Strange Notions

Brandon Vogt recently launched a website, Strange Notions, with the goal of encouraging dialogue between Catholics and atheists. There's several articles on a variety of topics, like God, philosophy, morality, science, and Jesus. Brandon managed to assemble an impressive team of contributors, most well known in the Catholic blogosphere:

Dr. Peter Kreeft, Dr. Edward Feser, Fr. Robert Barron, Fr. Robert Spitzer, Dr. Benjamin Wiker, Dr. Christopher Kaczor, Dr. Janet Smith, Dr. Kevin Vost, Christopher West, Jimmy Akin, Jennifer Fulwiler, Marc Barnes, Leah Libresco, Stacy Trascanos, Mark Shea, Tim Staples and Carl Olson.

Be sure to check it out!

Feser vs. Hart on Natural Law

The recent natural law debate launched by David Bentley Hart's First Things article continues. Thaddeus Kozinski entered the fray on Hart's side with an article in Ethika Politika. Both Edward Feser and Brandon Watson responded. Then Hart responded to Feser's response of Hart's original article. Finally, just today, Feser posted a cleverly titled response to Hart's response, very likely to result in another response by Hart.

Meanwhile, on a related note, Brandon has continued posting his introductory series on natural law theory. So far, there's parts I, II, IIIa, and IIIb.

SCOTUS Starts Hearings on DOMA and Prop 8. Cases.

A transcript of yesterday's Supreme Court hearings is available here. (HT: First Thoughts)

As for the basics of the same-sex marriage debate, especially regarding the nature of marriage, and why the state takes an interest in marriage, see the following:

- Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, & Sherif Girgis, "What is Marriage?" article, book

- Ryan T. Anderson, "Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It," The Heritage Foundation

- Steven Smith, "The Red Herring of "Marriage Equality," Public Discourse

- Brandon Vogt, "10 Best Arguments for 'Same-Sex Marriage;…and Why They’re Flawed," Our Sunday Visitor

- Francis Beckwith, "Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage," Public Discourse

- Tim Hsaio, "The Case for Conjugal Marriage" flowchart

- Marcel LeJoune, "Why Same-Sex Marriage Is A Bad Idea," Aggie Catholics




Also, here's Ryan T. Anderson debating Piers Morgan on CNN (HT: The Foundry):




I stand with Ryan!

A Link to the Past

Just a few links from around the web:

- Aristotelian and Thomist-inclined readers might be interested to hear that 3:AM Magazine recently interviewed John Haldane and E.J. Lowe.

- The Lawrence Krauss "nothingness" show continues as philosopher David Albert, writer of a critical New York Times review of the book A Universe from Nothing, lost his invitation to an upcoming debate on "The Existence of Nothing" involving Krauss and other physicists. (HT: Bill Vallicella)

Krauss's blatant equivocation in his use of the word "nothing" needs little reiteration, but for those curious, the philosophers Bill Vallicella and Ed Feser both do an excellent job. For similar bad philosophizing on "nothing" by Stephen Hawking, see the responses by philosopher William Lane Craig and physicist Stephen M. Barr.

It's only Natural...

The philosopher David Bentley Hart recently touched off a natural law debate with an article in the March issue of First Things (HT: First Thoughts). Hart basically argues that natural law arguments are unpersuasive in today's public square, in addition to being philosophically problematic (falling prey to the standard "is-ought" problem).

There have been several responses from around the conservative blogosphere. Rod Dreher and Alan Jacobs at The American Conservative are both sympathetic to Hart, while R.J Snell at Public Discourse defends the viability of "new" natural law theory, which focuses on practical reasoning.

Closer to home, our friend Brandon Watson is very critical of Hart's Kantianism, on Siris and on Edward Feser's combox. Meanwhile, Feser, fresh from another take down of Lawrence Krauss's "nothing" nonsense, just posted a response to Hart on the First Things page.

Not on the topic of natural law but still somewhat relevant is James Chastek's post on "blindness to what is self-evident to us."

UPDATE

James Chastek of Just Thomist posted his take on Hart.

Cicero on the Natural Law

True law is Reason, right and natural, commanding people to fulfill their obligations and prohibiting and deterring them from doing wrong. Its validity is universal; it is immutable and eternal. Its commands and prohibitions apply effectively to good men, and those uninfluenced by them are bad. Any attempt to suppress this law, to repeal any part of it, is sinful; to cancel it entirely is impossible. Neither the Senate nor the Assembly can exempt us from its demands; we need no interpreter or expounder of it but ourselves. There will not be one law at Rome, one at Athens, or one now and one later, but all nations will be subject all the time to this one changeless and everlasting law. -- Cicero, De Rei Publica (On the commonwealth), III, 33

HT: James V. Schall,  Sundry Reflections on "The Natural Law Bibliography"

Aristotle on the Natural Law

"It will now be well to make a complete classification of just and unjust actions. We may begin by observing that they have been defined relatively to two kinds of law, and also relatively to two classes of persons. By the two kinds of law I mean particular law and universal law. Particular law is that which each community lays down and applies to its own members: this is partly written and partly unwritten. Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other. " -- Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.13.1373b5
(HT: David Oderberg, "The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law")

On Love and Tolerance: Part 2

I usually like to keep this a family-friendly blog, but this image macro represents the origin of the Brony slogan "Love and Tolerance." (More info here.)

This is a very interesting article critiquing the Brony slogan "Love and Tolerance." I offer a few thoughts below. By no means do they constitute a full response. Perhaps I'll write one in the near future.


I'm in agreement with the author in his critique of the formulation of "love and tolerance" that sees tolerance as "live and let live" or being indifferent to what others say or do. This kind of tolerance doesn't fit with an understanding of love as "willing" or "doing" good by another.

However, I'm thinking the author is limiting his understanding of love to a purely "natural" friendship (philia), as opposed to charity (caritas) as Christians tend to understand love. Philosophers (or at least those following Aristotle) usually understand friendship to be conditional, that is, friendship is exclusive and mutual (we reciprocate our love). If you don't meet the high standards of virtue, then you can't join the club, so to speak. I think C.S. Lewis made this point in his The Four Loves. So eventually, if Gilda or Trixie aren't willing to change their bad habits of being disagreeable and prideful, then they just can't be friends with the Mane Six.

Charity, on the other hand, loves another person for simply existing, however lovable or unlovable their character, even if they are actively opposed to us as enemies. The My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic show mostly deals with friendship and the struggles needed to attain and maintain that kind of relationship, so there isn't much room for charity, though I imagine the forgiveness of Celestia for Luna and Twilight for Trixie are among the few examples.

I tend to think of tolerance as an allowance for human weakness and error (1). That is, we aren't perfect in being virtuous, in doing the right thing, so we have to coexist in the hopes that people might change.

If you consider love as simply an emotion and not a relationship requiring action (2), then conjoining this diminished understanding of love with a common reading of tolerance as indifference or non-interference reduces L & T to "doing nothing whilst having warm, fuzzy feelings." You might even say it means approving the disagreeable behavior of others.

But, once you understand the nature of both love and tolerance, then you can see that tolerance serves the ends of love, which is wiling the good of another.

***

1. Edward Feser, "Cardinal Virtues and Counterfeit Virtues," considers whether tolerance is a virtue.

2. David S. Oderberg, Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach, 52-53

A Few Good Books on the "Pelvic Issues"

There are two recently released books defending traditional Christian sexual morality (that the sexual act aims at 1) a "one-flesh" union and 2) procreation, the begetting and rearing of children) that might be of interest to my philosophically inclined readers.

The first is One Body: An Essay in Christian Sexual Ethics by the philosopher Alexander Pruss. Pruss takes a phenomenological approach (emphasizing the unitive aspects of the sexual act) similar to Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, with some "new" natural law theory thrown in for good measure. You can find a short summary of Pruss's argument here.

The second is What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense by Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis. The three defend the traditional view of marriage as between a man and a woman. This book couldn't be more timely, as there is a growing trend in public opinion to redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships, as one can see from the election battles in Minnesota and three other states just last month. Check out an earlier journal article version here.

Bronies and Masculinity

Bronies get a mention on the Feminist Philosophers blog.

On Gratitude

Since Thanksgiving is coming up tomorrow, I thought I'd share Bill Vallicella's meditation on the topic of gratitude, especially on whether atheists can be grateful for the existence of the world despite disbelieving in God.

Gratitude, of course, is one of the virtues of justice by which we give what is due (worship) to God as Creator of the world, for "in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). We also we give thanks, to a lesser extent, to our parents, friends, and others who have helped us.

Que Est Veritas?

What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. -- Francis Bacon, Of Truth

Michael Flynn and James Chastek, however, decide to stick around and tackle the nature of truth and its relation to "fact."

On a side note, I highly recommend, along with Mr. Flynn, Historical Consciousness by the Catholic historian John Lukacs.

At the ACPA Conference

I was able to make it to the first day of the American Catholic Philosophical Association annual meeting in Marina Del Rey, CA. Alfredo and his friend Alex Yousif were there and I tagged along with them the rest of the day.

Alfredo the "Analytic Scholastic," Eric the "RPG Catholic," and Alex

We started the proceedings by listening to Kevin Timpe on "Responsible Agency and God" and Daniel Speak on "Open Theism." Dr. Timpe asked me to wear a unicorn shirt to the lecture and so I whipped out my MLP Vynil Scratch "DJ-Pon 3" tee.

After the first session, we went to the next lecture by Dr. Chris Tollefsen on "Double Effect Reasoning and Two Hard Cases." Gyula Klima was scheduled to present a paper, but couldn't make it from New York due to flooding from Hurricane Sandy. I was a bit disappointed at not seeing Klima, but to my surprise, Edward Feser (whose books and blog posts I've recommend countless times) walked into the room. After the talk ended, I was able to meet Dr. Feser and discuss a few Thomistic matters I've been thinking about lately.

Big fanboy grin...

Alfredo, Ed Feser, and Alex

Next up, I joined Alfredo, Alex, Dr. Tollefsen and other professors for dinner at a local French restaurant. We finished the night by going to a reception in the topmost penthouse room of the Marriot Hotel, where I met Germain Grisez and Christopher Kaczor.

Overall, I'd say it was a fun day.

Mind and Cosmos

Taking a short break from pony-related matters, I briefly note, for my more philosophically-inclined readers, that Thomas Nagel, prominent atheist philosopher and critic of mind-body materialism (physicalism), recently came out with a new book where he purports to forge a middle road between a materialistic reduction/elimination of the mind and theism. Ed Feser, Bill Vallicella, and James Chastek all give their thoughts.

At the Convention

If any y'all are in Las Pegasus, I mean, the Los Angeles area, be sure to check out the 'Equestria LA' convention on November 3-4. There are still some badges available. From the news section of the web site, I hear that the voice actors for Fluttershy/Pinkie Pie and Zecora will appear, along with one of the show writers, M. Larson, who penned the script for the episode "Luna Eclipsed." I really wish I could make it to the event, but unfortunately, I already have plans for those two days...

Speaking of plans, if any of my philosophy and theology friends are reading this, don't forget to register for the American Catholic Philosophical Association (ACPA) conference on November 2-4. All your favorites from the Catholic philosophical world will be there, like Ariaga and Ariaga II, Bariaga, Aruglia, and Pizzoza.

Be there!

Alvin Plantinga: One Cool Cat

One of the most prominent living Christian philosophers, Alvin Plantinga, appeared in an interview last year on local television news, talking about his broken air conditioner (HT: Amtheomusings):

I wish I was as cool as Dr. Plantinga is, as I don't own an AC unit at all and it's gotten over 100 degrees here in Southern California the past week.

Philosophy: Perhaps Not So Impractical After All

No longer will philosophy majors be the butt of jokes...

Link

Of course, it's another story whether we philosophy majors will be able to translate these results into a paying job. (HT: Martin Cothran)

                                       
Philosophers are still a long way, however, from receiving the kind of just rewards and benefits that Socrates half-jokingly demands in Plato's Apology:

What would be a reward suitable to a poor man who is your benefactor, who desires leisure that he may instruct you? There can be no more fitting reward than maintenance in the Prytaneum, O men of Athens, a reward which he deserves far more than the citizen who has won the prize at Olympia in the horse or chariot race, whether the chariots were drawn by two horses or by many. For I am in want, and he has enough; and he only gives you the appearance of happiness, and I give you the reality. And if I am to estimate the penalty justly, I say that maintenance in the Prytaneum is the just return (36a-38c).

Free food and housing for philosophers for life? Socrates for president!