Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[volgadon]

I would ask everyone to please hold off until I can copy the posts from another thread, then the debate can begin in earnest. While this thread is mainly geared towards Seraphim and MFB, everyone is warmly encouraged to join the fray. I know that if there is one thing lacking among posters here, it is not opinions.

[volgadon]

Mfbukowksi wrote:

The entire problem here is the belief that a pagan Greek idea- the idea of an uncaused cause is taken as the definition of what constitutes the God of Christianity.

I am sorry but Greek paganism does not define the God of Christianity.

****************************************

Seraphim32 wrote:

Your statement confuses correlation with causation. Did the idea of a God that must be uncaused arise in a society in which many of the people were pagan? Sure, but the actual arguments for an uncaused cause in themselves have nothing to do with paganism; in fact the Aristotelian argument for an unmoved mover refutes paganism.

Greeks pagans typically believed in Gods that had human characteristics, such as human-like emotions and physical bodies. Sounds more like the LDS faith than traditional Christianity to me.

*************************************************************

Mfbukowski wrote:

Seraphim32, on 31 October 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Your statement confuses correlation with causation.

Hardly. I have read my Hume.

Did the idea of a God that must be uncaused arise in a society in which many of the people were pagan? Sure, but the actual arguments for an uncaused cause in themselves have nothing to do with paganism; in fact the Aristotelian argument for an unmoved mover refutes paganism.

Only if you haven't read Hume.

Greeks pagans typically believed in Gods that had human characteristics, such as human-like emotions and physical bodies. Sounds more like the LDS faith than traditional Christianity to me.

Yes, it's sad the way "traditional Christianity" became "tradition" isn't it- see, we believe in an apostasy before that "tradition" became entrenched.

The notion that God is the Man of Holiness is indeed the basis of the LDS faith, thank God for the restoration of that truth!

It seems you don't know much about our faith. Try mormon.org

[volgadon]

Vance wrote:

Perhaps you can help me out here.

So God sat (not to imply any physical attribute but simply for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) ETERNALLY in dark emptiness and then suddenly, He (not to imply any gender) decides to create everything from nothing.

What caused this sudden change?

**************************************************************

Vance wrote:

So, does your Jesus have a physical body?

Is your Jesus divine?

Does your Jesus have "human-like emotions"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

*********************************************************************

Mfbukowski wrote:

By understanding God to be an idealized, glorified, perfected Man, Mormonism solves the problem which has played out over 2,000 years of theology- the problem of transcendence vs immanence.

If God is transcendent, essentially a Platonic Form of Goodness, he cannot be involved with lowly humans and be our Father and hear and answer prayers.

On the other hand, if he is immanent, it was believed that he could not be omniscient and omnipotent. So the whole thing was solved by giving Him two "natures" that of God and that of Man- represented in the dual natures of Jesus.

But that really just defines away the difference by giving the word "nature" some magic ability to create an imaginary difference.

What is the nature of man? To be manly.

What is the nature of God? To be Godly

What is the nature of a dog? To be a dog. What is explained by the word "nature"? Nothing! It is like saying that a sleeping pill works by its ability to induce sleep. A sleeping pill's nature is that it induces sleep.

That explains nothing!

So the Neoplatonic explanation does not explain anything, as 20th century philosophy has shown conclusively.

Yet the Mormon explanation goes back to the Biblical roots of the Council of the Gods, discussed much on this forum.

Clearly we are the heirs to original Christianity as opposed to the apostate "traditional Christianity". The two thousand years of apostate theology have little relevance to Mormon theology and the definition of an immanent, Human God.

*****************************************************************

Seraphim32 wrote:

mfbukowski, on 31 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Hardly. I have read my Hume.

Only if you haven't read Hume.

Well, if you are a follower of Hume there isn't really any point in debating anything further, since we can't speak of connections or causes. I personally think Hume takes his skepticism to nonsensical lengths.

It seems you don't know much about our faith. Try mormon.org

Don't I? As an individual who was Mormon for 20+ years, studied under notable LDS scholars, and read various works by Nibley, Ostler, Givens, and the like I am curious as to where you see ignorances of my knowledge of the LDS faith.

Vance, on 31 October 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Perhaps you can help me out here.

So God sat (not to imply any physical attribute but simply for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) ETERNALLY in dark emptiness and then suddenly, He (not to imply any gender) decides to create everything from nothing.

What caused this sudden change?

Notice that your statement is one filled with temporal terms that cannot rightly be applied to a being outside of time.

Vance, on 31 October 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

So, does your Jesus have a physical body?

Is your Jesus divine?

Does your Jesus have "human-like emotions"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Jesus has a body, but not quite like the body we have. I can't pass through solid structures. As for emotions I am not sure how Christ experiences emotions.

[volgadon]

Seraphim32 wrote:

The statements above are far too brief to even come close to demonstrating that the LDS faith is clearly anything. You don't do justice to the Platonic tradition, totally overlook the Aristotelian and Scholastic tradition, and give a nonsensical account of Aristotelian "nature".

*****************************************************************************

MiserereNobis wrote:

mfbukowski, on 31 October 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

So the Neoplatonic explanation does not explain anything, as 20th century philosophy has shown conclusively.

Conclusively only to a (post-)modernist. There is a reason (and you and I will take the opposite side, of course) that Pope St. Pius X declared modernism to be the synthesis of all heresies.

I must admit that I truly do enjoy the fact that I have found you, mfb: a fairly die-hard Mormon post-modernist. For some reason (my ignorance, obviously), I didn't think I would uncover such a thing. Surprises always abound! Thanks for being you!

Clearly

On this board, at least

we are the heirs to original Christianity as opposed to the apostate "traditional Christianity". The two thousand years of apostate theology have little relevance to Mormon theology and the definition of an immanent, Human God.

Well, at least we've got more years than you... nany-nany-boo-boo

*************************************

MiserereNobis wrote:

Indeed. The "modern" time period (1600-present) loved to discredit the past with straw men accounts of their philosophies. Calling the Middle Ages the "dark ages" is a clear example.

*******************************************

Mfbukowski wrote:

It's hardly that I am a "follower" of Hume.

It's just that most of the last 300 years of philosophy is based on Kant and Hume in some way or another. And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of.

Unfortunately we are not completely rid of them yet, though, obviously.

********************************

Mfbukowski wrote:

I don't know how you could know those authors and not be aware of the common thread of Pragmatism found in their writings. Ostler is usually classified as a "process theologian" quite rightly, I think.

David Paulsen is quite fond of William James as are many other Mormon writers,

I know of no one who wants to go back to Protestant theology. What would be the point of the Restoration if we go back to thinking like Evangelicals?

And yes, the "Dark Ages" were rightly named. Astrology and Alchemy? After all, alchemy was based on the idea of "substance" and the notion that all one had to do is to change the "accidents" of lead into those of gold, and by retaining the metallic "substance", the converse of the way that transubstantiation changes the substance while retaining the accidents, you could change lead into gold. With gold at its present price- I think even Romney would invest in that if you can make it work

We moderns and post moderns believe in things like atomic number and electrons and all that silly stuff.

If that's heresy, I plead guilty. I am not exactly alone in my positions. I wish I thought this stuff up- but you give me too much credit.

Edit: How could I forget James Faulconer??

Edit: Oh yeah- Sterling Mc Murrin! He messed up on several points but he got it exactly right about Pragmatism and Mormonism.

[volgadon]

Mfbukowski wrote:

Next time you get sick- please don't call a physician from the 17th century, ok?

I like you too much! I know modern medicine is witchcraft, but heck, who wants a life span of 35 years?

************************************

Seraphim32 wrote:

mfbukowski, on 31 October 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

It's hardly that I am a "follower" of Hume.

It's just that most of the last 300 years of philosophy is based on Kant and Hume in some way or another. And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of.

Unfortunately we are not completely rid of them yet, though, obviously.

You seem to have fallen into the age-old trap of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be poor judgment to throw out pre-enlightenment philosophy simply because it happened to coincide with archaic practices in other fields. A philosophy should be scrutinized alone to determine its merit. I would love to hear more about the errors you speak of and how they can be attributed to Scholastic philosophy.

mfbukowski, on 31 October 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

I don't know how you could know those authors and not be aware of the common thread of Pragmatism found in their writings. Ostler is usually classified as a "process theologian" quite rightly, I think.

David Paulsen is quite fond of William James as are many other Mormon writers,

I know of no one who wants to go back to Protestant theology. What would be the point of the Restoration if we go back to thinking like Evangelicals?

And yes, the "Dark Ages" were rightly named. Astrology and Alchemy? After all, alchemy was based on the idea of "substance" and the notion that all one had to do is to change the "accidents" of lead into those of gold, and by retaining the metallic "substance", the converse of the way that transubstantiation changes the substance while retaining the accidents, you could change lead into gold. With gold at its present price- I think even Romney would invest in that if you can make it work

We moderns and post moderns believe in things like atomic number and electrons and all that silly stuff.

If that's heresy, I plead guilty. I am not exactly alone in my positions. I wish I thought this stuff up- but you give me too much credit.

Edit: How could I forget James Faulconer??

Edit: Oh yeah- Sterling Mc Murrin! He messed up on several points but he got it exactly right about Pragmatism and Mormonism.

I still don't understand what led you to conclude that I have an ignorance of the LDS faith. I am well aware of the process theology underlying LDS theology.

This so-called dark age you speak of, was it a global phenomenon, and can it truly be attributed to the philosophy of the time? Further, even if it could be demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong about physics does that de facto mean he was wrong about everything else? Once again, I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and we should judge each idea individually. I could be completely correct in my theories about how cheetahs get their spots while being mistaken in my theories about astrophysics. Likewise, Aristotle could have simultaneously been a poor physicist while being a fantastic metaphysician.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a more focused discussion about the Scholastic tradition in a seperate thread. Would this be possible?

******************************************************

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59256-james-white-on-mormonism/

[volgadon]

With that crossposting out of the way, the discussion can now proceed.

[volgadon]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski wrote (here)

This argument has already been done- it is called the "History of Philosophy" and Scholasticism has lost. There is not much to discuss. I mean Aristotle was perhaps the greatest thinker of all time, but he did not have the history behind him.

Now we have the history- do we really want to re-hash this?

[mfbukowski]

http://www.bringyou....ogetics/p20.htm

Hey thanks for that. But I am not a great fan of Russell. But at least it gets us into the 20th century

[volgadon]

do we really want to re-hash this?

You know you want to...

Edited October 31, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Hey thanks for that. But I am not a great fan of Russell. But at least it gets us into the 20th century

You mentioned it in the other thread. Russell can definitely be a little silly.

[mfbukowski]

You know you want to...

GRRRRR

[mfbukowski]

You mentioned it in the other thread. Russell can definitely be a little silly.

No I was actually talking about Father Copelston's History of Philosophy. He was after all a priest and someone who understood the history, so I was suggesting that we look him up to see his slant on where all this went wrong.

I was trying to give the Faithful Scholastics a hint on where to look for answers.

Please please don't throw me in that briar patch!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Paganism" is an annoying red herring. The word is not mentioned in the Bible; it simply means someone from the country (with the implication being that they're an incompetent soldier), and the term was simply picked up when it was popular to speak in militarized terms of the Soldiers of Christ, etc.. Since we believe that our ancestors can all be deified, then there is no reason to believe that the ancestral hero-Gods of every world culture (whether urban or rural) are simply the fictional myths that so many anthropologists just seem to assume. On the other hand, Santillana and Dechend argued that many myths were also heuristic teaching devices to transmit calendrical information, meaning that some of the stories of the "Gods" are actually talking about the movements of planets and stars.

Here's how I think we can clear things up.

We believe that every Intelligence -- the Mind of man -- is eternal and uncreated. There is no creation about it, and all men existed in "the beginning" with God, who is just as uncreated. The elements, too, are just as uncreated. If one uncreated being like a "God" can exist, then the necessity of the entire Uncaused Cause argument goes out the window, since there is no reason there needs to be a single domino to get things started rather than an infinite number. There is no need for an Intelligent Designer. If man is just as uncreated as God, then we've essentially become atheists in regard to "traditional" Christian philosophy. But saying it that way gets things backwards, since we're not denying the historical actor whom we have given the title "God the Father"; we are merely disagreeing about some of His attributes which some people have speculated about. If we define a "Christian" as someone who believes in a specific list of attributes of God codified in certain Creeds, then of course we believe in a "different Jesus" than other denominations; we could say the same thing about them. But this entire argument is a completely silly tempest in a teapot over semantics, since we believe in the literal existence of the historical actor Christ, who we believe was fully divine, fully a God!

But there is no reason to cling to the classification of "monotheism". The word does not occur in scripture (neither does Trinity, Absolute, Sovereign, Omnipresent, Omniscient, etc.), and we clearly believe in an infinite number of potential Gods, uncaused Intelligences. If "God" is a title for someone we invoke, someone with great wisdom whose worth-ship we enlist in, rather than an ontological description, then we can apply the title "God" to more than one person.

Hence, Christ and the Holy Spirit of Wisdom can be named as "Gods" just like the Father. Since they, like every other Intelligence, have always existed, there is no fight for priority. There is no scandal about whether we're "monotheists" or "polytheists". There is no need for mind-breaking semantic paradoxes about three-in-one one-in-three persons and beings and essences and whatever. These are utter non-issues. Since Christ thought it not robbery to be equal to the Father, there is no jealousy or supremacy between them. Everyone can take part in the At-One-Ment, in which we are as unified as Christ taught His disciples to be.

If we are to become joint-heirs with Christ, then we can learn to be as charitable and loving as He and the Father and the Spirit of Wisdom are. We can become metaphorically "one" in intent, in our hearts, over worlds without number, while still retaining our individuality. An Intelligence which is currently disembodied can be named a "God"; an embodied Intelligence can be named a "God", whether mortal or immortal. Godhood is not about ontology. I can't stress that enough. It's a title given to someone, a historical actor, a personage who does good works. A Governor, a Shepherd, a Teacher of Righteousness, an Anointed One. And since mortals and immortals and disembodied and embodied Intelligences can all be named as Gods, then the only thing that matters is what kind of Gods they are; whether we're worshipping someone with a spirit of bloodshed or someone who is willing to die for others, regardless of denomination. We believe that the only Gods worth worshipping are those who submit to the eternal laws of Justice. If they are not upholding those, then they cease to be worth worshipping as Gods at all. They cease to be worthy of the title -- the trust -- we have given them.

If we try to become "like" the Immutable, Unchanging, Groundless Ground of All Being, Absolute Sovereign Bodiless Transcendent Ineffable Omniscient Omnipresent "God", then we will of course fail. There is no way that humans could ever be like that and still retain our humanity. But why should we want to be like that, when we don't believe that's what a God is in the first place? We believe the correct view to take of the Gods is one of loving parents. We're to call the Father Abba, and Christ our Brother, just like we call all other Intelligences our Brothers and Sisters. All the Law and all the Prophets hang on loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves. That's not mystical mumbo-jumbo. That's not grandiose philosophical debates. That's simply the apotheosis of humanism, in which all Conscious Entities are worthwhile, are valuable. The way to become a God, then, is to be as loving to others as the Gods we worship are to us. To sacrifice ourselves for others and forgive others and try to make up for the bad stuff we do. That's why it's so difficult, and why grace and forgiveness is so important; I know I'm not looked up to as a generous, self-sacrificing person. I'm a right *******, most days.

Love and sorrow are passions, are emotions. Christ has a body and experiences joy and pain while in it. We clearly believe in Gods with bodies, parts, and passions. If that's enough to be considered "pagan" or "heathen" ('from the heath', the field), then so be it. If believing in the possibility that our ancestors can be deified puts us in with the early Norse and Greek and Hindu and Oceanic and Native American and African and Asian Gods, then so be it. I'd see that as a Restoration, myself. Like Brother Joseph said, "we cannot believe that the ancients in all ages were so ignorant of the system of heaven as many suppose."

The problem here is that by splitting the human family into different sects and denominations, we drive each other apart and feel justified in condemning each other. But Joseph Smith wanted to weld together all sects by the power of truth. So what is a "Norse" God? It's an ancester from the North, the North-men, the Norse-Men. What is a "Hindu" God? It's an ancestor of the people around the Indus river. What's a "Polynesian" God? It's an ancestor from the Many Islands. What's a Lutheran? A Christian following Luther. What's a Calvinist? A Christian following Calvin. But the point is, these are all humans, whether immortal or not. If Christ is Christ because He is the Servant of all, and there are Gods many and Lords many, and all who follow the Way of Christ become Saviors of men themselves lest they be thought salt that has lost its savor, and they are thus qualified to be made joint-heirs, and through the At-One-Ment are made one-in-heart just as Christ and the Apostles were ...

... then what the heck have we been fighting about for the past five thousand years? We're just people. We're just Uncreated Intelligences who are trying to learn to get along. Mormons have elected by the common consent in a Council a certain leader to be our Teacher of Righteousness because He is wiser than us and loved us first. What the heck does the particular attributes of the composition of His body have to do with anything? Why the interminable debates about ousia and being and all these other paradoxical word-game semantics? It's so frustrating.

We don't differ so far from others in our religious views; only that we would want all to drink into one principle of love. What matters is whether we live in a pattern that constantly pulls other people down into bitterness and guilt and jealousy and tormented fire-like chains of hellish agony, or whether we want to garden Heavens for each other by promoting eternal life, growing on worlds without number, continuing the seeds forever.

Edited October 31, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[volgadon]

No I was actually talking about Father Copelston's History of Philosophy. He was after all a priest and someone who understood the history, so I was suggesting that we look him up to see his slant on where all this went wrong.

I was trying to give the Faithful Scholastics a hint on where to look for answers.

Please please don't throw me in that briar patch!

My mistake. This, then? http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Copleston%2C+Frederick+Charles%22

[mfbukowski]

My mistake. This, then? http://archive.org/s...derick Charles"

There you go.

Just copy those books into the thread and then we will not have to discuss anything. I win.

This is a little more accessible perhaps. There are more volumes

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Let me ask you this. What do you think is the strongest aspect of the scholastic tradition.

[Spammer]

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

FYI - this guy is the contemporary voice of neo-scholasticism. MFB especially ("And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of."), might enjoy picking up the gauntlet Feser throws down. Turning the clock back is precisely what Feser hopes to accomplish. Take a look at his book The Last Superstition. It's worth the read and is very entertaining, even if in the end you don't agree with Feser's conclusion that the abandonment of Aristotelian metaphysics (especially the notions of final and essential causation), beginning with Decartes and culminating with Hume, was a huge mistake - resulting inevitably in atheism, eliminative materialism, and the denial of free will. He spends a lot of time examining the consequences of Descartes' creation of the mind-body problem and Hume's extreme position on causality, all of it couched in a very readable, hilarious, mocking (if such is your cup of tea) takedown of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris. These issues are very pertinent to the LDS conception of a material god, the eternal nature of matter, and the nature of spirit as refined matter. As I see it, LDS theology and atheists share a similar materialist view of the nature of the cosmos. Everything, including the Father and spirit matter, is material. In that sense, it's not surprising that Mormons would resist turning the clock back. Aristotle denied the possibility of uncaused matter and a universe without a first cause, and, if true, that makes the idea of a material god with spatial coordinates incoherent and self-refuting. I'm not very smart, so I appreciate guys like Feser helping me to wrap my mind around what Aristotle tried to demonstrate in his Metaphysics and what Aquinas tried to demonstrate in his Summa. It does seem to come down to the issue of whether matter is eternal.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

FYI - this guy is the contemporary voice of neo-scholasticism. MFB especially ("And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of."), might enjoy picking up the gauntlet Feser throws down. Turning the clock back is precisely what Feser hopes to accomplish. Take a look at his book The Last Superstition. It's worth the read and is very entertaining, even if in the end you don't agree with Feser's conclusion that the abandonment of Aristotelian metaphysics (especially the notions of final and essential causation), beginning with Decartes and culminating with Hume, was a huge mistake - resulting inevitably in atheism, eliminative materialism, and the denial of free will. He spends a lot of time examining the consequences of Descartes' creation of the mind-body problem and Hume's extreme position on causality, all of it couched in a very readable, hilarious, mocking (if such is your cup of tea) takedown of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris. These issues are very pertinent to the LDS conception of a material god, the eternal nature of matter, and the nature of spirit as refined matter. As I see it, LDS theology and atheists share a similar materialist view of the nature of the cosmos. Everything, including the Father and spirit matter, is material. In that sense, it's not surprising that Mormons would resist turning the clock back. Aristotle denied the possibility of uncaused matter and a universe without a first cause, and, if true, that makes the idea of a material god with spatial coordinates incoherent and self-refuting. I'm not very smart, so I appreciate guys like Feser helping me to wrap my mind around what Aristotle tried to demonstrate in his Metaphysics and what Aquinas tried to demonstrate in his Summa. It does seem to come down to the issue of whether matter is eternal.

I agree -- nice post. And thanks for posting the link, too.

[mfbukowski]

Let me ask you this. What do you think is the strongest aspect of the scholastic tradition.

Well probably the strongest aspect was creating what we in the West now see as the "common sense" view of the world. I think it is a wrong view, but like it or not, we pretty much owe it to Aristotle. All of Western philosophy in a sense is a footnote to the Greeks.

I have always said that the world would be a very different place if Heraclitus had been a better writer and less obscure and if the process philosophy of Heraclitus had won over Plato, Parmenides, Pythagoras and then as modified, Aristotle.

We would see things as events in time, and see them as focus points in an ever changing world of relations rather than static lumps of stuff to act upon.

The world would be a dynamic place, more in the tradition of Whitehead in contemporary philosophy.

I really think the Scholastics missed to boat on the nature of language, which to me is crucial. I mean here they go writing volumes and volumes of words without taking on what it is they are putting all this effort into- words on a page. They do not consider what words can do and what they cannot do. That really becomes the strength of what has come after modernism- the understanding that amazingly had been ignored for centuries- the fact that every sentence we speak and think and write is indeed a sentence in language. How could you ignore that for so long?

What is the relationship between language- the way we speak of things- and the world we experience- that becomes the one and only question. If you can't answer that, you are just creating volumes of books full of letters and words with no understanding of what those letters and words can or cannot do! If you think about it for a moment it is mind-boggling.

It's like trying to spin straw into gold or turn lead into silver. If you are trying to do with language what cannot be done with language, what is the point of the effort??

To me that is about the most important consideration there is in philosophy and among the first questions one should ask- what is the relationship between a written sentence and the world it purports to "represent" or "symbolize" or perhaps as I would argue, "create".

And really pretty much no one was looking into that in a serious way before what- 1840? Really arguably, philology, Schlegel, Nietzsche and the Romantic poets are the guys who really started it and then it jumped over to Britain later and eventually became analytical philosophy.

I want to make one thing clear, and that is that I am not putting down Catholicism or Catholics. In principle, there is probably nothing I believe about the nature of philosophy which is incompatible with being Catholic, but insofar as certain doctrinal items of Catholicism incorporate Scholastic philosophy, I suppose there would be a problem with the church accepting someone like me as a member. Transubstantiation for example is a biggie- I would have no problem seeing the Eucharist in some symbolic metaphorical way "becoming" the body of Christ- in fact that is what I believe as a Mormon the Sacrament is.

The point is that our relationship with God is ultimately ineffable. It is unspeakable. The very attempt at systematic theology is misguided because you can't put religious experience into words and the attempt to do so is futile and a waste of time.

But those who practice systematic theology apparently disagree, and therein lies the problem.

So should it happen that I argue against Scholasticism it has nothing to do with Catholicism per se- just with the crazy philosophy and use of language that some Catholic intellectuals who are "schooled" in philosophy (in quotes because we get the word "school" ultimately from the root for "scholastic")

[volgadon]

I agree -- nice post. And thanks for posting the link, too.

You might want to go over this old thread. Feser, first cause, and all that stuff.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54149-the-first-cause/page__hl__thomist

[mfbukowski]

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

FYI - this guy is the contemporary voice of neo-scholasticism. MFB especially ("And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of."), might enjoy picking up the gauntlet Feser throws down. Turning the clock back is precisely what Feser hopes to accomplish. Take a look at his book The Last Superstition. It's worth the read and is very entertaining, even if in the end you don't agree with Feser's conclusion that the abandonment of Aristotelian metaphysics (especially the notions of final and essential causation), beginning with Decartes and culminating with Hume, was a huge mistake - resulting inevitably in atheism, eliminative materialism, and the denial of free will. He spends a lot of time examining the consequences of Descartes' creation of the mind-body problem and Hume's extreme position on causality, all of it couched in a very readable, hilarious, mocking (if such is your cup of tea) takedown of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris. These issues are very pertinent to the LDS conception of a material god, the eternal nature of matter, and the nature of spirit as refined matter. As I see it, LDS theology and atheists share a similar materialist view of the nature of the cosmos. Everything, including the Father and spirit matter, is material. In that sense, it's not surprising that Mormons would resist turning the clock back. Aristotle denied the possibility of uncaused matter and a universe without a first cause, and, if true, that makes the idea of a material god with spatial coordinates incoherent and self-refuting. I'm not very smart, so I appreciate guys like Feser helping me to wrap my mind around what Aristotle tried to demonstrate in his Metaphysics and what Aquinas tried to demonstrate in his Summa. It does seem to come down to the issue of whether matter is eternal.

Well that's probably a good suggestion now that you bring it up.

I have read a little Feser but not much and it might be an opportunity to get into what he has written.

My initial reaction is that he is not strong on the philosophy of language.

It does seem to come down to the issue of whether matter is eternal.

Well I would suppose that all depends on what you mean by "matter" and "eternal" doesn't it?

We have to understand that everything we say is a metaphor, isn't it? When we speak, things don't pop out of our mouths, words do.

The sentence "That's a pretty big rock" can mean a ton of things depending on the context in which it is spoken. When looking at a diamond ring, it would be a joke about the size of the diamond. If you were looking at Half Dome in Yosemite, it would be a joke to call one of the most massive single pieces of granite in the world a "rock".

Suppose you were sorting rocks to build a fireplace- then the meaning would be totally different. The meaning depends on the context and words are always used for a specific purpose.

So I suppose whether or not you see something called "matter" as being whatever you mean by "eternal" for a specific purpose also. If you are Mormon and you include "matter more refined" then yes, spirit matter is indeed eternal, as well as regular matter is eternal.

On the other hand, if you are a scientist, you might say that "eternity" is a religious word and really doesn't even belong in discourse about matter.

Or again as a Mormon, one might wonder if "eternal" includes all "eternities" or just one or two. If you are Buddhist and believe the world is re-created over and over, it has a similar meaning perhaps.

This language stuff is not all that simple. You have to be very specific if you want to be understood.

But I will definitely look at some Feser, and start with what you suggested. I hope his language is clear and he makes his philosophy of language clear as well.

[mfbukowski]

You might want to go over this old thread. Feser, first cause, and all that stuff.

http://www.mormondia...ge__hl__thomist

Oh yeah. I didn't like Feser, did I?

All I remembered is that he didn't have a philosophy of language and so I dismissed him. So shouldn't I have?

Why is a philosophy of language unimportant?

Because without one you are writing books about nothing. You are building castles on a foundation of sand.

[Spammer]

"All I remembered is that he didn't have a philosophy of language and so I dismissed him."

It seems a tall order to require a writer to not only clearly define terms but also explicitly state and defend his philosophy of language. You must have a very small library of trusted texts.

Feser does not state and defend his philosophy of language in the book. He's not that kind of philosopher and wrote his book with a different purpose. He's a philosopher of mind who wrote a philosophically-grounded polemic in response to Dawkins' The God Delusion. I'm neither kind of philosopher nor any kind of philosopher or expert at all, so I'm screwed. I'm just an armchair hack who crunches numbers for a living and reads too much (as the Mormons in my life keep telling me). I will leave further discussion of Aristotle and the nature of matter in his metaphysics to the only ones who are qualified to do so using terminology that is philosophically sound and surgically precise: Aristotelians on this board who are also philologists or philosophers of language.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

You might want to go over this old thread. Feser, first cause, and all that stuff.

http://www.mormondia...ge__hl__thomist

A quick review of the thread indicates that no one seems to have actually addressed Feser's argument, let alone restating and critiquing the basic chain of reasoning behind Aristotle's initial idea. All I see is some quick dismissals in the form of restating Hume. What if Hume got something wrong? That's one of Feser's main points. I'd be interested to hear what smarter people than me have to say about Feser's critique of Hume.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Spammer