Edward Feser

rabid dog uses constant ad hominem and awful, easily refutable argumentation: the book

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    absolutely mindbroken

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do people still take neo-Thomism seriously? Kant and Hume literally refuted this shit hundreds of years ago and Scholasticism fell out of favour the moment Gutenberg invented the printing press.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Do people still take neo-Thomism seriously?
      Apparently, it panders to young, catholic, terminally online masses who had their mind broken by american politics

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        pic rel

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Forgot
          >Bemoans the death of western culture
          >Will only watch anime and read light novels
          >Uses anime girls has profile picture.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is accurate as frick. do this community have a nomenclature?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >do this community have a nomenclature?
            Yes. Christcucks and trad-larpers

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            thanks

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            thanks

            Eat a dick

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This child you're making fun of seems much more respectable than you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You have no idea what you’re talking about but it’s okay

        https://i.imgur.com/wIgoJu9.png

        Do people still take neo-Thomism seriously? Kant and Hume literally refuted this shit hundreds of years ago and Scholasticism fell out of favour the moment Gutenberg invented the printing press.

        And look what it led to.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You have no idea what you’re talking about but it’s okay
          you suppose you do? this pedantic behaviour you are now showing, as well as the innability to actually explain themselves, are typical marks of the said masses

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s nice. You seem to forget that I even give a shit, nerd.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you only prove my point
            also, you care enough to respond

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You responded first, though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you have to be at least 18 to post here

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m 41 though. Just have an axe to grind with atheists.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Do people still take neo-Thomism seriously?
      Feser teaches at a community college.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your post's ignorance is forgivable given the chaos of contemporary education but Hume and Kant's arguments rest on a skepticism that no one is beholden to adopt. They, along with most moderns, follow Descartes, and no one in their right mind would do such a foolish thing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You must know that I believe all conscious beings possess spiritual natures and have spiritual destinies, and that beasts partake of rational spirit. I’ll admit I sometimes have my doubts about certain kinds of Thomist. I mean, I’ve known a few who, if they have souls, keep them well hidden. But that’s the exception that proves the rule.

      >Traditionalist manualist Thomism is an emotional pathology, not a philosophy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the moment plebBlack folk could read and write, drowning the opposition in the republic of letters, is the moment when Scholasticism fell out of favor
      no wonder

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Kant and Hume literally refuted this shit
      Just stop moron. Never post or present yourself as a thinking person.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    deboonked by graham oppy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >deboonked
      how?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Given the absence of any arguments here so far, I can assume he's pretty much right about everything then?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have yet to see any argument made in this thread relevant to the book

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Given the absence of any arguments here so far, I think you have to assume that no one here has reads the book, anon. I hadn't even heard of it nor the author.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you have to assume that no one here has reads the book
        guess you are right. that's a shame

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its his funny/popular book
    he wrote a bunch of others, has a new one coming out i'm looking forward to
    the proper one would be
    scholastics metaphyics > aristotle's revenge

    just his books on metaphysics and physics, any discussion of God in itself kind of requires trying to force in much background in metaphysics but it's what people want to talk about so good to try to do that. He does a very good job about making that clear, I think that book is actually a pretty decent light intro to philosophy in general.

    https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html

    Here's a good article he has done on that. He has lots of goodies on his blog.

    https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

    Stuff related to that book

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IMO, the book waste too much time in making ad hominem to several groups associated to the left, and it gets tiresome after a while.
      When it comes to his arguments (I didnt finish the book yet), some require you to accept certain premisses, without him ever justifying.
      Also, he makes constant red herrings related to people (Nietzsche, Hobbes, Heraclitus) and group of people (ambientalists, vegans) he dislikes, sometimes those being completely irrelevant to the discussion.
      Also, all the premise of the book is centered in his response to new atheists, but he constantly attacks distint views and never a person directly. I havent seen he responding to any paraphrases from Dawkins yet

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        sorry for the blogposting, but nobody tried to create an actual discussion in the thread

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean it's a popular shitposty book written in and design in response to the nu-athiest books when those were a thing. We are kind of past that culturally so the book probably doesn't make as much sense. I like shitposting though it's just meant to be funny, as I said what you are reading is kind of a historical artifact of a weird period but it's not really something terribly in depth as I said above it is attempting to basically get the reader into a more philosophical frame since he doesn't expect anyone reading that has any background in philosophy. I think it's decent to atleast point to that.

        He goes in pretty deep with specific ones, the main things with dawkins is he is just ignorant. Feser actually respects people like daniel dennet, or oppy. The one more God argument from Dawkins the "ultimate argument" for atheism is the most moronic thing I've ever heard, I believe that's kind of the climax of the book shitting on it.
        I've read a bunch of stuff over the years so I don't remember specifics though. The most in depth/specific back and forth was his interaction with Alex Rosenberg
        https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/rosenberg-roundup.html
        It's pretty in depth and has some back and forth, and unlike dawkins Rosenberg is actually a philosopher.

        But as I said in my first message the whole framing of the approach towards this stuff as "athiesm/thiesm" is kind of bad anyway so you are kind of limited to what you can do. His interaction with rosenberg is better because he's actually making specific claims they can debate about. What matters is getting a clear understanding of metaphysics and the God part comes down the line from that. The purpose of the book you are reading is more to shift people into thinking that way rather than like outright convince people of Theism or something. It's just
        >show the athiest arguments against thiesm are moronic (because they are)
        >show the huge history/metaphysical background behind the "arguments for God" that the atheists betray having almost 0 understanding of
        >get people to think in a way to not just condescendingly dismissing religion and maybe think more philosophically.

        For context for me I grew up totally secular and one of the big initial motivators for looking into it more was a WLC vs Kraus debate where the athiest was just being offensively stupid and self contradictory, just a horrific philosophical thinker. It's stand among the sciency athiests.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The one more God argument from Dawkins
          I'm unfamiliar with this one. Could you please give me a quick run down?
          >actually respects people like daniel dennet
          If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the people he was shitting on in the beginning of the book. But definitely there are some atheists Feser treats respectfully that were cited in the book
          >The purpose of the book you are reading is more to shift people into thinking that way rather than like outright convince people of Theism or something.
          So, would I do better if stoped reading this book and read anything else, or is there anything remotely interesting or in depth in this book that his other works wont approach?
          >For context for me I grew up totally secular and one of the big initial motivators for looking into it more was a WLC vs Kraus debate where the athiest was just being offensively stupid and self contradictory, just a horrific philosophical thinker. It's stand among the sciency athiests.
          I mean, most atheists are stupid, but the same can be said about any group tbh.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kraus is one of the like main nuathiests, most of them are shockingly stupid despite being publicly revered.
            I mean I don't know your background, like I said get it from his mouth in

            its his funny/popular book
            he wrote a bunch of others, has a new one coming out i'm looking forward to
            the proper one would be
            scholastics metaphyics > aristotle's revenge

            just his books on metaphysics and physics, any discussion of God in itself kind of requires trying to force in much background in metaphysics but it's what people want to talk about so good to try to do that. He does a very good job about making that clear, I think that book is actually a pretty decent light intro to philosophy in general.

            https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html

            Here's a good article he has done on that. He has lots of goodies on his blog.

            https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

            Stuff related to that book

            the pre-christian apologetics goes over what he thinks the approach ought to be. I think the humor is fun and it's pretty short but it's the kind of book i'd recommend to people who haven't actually read much of any philosophy before. Personally I find the athiest/thiest thing boring as hell.
            He makes recommendations of other books here:
            https://fivebooks.com/best-books/arguments-existence-of-god-ed-feser/

            The athiesm and theism book in particular is like an in depth academic conversation between the two schools. Personally i'd just recommend the whole

            Scholastic Metaphysics => Aristotle's Revenge (philosophy of nature, goes in depth on science related stuff relevant to last superstition) => (his book on the soul/philosophical anthropology comes out, for now I'd rec JD Madden's Philosophy of Mind) => Five Proofs (natural theology)
            Natural theology arises out of the other philosophical sciences.

            Like I said the more accurate way of looking at this is sort of a philosophical understanding of being, of nature, of man, and then by diving into those you see God at the foundation. Or just you know the republic/plato and aristotle stuff.

            In terms of popular stuff I like Orthodoxy by Gk Chesterton much more but that is in itself a rather different genre. For the actual interaction with athiest stuff just like watch youtube videos or read their papers/blogposts going back and forth, if your super interest that athiesm/thiesm book but I don't really get the focus on it now atleast.

            Honestly based on the fact your like upset about him talking shit and having fun last superstition might not be your book, I like that personally but can't help that you are gay.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Honestly based on the fact your like upset about him talking shit and having fun last superstition might not be your book, I like that personally but can't help that you are gay.
            I just find it petty, because it reminds the behaviour from simpletons and laymen. It actually make his arguments look worse, because not only they are flawed by themselves, his constant ad hominem makes him look like a moron who cannot reason and behave with elegance - rather, his temperament resembles unneducated people whose views in politics are solely based in facebook memes

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As that other Anon has mentioned, there's a good reason for its style. Here are his own words:
            >First, Walters takes exception to what he describes as the “very, very abrasive” tone I take in the book toward my opponents, and implies that it would be more appropriate for a Christian to take a softer touch. I concede that the book is often just as abrasive as he says. But while I do describe certain opinions and practices, and even certain specific individuals, in very harsh terms, it is not fair to say that I direct this abuse to people I disagree with in general. (To be sure, Walters does not explicitly say that I do this, but he does seem to me to give that impression.) On the contrary, I make it very clear several times in the book that I am happy to acknowledge that there are secularists and atheists of good will and for whom I have respect. The polemics are directed only at specific people who have themselves either taken an unjustifiably obnoxious and unfair tone toward religious believers, or have defended views so extreme and despicable that no one who is sane and/or morally decent could put them forward. In other words, I aim my fire only at people who have been “asking for it.”
            ...
            >I also deny that a Christian should always take a softer touch. There is a time and place for that, of course, but there is also a time when a good Christian ought to take the bark off of an opponent, and indeed when it would be immoral not to do so. Everyone acknowledges that harm to, or a threat to, another person’s life, liberty, or possessions can merit harsh retaliation (e.g. imprisonment, and in extreme cases even death). Similarly, someone who spreads calumnies, or corrupts public morals, or in some other way harms others spiritually, can also merit harsh treatment of a verbal and moral sort.
            http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/walters-on-tls.html

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so he just admits being childish and rabid, while justifying his behavior as correct

            >"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."

            >I also deny that a Christian should always take a softer touch. There is a time and place for that, of course, but there is also a time when a good Christian ought to take the bark off of an opponent, and indeed when it would be immoral not to do so. Everyone acknowledges that harm to, or a threat to, another person’s life, liberty, or possessions can merit harsh retaliation (e.g. imprisonment, and in extreme cases even death). Similarly, someone who spreads calumnies, or corrupts public morals, or in some other way harms others spiritually, can also merit harsh treatment of a verbal and moral sort.

            In his book, he justifies his actions as an appropriate, equal response; but a true catholic would never believe so.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't understand simple people it seems and the power rhetoric has over their simple minds. When an opponent acts arrogantly on an obscure controversy, an onlooker could easily mistake a timid response as a tacit concession of defeat. It is against dangers such as these that he means to defend against, hence:
            >...but there is also a time when a good Christian ought to take the bark off of an opponent, and indeed when it would be immoral not to do so.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >power rhetoric has over their simple minds
            that is exactly the problem
            as I said before, his book invests only in rhetoric tricks, while his actual arguments are flawed.
            it is just pure shophistry (he himself criticizes sophists for the same usage of rhetoric tricks) and, due to that, this book in my opinion can only be a good read to morons

            https://i.imgur.com/LtXF1pq.png

            >I CANT BELIEVE HE SAID DAWKINS IS DUMB.... FESER IS A FAKE CHRISTIAN!
            >HE SAID DAWKINS DOESNT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN METAPHYSICS AND METAMUCIL HE IS A HORRIBLE PERSON, A FAKE INTELLECTUAL... A FRAUD!

            I couldnt care less for Dawkins. Feser insults groups of people in general, not only the new atheists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your just being a prissy gay who cares if people talk shit, are you gonna cry?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Haven't read this but from what I'm hearing it seems to fall into the same category of "vaguely philosophical polemic against atheists" as David Bentley Hart's stuff, which I wasn't really a fan of.
    OP if you're looking for something with a bit more substance to it in this vein, look into D.C. Schindler.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I CANT BELIEVE HE SAID DAWKINS IS DUMB.... FESER IS A FAKE CHRISTIAN!
    >HE SAID DAWKINS DOESNT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN METAPHYSICS AND METAMUCIL HE IS A HORRIBLE PERSON, A FAKE INTELLECTUAL... A FRAUD!

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No disrespect to Feser but he's a fricking moron

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That quote on the cover oozes smugness, so I'm not surprised.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even as a catholic, I've always found Feser rather cringe. At least read Kreeft if want neothomist apologia. Mcintyre is ok on ethics too I sppose

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *