulars at hand. It is (remotely) possible that the above actions might even BE for the best overall good, long term, e.g. if importing better workers were used to get some portion of lazy Americans off their duffs. It might also be good for the world to import great minds to America, e.g. if they are being recruited from a country that is otherwise going to put those great minds to work digging ditches. Particulars matter. Long range thinking is made up of more than just the first steps.

      And I am not claiming that I think Musk's economic views are right: I don't know his views. in enough detail to comment. I do know the Catholic principles of economic activity, which is to place it (and rule it) within a larger framework of the good.

      Delete
    5. NLRJanuary 5, 2025 at 3:56 PM

      "Maybe there were people who actually believed that countries were just economic zones back in the day. It would be worth debating them"

      Those sentences were a bit unclear. To make it more clear:

      Some people actually believed in impartial meritocracy back in the day; it would have been worth debating them. (Of course that gets into the issue of what is merit, since there are different ways to define it).

      But at this point virtually no one in public life actually believes in impartiality. When it comes to their family and their people (however they define their people), they are quite partial (whether they admit it or not).

      Tony and William Applied Virtue, you are both in good faith so you can have a real discussion with each other. Unfortunately, that's rare in public life.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 7:24 AM

      "woke right" is a meaningless term thrown around by different groups within the right. It kind of exposes just how disunified the right really is.

      The more libertarian/classically liberal leaning (like James Lindsay) accuse conservatives of being woke for pushing for the law to uphold traditional morality. Libertarians think morality shouldn't be the basis for laws. Only negative rights. They think the Left is woke for trying to impose morality on others and see conservatives doing the same. That's all true, but the difference is that the Left pushes a false morality.

      Libertarians also accuse the MAGA crowd of being woke for supporting common populist positions like massive entitlement programs, prioritizing the native-born workers over foreign-born, the workers over the corporate executives, etc. Also for being very identitarian of a certain kind.

      Meanwhile, conservatives will call libertarians woke for basically being in agreement with left-leaning liberals on broad cultural and social positions. They generally support "gay marriage", open borders, drug legalization, etc. Basically, they both accept the modern liberal view of freedom and thus agree on topics related to that.

      Conservatives also accuse MAGA of being woke for acting out the same behavior as the Left, shutting down debate, engaging in cancel culture, being reactionary, etc.

      MAGA will accuse conservatives of being woke for being too puritanical and uncompromising, particularly about Trump's character, but also about things like abortion and LGBT issues. But also for generally supposedly overly welcoming to refugees and not being sufficiently isolationist, having supposedly too much trust in some liberal dominated institutions.

      MAGA will also accuse libertarians of being woke for similar reasons as conservatives, but also for not being sufficiently supporting the native worker, being generally quite soft on criminals, etc.

      So, "woke right" doesn't have a solid meaning really. Different right-wing groups share differing elements with the Left, and each group accuses the others of being woke based on those elements.

      Delete
  18. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 8:24 AM

    Can Catholics just desobey laws that go against the good (like forcing doctors to perform abortions)? Or can they also desobey laws that don’t promote good but don’t go against it (like a prohibition on pink hats)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 12:49 PM

      In my understanding, Catholics can and should disobey laws which compel you to act immorally (by either outlawing something which you are morally required to do or by mandating an action which is itself immoral).

      Laws which merely fail to promote the good, but don’t qualify as the above should be followed.

      Delete
  19. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 10:31 AM

    Dr. Feser,

    I recently finished (and very much appreciated) your "By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed." However, the book was published in 2017, before much of the current pontificate's pronouncements on the capital punishment issue. While your blog posts and other articles online have been helpful, I'm wondering if there is any prospect of a second edition of the book, updated to engage with the Catechism revision, "Dignitas Infinitae," etc.

    (Replies also welcome from any others who are aware of anything Dr. Feser has said on this prospect)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul D. Van PeltJanuary 2, 2025 at 11:31 AM

    *Greater good* is also a representation of Utilitarianism. The interests, motives and preferences (IMPs) therewith are whatever one chooses them to be, depending on what one makes of Utilitarianism. So, are differing religious faiths and/or dogmas utilitarian? it depends on which side of the benefit you are on, doesn't it? Lincoln, or someone, spoke of who may be fooled. Barnum and WC Fields said: screw them all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 6:17 AM

      Utilitarianism is pretty specific.

      It has a very rigid definition of "greater good" that doesn't fit with various faiths and dogmas.

      As an example, take the trolley problem, BUT make the number of people on each track the same. If you are someone who has an interest, motive or preference for killing people, thus gain pleasure out of doing so, then utilitarianism would entail that the greatest good would be to pull the lever.

      Catholic moral teaching and natural law ethics wouldn't agree. In fact, it would say your motives are disordered and shouldn't be acted upon.

      Delete
  21. Paul D. Van PeltJanuary 2, 2025 at 1:54 PM

    Yawn. Now, I remember why I am not here. 'bye...

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousJanuary 2, 2025 at 5:51 PM

    Hello. I was wondering what the catholic view of self -confidence, and positive/negative mindset is, since ive been struggling with negativity but have no idea what the solution is from a traditional catholic perspective.Thanks in advance for any responses

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 7:25 AM

      Speaking from the POV of St. Paul and the other apostles, we are not confident of ourselves, but of God: Of myself, I am weak and certain to fall. But with God acting in me and with me, I can succeed (where "succeed" is first measured by love of God and love of others). Confidence then is the theological virtue of hope, in which its primary aspect is confidence that God wills my salvation and offers me the grace to achieve that good - all other goods in this life meant as means to that end.

      Of ourselves, we tend to be sinners, and even in those cases where we have not actually sinned, we often tend to act from such mixed motives where love of God either is not the prime motivation, it is so muddled with other intentions that our wills are saddled with loves that impeded the love of God. From ourselves alone we have nothing of which to be proud, for what comes out of us without aid is always defective. But with God, all things are possible, and while it is often the case that even in the state of grace our acts are still partially imperfect, in hope we are confident that God can perfect us, and that He will do so if we cooperate with Him.

      An ordinary, natural sense of self worth can be righteous if it is based on the correct understanding of the human person: every single human being is made in the image of God, every one of us has the immense dignity of personhood, and also of being called to be sons and daughters of God. Those who accept that call and unite themselves with the Church, the Body of Christ, are by grace lifted up as adopted children of God, by grace even now beginning to see and love God in a supernatural rather than natural love. That dignity is in principle no less than the dignity of the angels, a value far greater than any natural dignity of human nature alone.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 8:12 AM

      Hi Anonymous, I pray that you recover from the negative thoughts you are facing. I think that is the first thing; one should have a habit of praying for good health (spiritually, physically, and psychologically). "Deliver me, O Lord, from the spirit of negativity" can be your constant prayer.

      I'll offer a bit of theory and then a bit of practical advice (in addition to prayer):

      First, I don't see any problem with someone being very confident in his abilities, provided he ascribes all the good he possesses (talent, skills, knowledge, money, reputation, moral virtue, etc) to God and all the defects he possesses to himself.

      Even one's developed skills can be attributed to God, for a variety of reasons. God has blessed you with your bare existence, without which nothing is possible. Beyond that, in His providential plan, God has blessed you with your endowment of natural talents, with the opportunities that come your way, and with the grace to work hard and take advantage of these blessings (natural talent, opportunities etc.). So all the good you possess is attributed to God as the primary cause and you are the primary cause of your defects (you chose to mis-use all those blessings).

      That all being said, one can attribute all the good he possesses to God and yet be highly confident in himself. Magnanimity is the virtue by which you strive to accomplish great things for the common good (i.e. family, marriage, church, community, and country). It would be impossible to be magnanimous and be constantly lacking in confidence. So the practice of at least some virtues requires confidence. But you have to attribute the things you are confident about (the goods I mentioned above) to God as the primary cause of them.

      Regarding positive and negative mindsets. I think a realist mindset is what is called for. A realism that is flavored by a Catholic view of God's providence. God made the world and people good but allows through the Fall allows suffering and evil to exist in the world. Whether it is one's child or nephew getting cancer or a whole nation(s) being conquered or declining into a malaise or cruelty, God has allowed and will allow these evils again as part of a greater story of Good vs Evil, of fall and redemption.

      Practically speaking, I think we need to look at reality as a big grand story, a story with many subplots, and see ourselves as a character in that grand story with our own subplot (i.e. our life story). Good and Evil will come our way and we need to see it in light of God's providential plan, knowing that God knows us better than ourselves and has a plan for us that is better than anything we could have come up with.

      For negative thoughts specifically, I think we need to build positive memories with the people/activities etc. that we currently feel negative towards. And we need to not fixate on the negative (prayers like the one I mentioned above and then doing something to take our mind in a different direction would be helpful, whether that is focusing on something good about the person/activity we are negative towards or thinking about or doing something different altogether.). If it is a person we are negative towards, I think we can work on self-awareness, knowing that the thing about them that bothers us is often a defect in us too and THAT is why it bothers us (i.e. a guilty conscience). For me, my misuse of technology (though not nearly as bad as my wife's) causes me to judge her harshly and feel negative toward her, when the response should be compassion (I struggle with this, so I should be understanding of her deeper struggle).

      I hope all that helps.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 8:13 AM

      Kyle^

      Delete
    4. MJRJanuary 3, 2025 at 2:00 PM

      Whole lotta "Anonymouses!". Anyway, those posts were helping "Anonymous" were excellent.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 8:50 PM

      Anonymous @ 1.3. 8:12am
      I think I know who you are by the way you write . So, why didn't you use your real name?

      Delete
    6. CowherderJanuary 4, 2025 at 7:31 AM

      @ Anon 1/2 5:51pm

      I could write a huge amount here, since I've struggled greatly with this, and have researched it a little bit.

      One piece of advice that works for me is to not read anything Catholic written after about 1350. A new spirit of pessimism, resulting from nominalism and the Black Death, entered the Catholic world at this point. Stick to the Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas and (above all) the Scriptures. Much of the Tridentine-era stuff can give you the impression that the more you love God, the more you hate yourself; which may be rhetorically helpful for certain personality types, but is false in a literal sense. At times, these writings seem to carry the Protestant *sentiment* of total depravity, even if they obviously reject the actual heretical doctrine. The Angelic Doctor tells us that well-ordered self-love is a good and necessary thing, and it is defective and disordered self-love that causes trouble. The Catholic life is about doing what is best for ourselves (yes, really), although this always means curbing certain wrong ideas about *what* is best for ourselves.

      I'm happy to go into more detail if this is helpful. I worked through this stuff with great difficulty, and found that so-called 'traditional' Catholicism often suffers from making people feel wretched and despairing precisely because it is not traditional enough, and not based on St. Thomas enough.

      Less controversially, stop thinking about confidence, and start acting as you would if you were confident. Also, check out Kevin Majeres, a thoroughly orthodox Catholic psychiatrist (who says he reads an article of St Thomas every day), who has a Youtube channel called optimalwork. His content helped me enormously with my fairly severe anxiety.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 12:58 PM

      Already doing better thanks to the advice you guys gave me. Thank you all so much!

      Delete
  23. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 7:00 AM

    You've left twitter! Or have you been booted off?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:15 PM

      Ignore the comment, it was based on a URL typo. Note to self: engage brain before fingers next time.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 2:02 PM

      I am at work on my own version of twitter, Anon.

      Delete
  24. SinawiJanuary 3, 2025 at 11:17 AM

    Thomists,

    Any thoughts on the following critiques of your positions? Thanks in advance

    1. Contra the River Forest school: https://open.substack.com/pub/mashshai/p/going-through-the-forest-to-the-meadow?r=4on5dv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

    2. Contra Aquinas on the Eucharist: https://mashshai.substack.com/p/sunday-mass-with-aquinas

    3. Contra Thomistic view of esse: https://open.substack.com/pub/mashshai/p/contra-the-thomistic-view-of-esse?r=4on5dv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

    4. Contra Thomistic natural theology: https://mashshai.wordpress.com/2024/01/20/contra-thomistic-natural-theology/#more-1794

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnymouseJanuary 9, 2025 at 4:01 PM

      4. Contra Thomistic natural theology:

      Aquinas answers: Q1, A8:

      However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles...

      A7:

      Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause.

      Delete
  25. ficino4mlJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:13 PM

    I vaguely think this has been addressed before: why does Prof. Feser use the spelling "hylemorphic/ism" instead of "hylomorphic/ism"? The latter is found in scholarly writing by people who work in ancient philosophy. I have never seen "hylemorphism" etc anywhere except in the writing of Prof. Feser, commentators on here, and other contemporary exponents of Thomism (e.g. Oderberg).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJanuary 4, 2025 at 7:33 AM

      May I suggest you use ChatGPT and ask the question?

      Why does David Oderberg use the term hylemorphism rather than hylomorphism?

      Delete
    2. ficino4mlJanuary 5, 2025 at 6:33 AM

      @bmiller: haha, had you already done those ChatGPT searches? First Chat GPT said that Oderberg uses "hylemorphism" because it is the correct term. Then, when asked why Christopher Shields switches from hylemorphism to hylomorphism in later work, ChatGPT said that hylomorphism "is the correct and standard term in contemporary scholarship ... "Hylemorphism" is a misspelling or an alternative variant that is not widely accepted in academic discourse."

      I guess it's a domain marker thing. Thomists today prefer hylemorphism, ancient philosophy people like hylomorphism. If a contemporary Thomist uses hylomorphism, will the others think s/he is suspect? heh heh

      Delete
    3. bmillerJanuary 5, 2025 at 11:39 AM

      ficino4ml,

      Yes, I did do several searches with ChapGPT and found similar contradictory responses. For instance it said that the word comes from the Greek words for matter "hyle" and form "morph" and so the correct spelling is "hylomorphism" and "hylemorphism" is a mispelling. Doesn't make sense to me, but it did make me think of a different question.

      Since this is a modern philosophical term not found in the original Greek who originally came up with the term and if they originally spelled it "hylo" rather than "hyle" why did they do that?

      BTW. I see you already broke your New Year's resolution to not respond to me :-)

      Happy New Year.

      Delete
    4. ficino4mlJanuary 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM

      In ancient Greek, most though not all compounds of ὕλη and some other word convert the eta to omicron in the combined form. There is no attested instance of hylomorph- OR hylemorph- through Byzantine times. I'm too lazy to search out who coined the term, whatever vowel we use.

      Delete
    5. BrandonJanuary 6, 2025 at 12:39 PM

      Hylemorphism seems to have begun as a late nineteenth-century German variant spelling, Hylemorphismus, that happened to be used by some German scholastic manuals that were translated into English; it then became a common (although not the only) spelling in twentieth-century English scholastic manuals, and continues to be used by those Thomists who are heavily influenced by those manuals.

      Delete
    6. bmillerJanuary 7, 2025 at 7:16 AM

      It appears that humans came up with more reasonable and informative answers than AI. Looks like we are still safe from AI taking over.

      Delete
  26. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 1:39 PM

    Another day, another headache.

    “ Against Moral Responsibility and Retributive Justice

    …

    The notion of free will emerged from religious ideas that are no longer deemed scientifically defensible. Christian philosophers like Immanuel Kant conceived of the soul as an immaterial entity that was self-causing, rather than being caused by anything else. This idea of free will underlies Kant’s theory of moral responsibility.”

    - Ian Jobling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2025 at 8:38 PM

      Huh?

      Delete
    2. KevinJanuary 4, 2025 at 7:14 AM

      I've never previously heard of Ian Jobling, but reading his opinion on free will, he seems to be yet another atheist seeking to justify his atheism via sloppy thinking and selective acceptance of scientific ideas.

      Not much to see there.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 10:47 AM

      The notion of free will emerged from religious ideas that are no longer deemed scientifically defensible.

      The 20th century notion that science was "soon" going to be able to account for appearance and experience of free will without there being, actually, any such thing as free will, is gradually being abandoned by more scientists as the project becomes ever more intractable and the prospect recedes into the distance. The idea that it "emerged" from religion is impossible to even remotely establish as a historical fact, even if it weren't effectively self-contradictory. The idea existed before any philosophies came into existence, and certainly 5,000 years before Kant. Kant's particular attempt to describe and explain it was inadequate, but then so was that of Hume before him, which signifies nothing.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 6:39 PM

      Define the appearance of free will. How would the absence of free will look different? What if someone says logicals statements like “there are no square circles” or “storm clouds mean it will rain soon” don’t require free will to make sense?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 8:13 AM

      @ Kevin, January 4, 2025

      Your comment prompted me to read one of Ian Jobling's articles about free will on SubStack. From my reading, it had nothing to do with "justifying atheism" and everything to do with trying to honestly understand reality and change our retributive justice systems. So by my estimation, there is "not much to see" in your comment.

      Delete
    6. KevinJanuary 5, 2025 at 11:22 AM

      Well, anonymous person, one can be honest and still prone to sloppy thinking, as Ian Jobling is. One can make ignorant comments about things one disagrees with and falsely pin the blame on religion, as Ian Jobling does. One can fail to distinguish one's self from the hordes of Internet atheists pretending to know what they don't know, as Ian Jobling does. And one can analyze these things and come to a likely accurate conclusion, as I do. Just read his past opinions on race - while it is good that he eventually abandoned them, it is yet another example of the sloppy thinking and selective science acceptance he still displays regarding free will.

      However, since your anonymous self seems flustered by my dismissal of his incorrect opinions and the larger context wherein he holds them, I will speak no more of them.

      Delete
    7. bmillerJanuary 5, 2025 at 3:58 PM

      Kevin,

      Did you ever think that he had no choice except to be flustered, since there is no free will. In that case you are not responsible. :-)

      Delete
    8. NLRJanuary 5, 2025 at 7:10 PM

      "Define the appearance of free will. How would the absence of free will look different?"

      It would look different because it would feel like being a passive observer and not being able to do anything.

      Determinists always say things this, but one can turn the question around and ask: "What does it feel like to feel like you have free will but not have it?" That's just something that determinists have postulated, but why should we just believe there is such a thing?

      On the contrary, people do in fact experience states of weaker agency, such as when intoxicated, drugged, or even in dreams. People also report experiences of greater agency with heightened clarity of thinking.

      One could also reply to a determinst, "Maybe you just thought you were convinced by a determinist argument - you felt like you were convinced but you weren't really convinced."

      People do less philosophical reasoning than choosing, so the experience of free will is as empirical (actually more so) than the experience of being convinced by an argument for determinism.

      Delete
    9. TonyJanuary 6, 2025 at 10:59 AM

      Determinists always say things this, but one can turn the question around and ask: "What does it feel like to feel like you have free will but not have it?"

      One can go further: what (in the current understanding of the development of organisms) would account for the development of an experiential perception of freely choosing where the reality had no such thing? Aside from the fact that we cannot yet say where in our DNA would be the structures that are responsible for creating that experience during a process of "choice", nobody has yet proposed a sound rationale for how natural selection could have found it a beneficial organic structure for survival.

      And as for it being "religion" that is responsible, the idea is evolutionarily laughable: a religion is an incredibly complex set of belief structures that (if it occurs by nature and not by humans with actual free will) must have been generated over many, many generations with many misadventures of dead ends. There simply hasn't been enough time for such organic developments to come about purely organically and THEN also generate the organic basis for an invented idea of "free will" to be implanted naturally in the mind-sets (of effectively all different populations) of humans). Not to mention that we have no current explanation for specific organic bases for specific IDEAS, anyway.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 2:14 PM

      What if someone says “I did what I’d did because it was inevitable, even if there wasn’t a mind control helmet on my head like in the SpongeBob movie. Therefore I acted without free will despite not being a passive observer.”?

      Delete
    11. TonyJanuary 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM

      Yes, and what if someone says all actions in nature happen because it was inevitable, there is no other cause of them than that. Science looking for "causes" is a wasted effort, since there is no cause behind the actions than that they were inevitable, assigning "forces" and the like is empty nonsense.

      But the actions of scientists is also inevitable, so those too have no cause but that their sayings and doings are inevitable. And, likewise was this response, it carries no more meaning than that I typed out the letters, but that too was inevitable, without any other cause than that.

      Or, we could admit that we admit that we look for causes because "it was inevitable" isn't really an account of events, it is a blanket rejection of accounting. If the experience of choosing, in appearance free, needs an account, then "emerges from religion" is a basic fail, as it doesn't actually account for the experience. It would be like accounting for horses by pointing to horseshoes.

      Delete
  27. CaptainCHJanuary 4, 2025 at 8:06 AM

    Prof. Feser, do you still plan on writing a book on sexual ethics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJanuary 4, 2025 at 10:52 AM

      Yes, that's next up. I'm just gearing up to begin work on it, once I complete a couple of smaller (essay length) commitments.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 7:42 PM


      Dr Feser
      Catholic sexual ethics can be summed up in one sentence: Any sexual act other than sexual intercourse between a married man and woman where the man ejaculates into a woman's vagina is unlawful and prohibited. And deliberate lustful thoughts are sinful. Lawler , May and Boyle take 352 pages to say that in their book and they are all specialists in ethics and moral theology. Please use your brilliant philosophical gifts for another topic, like an update of Fr Brian Davies 1985 book Thinking About God. I say this with respect.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 12:06 PM

      Dr Feser

      Why not make your next book a defence of Christianity, and of Catholicism in particular? This would complete a trilogy of books, which together would constitute a full defence of Catholic Christian theiism , surely a more urgent project than a book about sexual ethics, as important as that might be.

      Delete
    4. DanteJanuary 5, 2025 at 2:03 PM

      I can summarize it in one word: NO. And u forgot artificial birth control, sterilization and probably other forbidden acts.

      Delete
    5. Edward FeserJanuary 5, 2025 at 2:49 PM

      Why not make your next book a defence of Christianity, and of Catholicism in particular?

      Actually, that's the next book project after the sexual morality book. The sexual morality book must be first, though, to complete the philosophical preambles to apologetics, because today sexual vice is by far the biggest source of resistance to Christian morality. And such a book is also urgent in its own right, since sexual vice has plunged the modern Western mind into darkness more generally, unable to see clearly even the rudiments of natural law (let alone distinctively Christian morality)

      Delete
    6. NormJanuary 5, 2025 at 11:16 PM

      Very True Prof.
      Would be nice to see a good defence that targets the root of the problem and touts the virtues of and moral importance of abstinence before marriage.

      Delete
    7. DanteJanuary 6, 2025 at 6:49 PM

      I think it's secularism, not vice that is the biggest resistance to Christian morality. Nothing is going make natural law acceptable to people. And although your book will sell, it will not be on the best seller lists, with sales in the millions, and making headlines. You won't be having massive book signings or be making appearances on multiple media outlets. No book is going to make anyone "see clearly. " We are saturated with books, blogs, podcasts, etc. Nothing will make the calendar turn back to 1960.

      Delete
  28. MichaelJanuary 4, 2025 at 9:16 AM

    (This question is mainly for the other Christians who frequent this blog). What will we be doing in the Eschaton?

    Because we will be re-embodied in the Eschaton, and also because God will fully restore the Creation, the idea that we will not be doing anything physical at all, seems like it is more Manichean rather than Scriptural. Will those of us who are scientists continue to study the physical world? Will those of us who are creative continue to make works of Art (painting, music, literature, etc.)? Of course, we can’t really definitively answer this (until the Eschaton happens), but the belief that we won’t be doing anything physical seems to fly in the face of God’s restoration of Creation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MJRJanuary 5, 2025 at 11:50 AM

      We will behold the Beatific Vision.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 9:10 PM

      In my opinion, yes, we will (among other things) be carrying on human labor. I think this is suggested at manky places in the Bible, in its view of the promises of land to Abraham etc., and the new heavens/earth.

      Delete
    3. TonyJanuary 6, 2025 at 10:43 AM

      True, we will behold the BV. However, standard Catholic theology has it that Christ (in his human intellect) beheld the BV all during his earthly life, and this did not prevent him from acting as a child, a teen, an adult: learning to speak, walk, carpentering, his public ministry, his weeping at the death of Lazarus, his anger at the misuse of the Temple.

      Like Michael, I believe that the fact that we will have bodies - albeit resurrected bodies that are not subject to ordinary limitations - has some import on what we will be DOING. C.S. Lewis proposed that we will experience in our selves, somehow or other, satisfactions that in some sense partake of the satisfactions of eating, drinking, and other bodily goods, but do so in a manner elevated beyond the ordinary manner, calling the mode "transgastronomic", "transsexual", etc. I think the idea is that unlike the angels (who simply don't HAVE those faculties in their make-up), we do and our delight in heaven will not ignore them, still our delight in heaven will (somehow) sidestep the constraints in experiencing them that come with ordinary earthly life, e.g. that it is impossible to be fully enjoying eating while also fully engaged in contemplation, and impossible to fully enjoy eating continuously, etc. And, because there will be no marriage in heaven, there will be no sex, but we will still have our sexual faculties.

      It is always best to remember "it has not yet been revealed" what we shall become (not in full), so all we can do is suggest and consider more and less probable answers. But it is more probable that "what we will be doing" will in some sense reflect bodily reality, and at the same time reflect being united to the eternal, a-temporal God.

      Delete
    4. MJRJanuary 6, 2025 at 11:15 AM

      Tony
      https://saintaloysiuschurch.org/news/what-will-our-glorified-bodies-be-like
      https://catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/what-will-our-resurrected-bodies-be-like.html

      Delete
    5. MJRJanuary 6, 2025 at 4:36 PM

      Jesus was God/Man and beheld the BV, but he was also a man with bodily functions. Those in heaven will not have bodily functions. There will be no sex in heaven, so we would have no need for our sexual faculties, i.e., desire and arousal.

      Delete
  29. MichaelJanuary 4, 2025 at 11:42 AM

    Dr. Feser, whenever you continue your series on "Adventures in the Old Atheism", will you include a post on Hume or Russell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2025 at 11:10 AM

      Dr. Feser did his doctoral dissertation on Russell. I wish he would make it available online.

      Delete
  30. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 1:49 PM

    I don’t think this is a question that can be answered right now. Since the later strata of the New Testament describe the resurrected Christ in “flesh and blood” terms, theology has traditionally struggled to bridge the gap between corporeal existence and the beatific vision. It hasn’t been successful. But the earliest NT accounts (namely St. Paul’s) describe the risen Lord in trans-corporeal terms, as having a “spiritual” body nevertheless related to his physical body. It seems to me that in the eschaton, corporeality will have been transformed so that our present physical limitations no longer obtain.

    ReplyDelete
  31. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 2:59 PM

    Dear Dr. Feser,

    Thank you for your insightful work on "Immortal Souls" and your critique of imagism. I found your argument about the indistinguishability of blurry mental images (e.g., a crowd of 500 versus 700 people) particularly thought-provoking. However, I wonder if the following counterexample might at least partially rehabilitate imagism, or if I am misunderstanding the point.

    Imagine I form two identical mental images of a generic crowd. Above the first, I mentally "write" a label or frame that says "Crowd of 500 people," and above the second, "Crowd of 700 people." The labels, though not part of the image itself, seem to function as mental "metadata," giving each image a distinct identity in my mind. Would this not allow imagism to account for such differentiation, even if the visual content remains indistinguishable?

    I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on whether this approach addresses your critique, or if it still falls short of resolving the deeper issues with imagism.

    Warm regards.

    ReplyDelete
  32. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 3:01 PM

    Hello Dr. Feser,

    I wanted to share a quick note from a recent "Young Professionals" meeting at my parish, where we discussed bioethics, transhumanism, and morality. It was a truly enriching experience, and one question in particular sparked a lot of debate:

    What is the simplest and most compelling argument for the existence of objective moral values?

    Some participants suggested that the universality of certain moral norms across cultures (e.g., the prohibition of murder or theft) strongly hints at their objectivity. Others proposed that grounding morality in God’s existence is the best approach, but this requires a more layered argument ("God exists → God is moral → therefore objective morality exists").

    Would you suggest a more straightforward way to articulate the existence of objective moral values, especially to an audience less familiar with metaphysics or theology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MichaelJanuary 4, 2025 at 6:36 PM

      Easy. Just point out how the Nuremberg trial judges told the Nazis that even though what they did was technically legal, they still knew what they were doing was evil.

      Delete
  33. MechaMutohJanuary 4, 2025 at 6:06 PM

    Dr. Feser, I've been reading Immortal Souls and on page 99 I think I noticed some typos which were worth mentioning for the next edition.

    In the sixth line of the second paragraph, right after the sentence with the 162th footnote, was that "It" supposed to be an "If"?

    And counting from the bottom, in the 8th line, wasn't it supposed to be "But to characterize the latter" instead of "But to characterize the former"? The "former" is referred to twice, and in no moment is a reference made to the "latter".

    I haven't finished it yet, but it is being a great book. Thank you very much for it, it was worth the pre-order.

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2025 at 6:34 PM

    What is your stance on trickle down economics? What about government welfare checks for the poor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 5:29 PM

      Trickle down economics is a made up claim that has never actually been the economics policy of anyone. No one has ever supported it, it's never been defended, it's never been the economics policy of any administration.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2025 at 8:01 PM

      Not even Ronald Reagan?

      Delete
    3. AnymouseJanuary 7, 2025 at 7:08 PM

      I think the rant against it must have been satire, because patently some people have supported it, and some administrations at least claimed they were trying to put it into effect.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 6:03 AM

      No. Reagan implemented supply-side economics.

      Trickle-down is just a boogeyman term invented by those opposed to supply-side economics.

      Delete
    5. MichaelJanuary 8, 2025 at 2:15 PM

      Trickle down is an alternative name for reagonomics, and therefore a real thing, not a bogeyman.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2025 at 2:21 AM

      Reaganomics was supply-side economics. That's all. Even those who claim trickle-down is real will distinguish it from supply-side economics.

      Reagan implemented supply-side policies, and economists like Paul Krugman and others say it's actually trickle-down. But it simply isn't. It's just a term to discredit anyone who pushes supply-side economics as having a secret sinister plan to actually push trickle-down economics.

      The moment someone considers tax cuts and deregulation, people will just scream "trickle-down economics!" to give people the impression that the politicians are really just

      It's a term that wasn't even invented by economists, but by a satirist and social commentator, who made up a complete strawman of the actual economic policies who was criticizing.

      It's just a pejorative term to push a myth for political reasons.

      Delete
  35. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 9:46 AM

    As AI is becoming more and more powerful at the specific tasks it admittedly does well, it seems more and more people are willing to accept that what it does is actual “thinking.”

    At this point, it seems to be a losing battle for those of us who disagree, from a purely rhetorical perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyJanuary 6, 2025 at 10:29 AM

      I have heard possibly otherwise: that AI is actually hitting some plateaus on further advances (at least in some areas), not hitherto expected. I admit I don't know the details.

      Delete
  36. MichaelJanuary 5, 2025 at 11:33 AM

    Does anyone know of a list of the primary sources on the different versions of the Cosmological Argument?
    I'm asking this mainly so that I can understand the historical development of the different versions of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2025 at 11:08 AM

      Let Prof. Google answer your question about the CA. Many links out there.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 6, 2025 at 7:55 PM

      Our host has mentioned William Lane Craig's 1980 book The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz.

      Delete
  37. DNWJanuary 5, 2025 at 3:14 PM

    Mad as hell after getting no answers from the skinbags of the left for years, I asked Grok. To my surprise, Grok, basically conceded the point.

    "Why don't nominalists grasp that their own ontology undercuts any ethical claims they make based on essential and universal in-common interests?

    Answer
    Nominalism .. is the view that universals or abstract concepts do not exist in reality but are merely names or labels ... Here's why some nominalists might struggle with the implications of their ontology when it comes to making ethical claims based on essential and universal in-common interests:

    Nominalist Ontology:
    Denial of Universals: Nominalists argue that there are no real, independent universals or essences; what we call "humanity," "justice," or "rights" are just linguistic conveniences or conventions ... For nominalists, only particular instances exist. Thus, the concept of universal human interests or ethical standards becomes problematic since there's no real "essence" of humanity that all humans share in the same way.

    Ethical Implications:
    Lack of Objective Grounding: If universals like "human dignity" or "justice" are merely names without corresponding realities, then ethical claims based on these concepts lack an objective foundation ... moral values are seen as arbitrary or culturally constructed.

    Difficulty in Justifying Universal
    Ethics: Nominalists might find it challenging to argue for actions or policies based on "universal" human rights or interests because, according to their philosophy, what these terms denote are not universally real but merely commonly agreed upon labels.

    Challenges Nominalists Face:
    Inconsistency: When nominalists advocate for ethical principles like equality or justice, they might implicitly rely on the very universals they deny exist. This can appear as an inconsistency or a pragmatic contradiction where the nominalist's actions or arguments presuppose the reality of what their philosophy denies.

    Communication and Persuasion: Ethical discourse often relies on shared concepts and assumptions. Without universals, it's harder to communicate or persuade others of the necessity of ethical actions or policies, as there's no shared objective ground to appeal to.

    Moral Motivation: If ethics are based on arbitrary conventions rather than something intrinsic to human nature or reality, it might be harder to motivate ethical behavior universally or to argue against ethical nihilism or extreme relativism.

    Potential Responses by Nominalists:
    Pragmatic Approach: Some nominalists might adopt a pragmatic stance where, even if universals don't exist, the utility of acting as if they do can be acknowledged ...

    Social Constructivism: They might argue that ethics are constructed through social processes, and while not "real" in an ontological sense ....

    Language and Agreement: Ethics could be seen as a matter of linguistic agreement or social contract, where what matters is not the ontological status of ethical concepts but the agreement on their use and application.

    Why the Disconnect?
    Philosophical vs. Everyday Reasoning: There's often a disconnect between philosophical positions and the practical, everyday reasoning where people, including philosophers, might not fully apply their theoretical beliefs in all contexts.

    Human Intuition: Humans naturally think in terms of universals for cognitive efficiency. Even nominalists, in practice, might find it hard to shake off this intuitive way of thinking, leading to ethical arguments that seem to assume universals.

    Ethical Urgency: The urgency of ethical issues might lead to a temporary suspension of strict nominalist principles in favor of what seems practically necessary or morally compelling.

    ... the challenge for nominalists in grounding ethical claims lies in reconciling their metaphysical beliefs with the intuitive and practical need for ethical universals. This tension often leads to philosophical debates about how one can coherently maintain ethical stances within a nominalist framework."

    Yeah ... LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BillJanuary 7, 2025 at 11:00 AM

      What you describe as “nominalism” is self-undermining. Arguing that universal labels are nothing but “linguistic conveniences or conventions,” is incoherent because that reduces to “All Xs are Y,” which is a universal (categorization). We then have X = universal/category and Y = convention, which translates into, “All categories or universals are conventional.” Since this is of the form that all Xs are Y, then it is itself a grouping or a categorization, which altogether undermines the claim. And that implies that it is just as arbitrary and disconnected from reality as the criticized universal. So, why believe it?

      Delete
    2. Michael FJanuary 8, 2025 at 2:17 PM

      If someone defines human as people with enough genetic similarity to make fertile offspring with other people, are they nominalist or not?

      Delete
    3. a.morphousJanuary 9, 2025 at 3:19 PM

      > To my surprise, Grok, basically conceded the point.

      Why the surprise? LLMs are nothing if not obliging. Did you expect Grok to vigorously argue for nominalism? I'm sure it would if prompted.

      Of course Grok itself is much worse than a nominalist. Nominalists believe that words have meanings, even if they aren't set in stone. LLMs though are semantic nihilists, words mean literally nothing to them except as shifts in probability distribution for the next word.

      Delete
  38. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 5:39 PM

    Given hylomorphism, how does an Aristotelian Thomist make sense of people thinking, acting, and experiencing after they die (whether in hell, purgatory, or as saints in heaven) before the final resurrection of the body?

    Under hylomorphism, the human soul without the body isn't a human substance, and substances are what act and are acted upon. So, how can, for example, a saint intercede for us or receive the beatific vision, if the saint's body, in some cases, is laid on display in a cathedral?

    ReplyDelete
  39. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2025 at 9:11 PM

    Does any know what happened to the commenter Machinephilosophy that used to post on here? He had a profile with lots of recordings of atheist philosophy books, which he said had been crucial in bringing him to theism. He doesn't seem to have been around lately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 7, 2025 at 2:41 PM

      He may still be here under another name, like anonymous or whatever.

      Delete
    2. DNWJanuary 8, 2025 at 3:29 PM

      "Does any know what happened to the commenter Machinephilosophy that used to post on here"

      Since no one has answered I'll offer my recollection.

      When after a protracted period of absence I returned to regularly reading and occassionally commenting, I noticed that many of the old regulars - from the days of Feser's seemingly predominant philosophy of mind, naturalism, and politics postings - had drifted away.

      The new themes seemed, to me at least, more concentratedly theological [This is just an impression] and the commenters decidely more ... uh, sensitive, and somewhat less logically acute. [ Again, just an impression]

      On some occasion soon after, Machinephilosophy also returned for a visit and asked something to the effect of :
      What's happened to the quality of the commentary on Feser's postings here?

      Assuming, perhaps wrongly, that I knew what he meant, I don't think I asked. Or I don't recall doing so.

      Whatever the reason for his apparent exasperation with the commentary level or edge , I did not see much of him afterward.

      Delete
    3. BillJanuary 9, 2025 at 8:24 AM

      @DNW, back then, a very intelligent atheist named _dguller_ frequented this blog, and his arguments prompted the best and brightest here (and some not so best and brightest) to challenge his arguments. It made for a lot of interesting reading. The time came, however, that dguller became convinced that the Aristotelian framework was sound, so he moved away from atheism to a kind of deism or a First Mover. Strangely enough, he shortly afterwards left these boards, and I haven't seen him anywhere else.

      What made dguller's debates interesting was his politeness and logical rigor. His critiques weren't in the neo-atheist family, and that helped to elevate the level of debate. That said, once the horse has been beaten until it's dead, people tend to move on to other things. It's sometimes wearisome to address over and over the same silly objections to Thomism that are fully addressed in Feser's various books, especially when the come from those who argue in bad faith.

      So, whatever drew "Machine" here must have drifted away (not necessarily dguller, of course), and he went with it.

      Delete
    4. ficino4mlJanuary 9, 2025 at 11:42 AM

      @Bill,

      Yes, I miss dguller. He made a lot of good contributions to discussion and as you say, exemplified what many on here thought was "good" online etiquette.

      Delete
    5. SteveKJanuary 9, 2025 at 12:15 PM

      "especially when the come from those who argue in bad faith"

      StardustyPsyche

      Delete
  40. TheresaJanuary 6, 2025 at 3:28 AM

    If the Church teaches that there are no new revelations and that private revelations are not binding, why is it that the writings of St. Paul are given such prominence as he received his revelations separate to the apostles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael FJanuary 6, 2025 at 8:02 PM

      The apostles were still alive.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 7, 2025 at 7:21 AM

      The close of the period of "public revelation" is held to be at the death of the last apostle. So, John's account of his visions, in Revelation, is part of the scriptural revelation and part of the word of God. And the other gospels and letters by the apostles, before John's death.

      Delete
    3. MJRJanuary 7, 2025 at 7:39 PM

      https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/a-question-of-faith-has-revelation-ended-or-does-god-continue-to-reveal-himself-to-us/57846

      Delete
  41. Son of Ya'KovJanuary 6, 2025 at 8:18 AM

    OSR D&D specifically BX is better than 5th edition D&D and whatever the latest version is that succeeded that.

    Change my mind.:D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM

      What were you saying, Son of Y?

      Delete
    2. CosmicCatJanuary 7, 2025 at 9:54 PM

      Did you know that the AD&D 3 x 3 grid is the true solution to the binding problem in AI alignment?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 5:21 PM

      Are you near the fires? Praying everyone is okay.

      Delete
  42. bmillerJanuary 8, 2025 at 6:31 PM

    Hope you are safe Dr. Feser.

    ReplyDelete
  43. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2025 at 9:14 PM

    Dr Feser,
    Is your home safe from the California wildfires?

    ReplyDelete
  44. NormJanuary 8, 2025 at 10:12 PM

    My prayers are with those who have been affected by the fires in Los Angeles.

    ReplyDelete
  45. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2025 at 3:25 AM

    Dr. Feser,

    I am praying that you and your family are safe, along with your home and others affected by the fires.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Edward FeserJanuary 9, 2025 at 11:00 AM

    Thanks, all. It's been a chaotic couple of days. We're safe, but we know several families who have lost their homes. It's heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2025 at 2:57 PM

      My daughter works at one of the (greatly overworked) hospital ERs, and said yesterday: on a break, she walked out and saw separate columns of smoke in all 4 directions around the hospital. And several of the hospital staff had lost their homes, one while on shift. Felt like the apocalypse. Heartbreaking indeed, and we should be very grateful for the dedicated ER staff, and the thousands of firefighting people. My house is not currently at risk, but we are having power outages.

      Delete
    2. MJRJanuary 9, 2025 at 3:09 PM

      I am sure we are all glad you are safe, Ed. It is indeed heartbreaking. Loss, tragedy, suffering. and it is all so random during natural disasters. Maybe you could write about that someday.

      Delete
    3. Lawrence GageJanuary 9, 2025 at 7:03 PM

      Deo gratias!

      Delete
    4. NormJanuary 9, 2025 at 7:09 PM

      You are in our prayers, Prof. God Bless!

      Delete
    5. DNWJanuary 9, 2025 at 7:28 PM

      Everyone is glad to hear it. Stay well.

      But I assume that it never occurred to most of us as probable that you would have lived in one of the affected areas, Los Angeles being as sprawling and geographically diverse as it is.

      "95% of Los Angeles is flat" I just read. All I've personally seen of it is the ariport and the freeway.

      I remember watching the film noir Criss Cross and trying to figure out why Lancaster's mother lived in San Francisco.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)