Is this homophobia?
The position of the Catholic Church on this is interesting. They don't think, per se, that there is anything sinful about having a gay orientation. They just say that those who have such an orientation are called to a celibate life.
362 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 362 of 362"Our senses and intellect are unreliable"
It was enjoyable, but now I'm done.
One Brow,
Despite how the dictionary definition reads,
That, in a nutshell, seems to be your entire strategy. If you don't like how terms are defined, you simply define them differently. You're welcome to construct strawman arguments but I'm going to point them out.
I'm pretty sure by now that you understand the AT definition of a final cause so I'm done humoring you while you attempt your redefinition.
If final causes require purpose, than I reject their reality.
If you choose to reject reality there's not much I can do. I can only point it out to you.
Unitive without procreative is not a sin in instances where procreation is not possible for some couples, but it is a sin for other couples.
I'm not sure why you, as an atheist, would even care about this, but I used the phrase "artificially separate the 2 aspects".
SteveK,
"Our senses and intellect are unreliable"
It was enjoyable, but now I'm done.
Yeah, I think I am too.
When your opponent admits their own intellect is unreliable but stills wants to argue, then there's not much point in continuing.
SteveK said...
It was enjoyable, but now I'm done.
Thanks for the conversation.
bmiller said...
That, in a nutshell, seems to be your entire strategy. If you don't like how terms are defined, you simply define them differently.
You mean as opposed to the honorable method of selectively choosing one part of a definition, and emphasizing the example over the part that is the definition?
Of course, you don't want to argue what the actual impediment is in that situation, because you are so obviously wrong. Child brides occur all over the world, where ever the law so permits. The impediment is obviously not age.
You're welcome to construct strawman arguments but I'm going to point them out.
I certainly hope so, when you find them.
I'm pretty sure by now that you understand the AT definition of a final cause so I'm done humoring you while you attempt your redefinition.
Again, I'm not trying to redefine it, but look at the various, distinct aspects that you fold into it and unpack them, to see which are really important.
If you choose to reject reality there's not much I can do. I can only point it out to you.
Since purpose is imposed, and has no reality of its own, I'm only rejecting your imposition on reality.
I'm not sure why you, as an atheist, would even care about this, but I used the phrase "artificially separate the 2 aspects".
Because the notion they have to always be present is used to discriminate against some couples, but not others.
Two people being male is no more artificial than two people being elderly.
bmiller said...
When your opponent admits their own intellect is unreliable but stills wants to argue, then there's not much point in continuing.
I was unaware you considered your intellect to be 100% reliable. How interesting.
In any case, I think this is for the best. While your devotion to Feser's text seems to have prepared you for topics that he writes about, Feser has a tendency to not discuss some of the more difficult, trickier details of AT theory, in favor of presenting it as unassailable. This means you have to go beyond what Feser writes to really understand it, and if you have relied only on Feser for your preparations, this can be difficult.
I thank you for the conversation.
I tried going beyond Feser and AT metaphysics and into the area of common sense knowledge about "kinds". You said your senses and intellect are unreliable. There's nowhere for me to go after that admission.
"I was unaware you considered your intellect to be 100% reliable. How interesting."
I'm 100% certain it is when it comes to (a) knowing I exist and (b) knowing different kinds of things exist. You aren't very certain, which I find to be very strange.
One Brow,
You mean as opposed to the honorable method of selectively choosing one part of a definition, and emphasizing the example over the part that is the definition?
Words often have different senses, so yes, since I'm explaining what I mean, I get to choose the sense, not you.
Of course, you don't want to argue what the actual impediment is in that situation, because you are so obviously wrong. Child brides occur all over the world, where ever the law so permits. The impediment is obviously not age.
I certainly hope so, when you find them.
I mean that it seems you don't like what a final cause is so you simply decide to redefine terms. Like I mentioned, I'm pretty sure you understand what final causes are, but perhaps don't like the implications. You're even doing it to the dictionary now.
Again, I'm not trying to redefine it, but look at the various, distinct aspects that you fold into it and unpack them, to see which are really important.
You literally made up 3 phrases in this discussion to reword definitions that been in existence for millenia. Of course you want to redefine rather than engage with the existing definitions (which I'm pretty sure you understand by now).
Since purpose is imposed, and has no reality of its own, I'm only rejecting your imposition on reality.
Well if purpose can be "imposed" then it must be real. Just pointing out the obvious. But again, this is a term you made up and supplied the definition for. When a human imposes a purpose a natural object the final cause (according AT philosophy) is considered artificial. But although we've already been over that ground you still want to redefine.
Because the notion they have to always be present is used to discriminate against some couples, but not others.
Not only is that is not the notion, it shouldn't concern you, an atheist, since you don't believe in *sin* in the first place.
Two people being male is no more artificial than two people being elderly.
2 males cannot engage in coitus period. Males and females can and, as long as they do not willfully and artificially separate the unitive aspect from the procreative, it is not a sin.
Regarding your claim to an unreliable intellect:
If you don't consider your intellect to be reliable, then why in the world would you want to argue with anyone?
This means you have to go beyond what Feser writes to really understand it, and if you have relied only on Feser for your preparations, this can be difficult.
You haven't been paying attention if you think I've been quoting Feser.
Humans can impose an artificial purpose onto natural reality (machines, computers, tables), but God can't establish reality with a natural purpose?
I remove this and then changed my mind because it's a good question to ponder.
SteveK said...
I tried going beyond Feser and AT metaphysics and into the area of common sense knowledge about "kinds". You said your senses and intellect are unreliable. There's nowhere for me to go after that admission.
I admit starting with the notion that optical illusions occur or that that people have confirmation bias seems to be going to a very basic level.
I'm 100% certain it is when it comes to (a) knowing I exist and (b) knowing different kinds of things exist. You aren't very certain, which I find to be very strange.
I'm certain I exists. It's not that I don't think different kinds exists, but that every individual is a kind unto themself. Common features certainly exist.
bmiller said...
I mean that it seems you don't like what a final cause is so you simply decide to redefine terms. Like I mentioned, I'm pretty sure you understand what final causes are, but perhaps don't like the implications.
I understand that by "final cause", you are using a mixture of different notions. I understand that when you and SteveK tried to convince me that final causes exist, you focused on one of these notions to prop up the edifice, and tried to sneak in the other notions without justifying them.
You're even doing it to the dictionary now.
Said while not challenging that I was correct; the impediment is the law against child marriages, not the lack of age.
You literally made up 3 phrases in this discussion to reword definitions that been in existence for millenia. Of course you want to redefine rather than engage with the existing definitions (which I'm pretty sure you understand by now).
As I have said, I was trying to unpack all the different notions that you were combining into a single notion of final cause. Engaging with a definition means, in part, understanding everything that it implies.
Well if purpose can be "imposed" then it must be real. Just pointing out the obvious.
I am fairly sure you can understand the difference between "real" and "reality of its own".
But again, this is a term you made up and supplied the definition for. When a human imposes a purpose a natural object the final cause (according AT philosophy) is considered artificial. But although we've already been over that ground you still want to redefine.
By that definition, all purposes are artificial, including all of natural law.
Not only is that is not the notion, it shouldn't concern you, an atheist, since you don't believe in *sin* in the first place.
You contradict yourself below.
As for what concerns me, I believe I can decide that for myself.
2 males cannot engage in coitus period. Males and females can and, as long as they do not willfully and artificially separate the unitive aspect from the procreative, it is not a sin.
So, 2 males can engage in sexual activity, and as long as they do not willfully and artificially separate the unitive aspect from the procreative, it is not a sin.
Regarding your claim to an unreliable intellect:
If you don't consider your intellect to be reliable, then why in the world would you want to argue with anyone?
Self-improvement. Exploration. Learning.
You haven't been paying attention if you think I've been quoting Feser.
I am fairly sure you understand the difference between "quoting Feser" and "go beyond what Feser writes".
SteveK said...
Humans can impose an artificial purpose onto natural reality (machines, computers, tables), but God can't establish reality with a natural purpose?
I remove this and then changed my mind because it's a good question to ponder.
Should some God exist, They could establish reality with a natural purpose. In our world, it seems it is still up to humans to guess at the purpose. Simply look to the inevitable results from the application of an efficient cause is not sufficient to establish what most Catholics consider to be the purpose of many natural events.
One Brow,
I understand that by "final cause", you are using a mixture of different notions. I understand that when you and SteveK tried to convince me that final causes exist, you focused on one of these notions to prop up the edifice, and tried to sneak in the other notions without justifying them.
I've only been explaining the idea of final causes and the historical distinctions. I haven't been "focusing" on any notion unless you drew the focus there. I have no need to "sneak" in "other notions".
Said while not challenging that I was correct; the impediment is the law against child marriages, not the lack of age.
Thanks for again demonstrating my observation that you insist on forcing your own invented definitions on the words others use and the sense with which they use them.
As I have said, I was trying to unpack all the different notions that you were combining into a single notion of final cause. Engaging with a definition means, in part, understanding everything that it implies.
You invented muddled foreign terms and insisted on using them. You either understand the ancient notion and are purposely inventing a straw man or cannot understand the fairly simple idea and unintentionally are doing so.
By that definition, all purposes are artificial, including all of natural law.
If you define purpose as only a human act then yes. Your "definition" of purpose was that there was an end "in mind", but who knows what you mean.
You contradict yourself below.
No.
So, 2 males can engage in sexual activity, and as long as they do not willfully and artificially separate the unitive aspect from the procreative, it is not a sin.
You complain when I use very specific terms, but here is why. I have been consistently referring to male and female intercourse and its' final cause. Whatever 2 males do it is something different altogether. That's why I said they cannot engage in it period.
Self-improvement. Exploration. Learning.
But you if your intellect is unreliable, no new data will will improve your unreliable knowledge.
I am fairly sure you understand the difference between "quoting Feser" and "go beyond what Feser writes".
You haven't demonstrated that you've read much of what Feser writes and of what you have read you understand very little. So I don't know how you could tell if I am going "beyond" what he writes or not. I've been referring directly to Aquinas' writings.
"It's not that I don't think different kinds exists, but that every individual is a kind unto themself. Common features certainly exist."
Imagine *believing* that you have an uncountable number of individual things involved in an experiment and no ability to keep track of them individually or know how they individually respond to various stimuli. Your *belief* would prevent you from forming a hypothesis and carrying out a simple experiment.
Does function determine what an individual thing is? Form? Material? Location? Mass? Form/Mass combo? Function/Form combo? Location/Form combo? Is color relevant or irrelevant?
You can't even get started.
Observation: "The blue thing changed into a red thing which changed into another thing when with red thing moved and yet another thing when it rotated and another thing when it changed shape and another thing when it lost mass"
The only way to know that some of these statements are factually incorrect is to know what the essence of a thing is. To know that X is the same thing when it changes color or spins is to know what the ESSENCE of X is.
bmiller said...
I've only been explaining the idea of final causes and the historical distinctions. I haven't been "focusing" on any notion unless you drew the focus there. I have no need to "sneak" in "other notions".
I described behavior, not intentions.
Thanks for again demonstrating my observation that you insist on forcing your own invented definitions on the words others use and the sense with which they use them.
In a country where there is no law against child marriage, is age an impediment to marrying a child?
You invented muddled foreign terms and insisted on using them.
How else to unpack the distinct notions involved in final cause? If I had referred to them as "final cause facet 1", "final cause facet 2", and "final cause facet 3", would that have made the discussion more clear, or less?
You either understand the ancient notion and are purposely inventing a straw man or cannot understand the fairly simple idea and unintentionally are doing so.
You seem to think it is impossible to both understand the concept and to dissect it. I am not sure why.
If you define purpose as only a human act then yes. Your "definition" of purpose was that there was an end "in mind", but who knows what you mean.
In this case, I meant that purpose is something people attach to one natural result over another.
You contradict yourself below.
No.
I asid: "Because the notion they (unitive and procreative purpose) have to always be present ... ."
You responded: "Not only is that is not the notion,... "
Then, you later said: "Males and females can and, as long as they do not willfully and artificially separate the unitive aspect from the procreative, it is not a sin."
So, you do think they always have to be present, despite your saying I was wrong.
Whatever 2 males do it is something different altogether. That's why I said they cannot engage in it period.
Except, they obviously can engage in sex play, and have done so for centuries. When doing so, a married homosexual couple is not artificially separating the unitive and and procreative aspects. Rather, much like the elderly couple, they are fulfilling the unitive aspects, and are impeded from the procreative aspects.
But you if your intellect is unreliable, no new data will will improve your unreliable knowledge.
Really? There is not point to learning? Toddlers already have a perfect knowledge of how the world works, and no more need to learn?
I know what it is like to get caught up in a back-and-forth response, but you really should consider what it means to say person should not doubt what they think they know.
You haven't demonstrated that you've read much of what Feser writes and of what you have read you understand very little.
I'm impressed that, so recently after finding out once that I understood the AT position on inertia better than you, and that you couldn't even use "proximate" correctly, you still have the arrogance to declare what I do and do not understand. Bravo!
So I don't know how you could tell if I am going "beyond" what he writes or not. I've been referring directly to Aquinas' writings.
This takes you beyond what Feser writes, how? If anything, Feser goes beyond Aquinas, not the other way around.
SteveK said...
Imagine *believing* that you have an uncountable number of individual things involved in an experiment and no ability to keep track of them individually or know how they individually respond to various stimuli. Your *belief* would prevent you from forming a hypothesis and carrying out a simple experiment.
On the contrary, since common features exist, I can experiment to see how predictive these common features are in particular situations.
Does function determine what an individual thing is? Form? Material? Location? Mass? Form/Mass combo? Function/Form combo? Location/Form combo? Is color relevant or irrelevant?
Another Ship of Theseus argument?
Color is a relevant as you want it to be. If you are categorizing by color, color is relevant. The real question is how useful that categorization is. It more relevant to a photographic composition than a test of weight-bearing capacity.
SteveK said...
The only way to know that some of these statements are factually incorrect is to know what the essence of a thing is. To know that X is the same thing when it changes color or spins is to know what the ESSENCE of X is.
What you call essence is imposed knowledge. You don't think an acorn is the same as the tree that it came from, but they are both continuations of the same process. The essence of the acorn is the essence of the oak, is the essence of the human. Were all continuations of the same living web.
I blame myself for attempting to argue with a person who has unreliable senses and intellect, but here goes nothing...
"Another Ship of Theseus argument?"
No. It's even more fundamental than this.
"If you are categorizing by color, color is relevant"
Categorizing WHAT by color? You're missing the point that change is constant.
"Same thing" doesn't exist in your world. Every individual thing (instant to instant) is a kind unto itself. All you have is knowledge that different things exist, remember?? It's logically incoherent to think that a different thing is the same thing. Believing that A = !A would be irrational.
You're inventing categories of things that you said don't exist. Back in the real world people know that your beliefs are peak anti-realism.
"What you call essence is imposed knowledge."
I have no idea what this means.
One Brow,
How else to unpack the distinct notions involved in final cause
You seem to think it is impossible to both understand the concept and to dissect it. I am not sure why.
I've given you links to Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in addition to books. No one except you has dreamed up your muddled categories. For a while I thought you were interested in understanding. Now I don't think so.
Then, you later said: "Males and females can and, as long as they do not willfully and artificially separate the unitive aspect from the procreative, it is not a sin."
So, you do think they always have to be present, despite your saying I was wrong.
I said you were wrong because 2 males cannot engage in the male/female marital act as I explained.
Except, they obviously can engage in sex play,
You're intentionally equivocating now.
Rather, much like the elderly couple
No. It's very unlike a male and female couple and you know this.
Blogger SteveK said...
I blame myself for attempting to argue with a person who has unreliable senses and intellect,
Since that represents the state of pretty much all humans, what are your other options? Never argue? Doesn't sound like you.
Categorizing WHAT by color? You're missing the point that change is constant.
Right, you never step in the same river twice. You can have similarities, but never sameness. So, you make do with identifying similarities when they are useful.
"Same thing" doesn't exist in your world. Every individual thing (instant to instant) is a kind unto itself. All you have is knowledge that different things exist, remember?? It's logically incoherent to think that a different thing is the same thing. Believing that A = !A would be irrational.
It's also irrational to think everything is totally disconnected from its priors.
You're inventing categories of things that you said don't exist. Back in the real world people know that your beliefs are peak anti-realism.
Honestly, you should really look up what anti-realism is before throwing that term around. Hint: saying that material things exist, and each is unique, is pretty much the opposite.
"What you call essence is imposed knowledge."
I have no idea what this means.
It means the categories you abstract in your mind, that you refer to as essence, is knowledge you impose upon reality, rather than knowledge that comes from reality.
bmiller said...
I've given you links to Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in addition to books. No one except you has dreamed up your muddled categories.
How does that make the concepts a bad description of your arguments?
For a while I thought you were interested in understanding. Now I don't think so.
I'm not interested in reading the terminology and using it without researching it on a deeper level. I suppose that might pass for understanding in your opinion.
You're intentionally equivocating now.
You're being intentionally discriminatory. I hold my transgression in lesser regard.
No. It's very unlike a male and female couple and you know this.
No, I don't know this. In fact, I see it as very similar, indeed. By the very standards and terminology you have used, the only reason two men can't engage in coitus is that they are impeded by the lack of a vagina, and it is not sinful when they are so impeded.
One Brow,
"Right, you never step in the same river twice. You can have similarities, but never sameness. So, you make do with identifying similarities when they are useful."
Useful fictions don't result in knowledge about reality. You keep forgetting that in your world EVERY THING is different in every possible way.
You've invented a fake category called 'similar' that doesn't actually exist in your world. 'Roundness' is a fiction that doesn't actually exist in your world. The abstract concept in your mind has no connection to reality, remember? Pretending that it exists is only useful for telling a fairy tale.
There's a rational way to resolve the problem you've forced yourself into.
SteveK said...
Useful fictions don't result in knowledge about reality.
They resulted in factory production lines, modern medicine, classroom techniques, etc.
You keep forgetting that in your world EVERY THING is different in every possible way.
I don't know how to interpret "in every possible way". It reads like ranting. I mean, two acorn are almost always more similar than an acorn and a fox, so the two corns are obviously not different in every possible way.
You've invented a fake category called 'similar' that doesn't actually exist in your world.
'Similar' is not a category, it's a fuzzy logic, multi-dimensional relationship between two or more objects.
'Roundness' is a fiction that doesn't actually exist in your world.
Why does it not exist? You seem to be very all-or-nothing here.
The abstract concept in your mind has no connection to reality, remember?
Yes, but how does that make the shape of a real object not exist?
Pretending that it exists is only useful for telling a fairy tale.
Are you referring to the abstract mental concept or the actual physical shape?
There's a rational way to resolve the problem you've forced yourself into.
What the problem you're offering to solve?
One Brow,
"Are you referring to the abstract mental concept or the actual physical shape?"
Haven't you noticed that you keep using concepts in an attempt to conclude that concepts have no connection to reality?
The term 'physical' is a universal concept that describes the essence, or nature, of a thing. That concept entails that things have certain inherent qualities such that they are physical things by nature. You're saying Aquinas is correct.
One Brow,
How does that make the concepts a bad description of your arguments?
Because it shows you simply don't understand the concept while everyone else does. I think you want to avoid understanding it.
I'm not interested in reading the terminology and using it without researching it on a deeper level.
OK, then you should finish your research instead of inventing muddled terminology and insisting on using that.
You're being intentionally discriminatory. I hold my transgression in lesser regard.
OK, thanks for admitting you are arguing in bad faith. And apparently being proud of it. I'll keep that in mind.
No, I don't know this. In fact, I see it as very similar, indeed.
I thought biology classes were required in high school. Oh well.
By the very standards and terminology you have used, the only reason two men can't engage in coitus is that they are impeded by the lack of a vagina, and it is not sinful when they are so impeded.
No and you do know it. Since coitus is an act that is between a male and a female, 2 men cannot engage in the act period. I know that you know it since that is why you equivocated earlier (and continue to argue in bad faith).
SteveK said...
Haven't you noticed that you keep using concepts in an attempt to conclude that concepts have no connection to reality?
We make do with the tools we have.
The term 'physical' is a universal concept that describes the essence, or nature, of a thing.
That's the baggage you try to tie into it. I don't have to buy into your all-or-nothing position. The term physical refers to something that exists in space-time. Physical things have behaviors and properties. However, your equivocation of essence requires some sort of ideal layered on top of those things. That's what I mean by you and bmiller trying to sneak the concept in. If by essence, all you meant was the thing as it is, and not as it should be, I would agree. However, then you would have to give up your notion that acorns are somehow directed into becoming oaks, and you whole edifice disappears.
bmiller said...
Because it shows you simply don't understand the concept while everyone else does. I think you want to avoid understanding it.
Not being able to find a particular dissection for an idea in a reference manual is different from not understanding it. I understand final cause just fine.
OK, then you should finish your research instead of inventing muddled terminology and insisting on using that.
If you have better terminology for the distinctions I have pointed out, I'm listening.
OK, thanks for admitting you are arguing in bad faith. And apparently being proud of it. I'll keep that in mind.
Did you just acknowledge you are intentionally being discriminatory? That seems unlikely.
At any rate, that comment was intended as being light-hearted. I don't see myself as equivocating any more than you see yourself as being intentionally discriminatory.
I thought biology classes were required in high school. Oh well.
I thought you believed humans were more than their biology. Oh well.
No and you do know it. Since coitus is an act that is between a male and a female, 2 men cannot engage in the act period.
Right, two males are impeded from engaging in the act by the lack of a vagina. Two females would be impeded by the lack of a penis. The impediments would not disrupt the unitive aspects of their sex, so marriage by them would not be sinful.
For the sake of comparison, say a male and female marry, and then the male loses his penis for some reason. It it your position that the male is never again allowed to bring sexual pleasure to his wife?
At any rate, repeating that 2 males or 2 females can't engage in coitus is something we agree upon. So, you can keep repeating that point, but it doesn't actually address the issue that, by how you have interpreted the terms, this is from an impediment, and their impediment is no more their fault that the lack of fertility in an elderly couple. If you want to be persuasive, that's what you need to address: why one impediment matters and the other impediment does not.
One Brow,
Not being able to find a particular dissection for an idea in a reference manual is different from not understanding it. I understand final cause just fine.
If you have better terminology for the distinctions I have pointed out, I'm listening.
If you actually did understand what final causes are then you wouldn't invent muddled definitions unless your intent is to create and attack a strawman. I'm not interested in unmuddling the strawman muddle you've created.
Did you just acknowledge you are intentionally being discriminatory? That seems unlikely.
I didn't, but I will now acknowledge that I do discriminate between good and evil. You implicitly do also.
I don't see myself as equivocating any more than you see yourself as being intentionally discriminatory.
But the fact is that you have been equivocating and intended to do so as I pointed out.
Right, two males are impeded from engaging in the act by the lack of a vagina. Two females would be impeded by the lack of a penis. The impediments would not disrupt the unitive aspects of their sex, so marriage by them would not be sinful.
Which is what you are doing again here (equivocating).
For the sake of comparison, say a male and female marry, and then the male loses his penis for some reason. It it your position that the male is never again allowed to bring sexual pleasure to his wife?
Here is the Catholic marriage vow:
Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be faithful to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.
A wife would be breaking her vow to demand something from her unhealthy husband that he could not provide and hence sinful.
At any rate, repeating that 2 males or 2 females can't engage in coitus is something we agree upon.
Finally and without equivocation!
but it doesn't actually address the issue that, by how you have interpreted the terms, this is from an impediment,
But here comes ambiguity.
and their impediment is no more their fault that the lack of fertility in an elderly couple.
If you want to be persuasive, that's what you need to address: why one impediment matters and the other impediment does not.
First, bringing up fault is no more relevant than the fact it's not my fault I'm not a tree or it's not a tree's fault that it is diseased.
Second, I think the argument is persuasive to people seeking a coherent view of reality and the truth. I think it is even persuasive to people who want to deny it which we can see by the resort to ambiguity and equivocation.
The marital act of male/female intercourse is naturally directed toward and should be open to procreation and is affirmation of their binding marital vows. That is a different goal than whatever is the intent of 2 males doing a different act altogether.
So they are only impeded from that certain goal in the sense they never intended that goal in the first place. Not only that, but they are, by essence, naturally incapable of the act which you've already acknowledged here:
2 males or 2 females can't engage in coitus is something we agree upon.
Being naturally incapable of something and being incapable of something due to a defect are obviously distinctions. A man is not thought to be defective because he cannot fly, but a bird of a species known to fly, who cannot fly, is considered to have a defect.
One Brow,
"The term physical refers to something that exists in space-time. Physical things have behaviors and properties."
You: "Are you referring to the abstract mental concept or the actual physical shape?"
You: "That does not make them [mental concepts of categories] real or non-arbitrary."
I'm confused. You've created a distinction between mental and physical and I'm not sure why. Are mental concepts a real thing, and if so why did you say they aren't? Are mental concepts physical? Explain how they are different.
"If by essence, all you meant was the thing as it is, and not as it should be, I would agree."
Let's go through some examples and you tell me if I'm correct or not.
(1) 'Thing A' is a rational animal. Let's give it the label "human". If the human were to stop being rational for a moment, then it would not be a human because "the thing as it is" no longer is rational. We would give it a new label. Correct?
(2) 'Thing B' is round and blue. Let's give it the label "ball". If the ball were to become red, then it would not be a ball because "the thing as it is" no longer is blue. We would give it a new label Correct?
Blogger bmiller said...
If you actually did understand what final causes are then you wouldn't invent muddled definitions unless your intent is to create and attack a strawman.
There are other reasons. My intentions were point how you were using a partial notion of what final cause means to justify the entire shebang. I was not sure how aware you were of so doing.
I didn't, but I will now acknowledge that I do discriminate between good and evil. You implicitly do also.
I don't see homosexual marriage as evil. If you say you don't also, then your answer was pointless.
But the fact is that you have been equivocating and intended to do so as I pointed out.
No, the fact is that I've been completely serious in my analysis.
Which is what you are doing again here (equivocating).
Then explain why it is not true, rather than toss out a label.
A wife would be breaking her vow to demand something from her unhealthy husband that he could not provide and hence sinful.
So, sexual pleasure is sinful in and of itself? The impediment of not having a penis means the sex act is sinful, but the impediment of not being fertile does not? If the reproductive aspect can not be fulfilled, the unitive aspect is insufficient (unless they are a male with a penis and a female with a vagina)? You want to claim this is not arbitrary?
The marital act of male/female intercourse is naturally directed toward and should be open to procreation and is affirmation of their binding marital vows. That is a different goal than whatever is the intent of 2 males doing a different act altogether.
The elderly, infertile couple can no more engage in an act whose natural result is pregnancy than 2 men can. Now you are the one equivocating.
So they are only impeded from that certain goal in the sense they never intended that goal in the first place.
Just like the elderly couple.
Not only that, but they are, by essence, naturally incapable of the act
Just like the elderly couple.
Being naturally incapable of something and being incapable of something due to a defect are obviously distinctions.
If the defect is not artificial, what is the distinction, besides some image of what is defective you have built up in your mind?
A man is not thought to be defective because he cannot fly, but a bird of a species known to fly, who cannot fly, is considered to have a defect.
The bird is just the bird, as natural as any other bird, and the notion of a defect is something that exists in your mind, not in the bird. If the bird doesn't fly because the forelimbs are now better for gripping branches, is that still a defect?
SteveK said...
I'm confused. You've created a distinction between mental and physical and I'm not sure why. Are mental concepts a real thing, and if so why did you say they aren't? Are mental concepts physical? Explain how they are different.
The brain process of electrical activity that creates a mental concept is real.
As for the concept itself, say there are 8 crayons on the table. Person A thinks they are 8 distinct crayons. Person B thinks it is a box of crayons. What's the physical distinction that arises from B categorizing the crayons as "a box", that is not contained solely in the brain/mind of B?
(1) 'Thing A' is a rational animal. Let's give it the label "human". If the human were to stop being rational for a moment, then it would not be a human because "the thing as it is" no longer is rational. We would give it a new label. Correct?
I suppose if that is how you define human. That's not how I define human. Either way, the label we choose doesn't change the reality of the animal.
(2) 'Thing B' is round and blue. Let's give it the label "ball". If the ball were to become red, then it would not be a ball because "the thing as it is" no longer is blue. We would give it a new label Correct?
Did the use of the label "ball" involve the blueness of the object, or just the shape? If we are categorizing on just shape, why would color be relevant?
One Brow
There are other reasons. My intentions were point how you were using a partial notion of what final cause means to justify the entire shebang. I was not sure how aware you were of so doing.
I don't believe you. I've been patiently explaining final causes according to what what everyone who understands final causes understands them to be. If you really meant what you just wrote, you would have been able to quote some authoritative source to support your understanding.
No, the fact is that I've been completely serious in my analysis.
Then explain why it is not true, rather than toss out a label.
You've been using ambiguous language such as "sex play" when we've been discussing the male/female marital act in order to smuggle in notions other than the male/female marital act. That is equivocation and it's dishonest.
So, sexual pleasure is sinful in and of itself? The impediment of not having a penis means the sex act is sinful, but the impediment of not being fertile does not? If the reproductive aspect can not be fulfilled, the unitive aspect is insufficient (unless they are a male with a penis and a female with a vagina)? You want to claim this is not arbitrary?
That load of non-sequitors is not worthy of a response.
The elderly, infertile couple can no more engage in an act whose natural result is pregnancy than 2 men can. Now you are the one equivocating.
Just like the elderly couple. 2X
These are simply not responsive replies.
If the defect is not artificial, what is the distinction, besides some image of what is defective you have built up in your mind?
The bird is just the bird, as natural as any other bird, and the notion of a defect is something that exists in your mind, not in the bird. If the bird doesn't fly because the forelimbs are now better for gripping branches, is that still a defect?
The notion of defects exist in your mind also. You obviously understand what I'm talking about because you haven't asked me for the definition of "defect". You know perfectly well what a defect is. You've gone to the doctor and taken medicine to correct health defects yourself, while the doctor has never prescribed "wings" to correct your lack of flight ability.
One Brow,
"As for the concept itself, say there are 8 crayons on the table."
Your story about crayons doesn't answer my questions about mental concepts. You said concepts aren't real and I'm still not sure what you meant by that.
"I suppose if that is how you define human. That's not how I define human. Either way, the label we choose doesn't change the reality of the animal."
I agree with that last sentence. What did you mean by essence being the thing as it is, and not as it should be (or was). I added "or was" because the same question arises in both cases. 'Thing A' has changed. The "thing that it is" is different than the "thing that it was." Did the essence change? Does the label "human" still apply?
"Did the use of the label "ball" involve the blueness of the object, or just the shape? If we are categorizing on just shape, why would color be relevant?"
I gave examples so that you could explain what you meant by essence being the thing as it is, and not as it should be. I told you what 'Thing B' is and now you can explain your thinking as it relates to essence. Did the essence change? Does the label "ball" still apply?
bmiller said...
I don't believe you. I've been patiently explaining final causes according to what what everyone who understands final causes understands them to be. If you really meant what you just wrote, you would have been able to quote some authoritative source to support your understanding.
I can get by without your belief.
Why would I need an authoritative source to describe my understanding of the type of argument you were making?
You've been using ambiguous language such as "sex play" when we've been discussing the male/female marital act in order to smuggle in notions other than the male/female marital act. That is equivocation and it's dishonest.
Males with penises and females with vaginas frequently engage in sex play before the act of coitus, and Feser himself has said this is not sinful. The dishonest part is only the pretense that an impediment is responsible for something being sinful in this one type of activity.
That load of non-sequitors is not worthy of a response.
That will save you the trouble of trying to justify it.
The notion of defects exist in your mind also.
That doesn't make them real, and certainly does not make them a legitimate part of AT metaphysics.
I did notice you did not address what happens when a variation on a form results in a different sort of ability. That's another gap in the way Feser uses AT metaphysics.
SteveK said...
Your story about crayons doesn't answer my questions about mental concepts. You said concepts aren't real and I'm still not sure what you meant by that.
The mental concept in the example is that the 8 crayons came from inside a single box.
I agree with that last sentence. What did you mean by essence being the thing as it is, and not as it should be (or was). I added "or was" because the same question arises in both cases. 'Thing A' has changed. The "thing that it is" is different than the "thing that it was." Did the essence change? Does the label "human" still apply?
For me, "human" (noun) is a descendant from the a particular group of apes. So, being rational or not does not change the ancestry of the individual.
As for the "essence" of a person, that seems to change every second. It doesn't seem a useful way to identify "human" for that reason. Of course, we can create a mental category to classify essences, and humans may move into or out of this mental category, depending on how you have defined them.
I gave examples so that you could explain what you meant by essence being the thing as it is, and not as it should be. I told you what 'Thing B' is and now you can explain your thinking as it relates to essence. Did the essence change? Does the label "ball" still apply?
As long as the object agree with our mental definition of what a ball is, it is a ball to us. This will be true even if it loses its roundness or changes color. Do our mental definitions control the essence of things?
One Brow,
Why would I need an authoritative source to describe my understanding of the type of argument you were making?
You made this claim: "I understand final cause just fine.". But your presentation displays that you don't understand what a final cause is. That is why I don't believe you and I do believe you are intentionally creating a strawman.
Males with penises and females with vaginas frequently engage in sex play before the act of coitus....
You're just repeating your intentional insertion of the ambiguity I just described and thereby confirming my assessment.
That will save you the trouble of trying to justify it.
Sorry. If you're going to post obvious nonsense I'm not going to respond. Non-seqitors are nonsense.
That doesn't make them real, and certainly does not make them a legitimate part of AT metaphysics.
That is a muddled statement and an evasion.
First, defects (or privations) are a part of AT metaphysics and that is simply a fact.
Second, are the ideas in your mind "unreal"?
Third, you routinely visit health care providers to correct defects in your health. Does that make health care providers illusions and are the medication and eyeglasses you use purposeless? You simply ignored this.
I did notice you did not address what happens when a variation on a form results in a different sort of ability. That's another gap in the way Feser uses AT metaphysics.
I noticed that you attempted to change the topic. I don't know why you think the fictional example you invented is relevant so I ignored it.
bmiller said...
You made this claim: "I understand final cause just fine.". But your presentation displays that you don't understand what a final cause is.
I like AT metaphysics, but I don't have faith in them. That allows me a freedom to look at it in ways a person of faith can't allow themselves to see it. I understand final cause as you see it, I just see it differently.
You're just repeating your intentional insertion of the ambiguity I just described and thereby confirming my assessment.
Much as you are confirming my assessment, made more than a couple of hundred posts ago, that final cause (as a whole) is built upon arbitrary decisions, such as when impediments do or do not result in an activity being sinful. Mind you, that statement carries no judgement, ultimately all our moral decisions rest on arbitrary foundations.
Sorry. If you're going to post obvious nonsense I'm not going to respond. Non-seqitors are nonsense.
Yes, the claim of non-sequitur is a good way to avoid thinking too hard on it.
First, defects (or privations) are a part of AT metaphysics and that is simply a fact.
We were speaking of the notions of defects that exist in the mind. Is every defect that every person imagines to exist a part of AT metaphysics?
Second, are the ideas in your mind "unreal"?
Often, in the sense that they may have no external truth to them.
Third, you routinely visit health care providers to correct defects in your health. Does that make health care providers illusions and are the medication and eyeglasses you use purposeless? You simply ignored this.
I see my physician to improve my functioning. I use glasses to improve my vision. Even people with 20/20 vision will use microscopes or telescopes to improve their vision in the appropriate circumstances. The notion of "defect" adds nothing to this process.
I noticed that you attempted to change the topic.
The example is fictional, but the process is real. When human physiology deviated from the chimpanzee, a typical human lost a great deal of strength compared to a typical chimpanzee. Was that a defect? Is it still a defect, or not part of the standard human form? When did that change occur?
One Brow,
"The mental concept in the example is that the 8 crayons came from inside a single box."
Still not an answer. This would be considered the start of an answer: "The mental concept is real, and here's what I meant when I said it was not real...."
"For me, "human" (noun) is a descendant from the a particular group of apes. So, being rational or not does not change the ancestry of the individual."
Ancestry doesn’t tell you what a thing is right now. You are also a descendent of the first life form but that tells us nothing.
"As for the "essence" of a person, that seems to change every second. It doesn't seem a useful way to identify "human" for that reason. Of course, we can create a mental category to classify essences, and humans may move into or out of this mental category, depending on how you have defined them."
What a thing is changes every second? Granted, that’s where your metaphysics lead but I don’t believe that you think this is actually true. I’ll bet you think that you are a human being at all times no matter what your physical condition is, no matter what your mental capacities are and no matter what your physical behavior is.
I’ll bet you’ve concocted a metaphysical fairy tale that disagrees with your intellect. Am I right, or does your intellect inform you that you move into and out of humanity on a regular basis? Let us know.
”As long as the object agree with our mental definition of what a ball is, it is a ball to us. This will be true even if it loses its roundness or changes color. Do our mental definitions control the essence of things?”
You answered this already. The mental label we attach has no affect on what a thing is. You’ve encountered things like this before so answering my question should be easy. Does the label ‘ball’ still apply after the color changes?
You: “Either way, the label we choose doesn't change the reality"
One Brow,
I like AT metaphysics, but I don't have faith in them. That allows me a freedom to look at it in ways a person of faith can't allow themselves to see it. I understand final cause as you see it, I just see it differently.
Whether you "have faith" in AT or not or whatever you think "persons of faith" can or cannot allow themselves to "see" is irrelevant to the content of AT. It is dishonest to redefine a concept within that framework and present it as if it was within that framework.
But I can tell from the rest of your comments that it really doesn't matter to you whether you're carrying on in a dishonest manner or not. I don't think anyone else who has been following along will miss that either. But it probably does prompt their curiosity as to why opponents have to go to such irrational and dishonest lengths to avoid the common sense conclusions of AT metaphysics.
SteveK said...
Still not an answer. This would be considered the start of an answer: "The mental concept is real, and here's what I meant when I said it was not real...."
I should start an answer with a contradiction?
Ancestry doesn’t tell you what a thing is right now. You are also a descendent of the first life form but that tells us nothing.
It says I'm a living thing (although technically, I don't think there was a "first life form").
What a thing is changes every second?
Yes.
Granted, that’s where your metaphysics lead but I don’t believe that you think this is actually true.
I can't control your beliefs.
I’ll bet you think that you are a human being at all times no matter what your physical condition is, no matter what your mental capacities are and no matter what your physical behavior is.
You're right. In fact, you can prove it, using my explanation of how I defined a human being a few comments ago, a definition that has nothing to do with physical condition, mental capacities, or physical behavior.
I’ll bet you’ve concocted a metaphysical fairy tale that disagrees with your intellect. Am I right, or does your intellect inform you that you move into and out of humanity on a regular basis? Let us know.
You already know. Just look at my definition.
You answered this already.
Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
bmiller said...
Whether you "have faith" in AT or not or whatever you think "persons of faith" can or cannot allow themselves to "see" is irrelevant to the content of AT. It is dishonest to redefine a concept within that framework and present it as if it was within that framework.
Feel free to go back over this entire comment section and find one time where I have stated the definition of final cause. What I did was examine and identify separate concepts that came for your argumentation for the existence of final causes.
But I can tell from the rest of your comments that it really doesn't matter to you whether you're carrying on in a dishonest manner or not.
Yes, we now move into the part of the discussion where the religious person, unable to competently defend their argument without acknowledging that it really stems from personal malice, must therefore insult the non-religious person. How very tiresome of you. Such accusations diminish you far more than me.
I don't think anyone else who has been following along will miss that either. But it probably does prompt their curiosity as to why opponents have to go to such irrational and dishonest lengths to avoid the common sense conclusions of AT metaphysics.
I wonder if anyone who was following along will wonder why you refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions about why some lacks are considered impediments and others are not?
One Brow,
Me: "What a thing is [essence] changes every second?"
You "Yes."
and then
Me: "I’ll bet you think that you are a human being at all times"
You: "You're right."
The intent of my second question was to refer to the essence of a thing, not the meaningless category that you gave yourself (descendant of apes). Ancestry doesn't tell you WHAT a thing is. Your toenails are also descendant of apes. Explain why your *intellect* says that you remain the same thing (human) all the time?
Regarding the ball, you said its essence remains the same despite the color change. "The thing that it is" has changed however you agree that the label "ball" should still applies. Don't tell me about the mental category you are forcing it into. We agreed that is irrelevant to what a thing is. Explain why your *intellect* says the object is the same thing?
Regarding essence...
1) Your intellect says what a thing is (essence) remains the same despite many physical changes
2) Your metaphysical commitment says that that thing (essence) changes into another thing (essence) every second.
3) Your metaphysical commitment says that your intellect is wrong.
How would a rational person resolve this conflict?
One Brow,
Feel free to go back over this entire comment section and find one time where I have stated the definition of final cause. What I did was examine and identify separate concepts that came for your argumentation for the existence of final causes.
Nonsense. You claim to know what final causes are within the AT framework. You then invented foreign concepts and insisted on using those in the dialog. You've made no attempt to show how your invented concepts relate to final causes as defined within AT philosophy.
Yes, we now move into the part of the discussion where the religious person, unable to competently defend their argument without acknowledging that it really stems from personal malice, must therefore insult the non-religious person. How very tiresome of you. Such accusations diminish you far more than me.
No, now you've moved to the point where I demonstrated you were equivocating and you simply don't see anything wrong with it. Instead you've responding with an entirely new load of fallacies
Much as you are confirming my assessment,
Your fallacy is Toque. Even if you were correct about final causes (you aren't), it wouldn't change your equivocation that I pointed out.
Yes, the claim of non-sequitur is a good way to avoid thinking too hard on it.
Your fallacy is Toque (again). You made no attempt to explain how your accusations followed from the discussion, but instead made an irrelevant counter accusation.
We were speaking of the notions of defects that exist in the mind.
Change of subject. We were talking about AT philosophy, realism, not your philosophy.
I see my physician to improve my functioning. I use glasses to improve my vision.
Doctor's treat diseases and optometrists prescribe corrective lenses. The purpose of both is to improve the health of the patient from the defects that prevent them from living a good, healthy life. They don't prescribe wings. This was the only response that was not a blatant fallacy.
The example is fictional, but the process is real.
Another change of subject. If a bird has a disease, veterinarians recognize it and treat it.
Don't expect responses if you continue tactics like those (other than to point out your tactics).
One Brow,
"I did notice you did not address what happens when a variation on a form results in a different sort of ability. That's another gap in the way Feser uses AT metaphysics"
Maybe you think evolutionary changes show that the principles of AT metaphysics are somehow wrong. It doesn't.
Birds are naturally directed toward flight. Final causality explains why birds are naturally directed toward this end. What about birds that cannot fly. This question ties into the subject of "essence" that we've been discussing.
A bird that cannot fly is still a bird. It's naturally ordered toward flight but it cannot fly. How is this explained? AT metaphysics explains that essence and physical existence are not identical but they are not unrelated either.
If they are identical then your question disappears. It's not a bird that cannot fly, it's some other thing that cannot fly. If essence and existence are related then what is the relationship? AT metaphysics explains the relationship.
AT metaphysics attempts to explain what your intellect knows about reality. It doesn't attempt to explain why a bird that cannot fly isn't really a bird. It doesn't attempt to explain why your concept of essence (birdness) exists only in your mind. It doesn't attempt to explain why concepts such as 'injure', 'defect', 'health', 'natural' exist only in your mind.
It doesn't do this because NOBODY actually think this is true. Explanations for these things are invented as part of a thought experiment that nobody actually believes is true of reality.
Everyone will tell you that they know birds are actually injured when they cannot fly, tables are actually non-natural objects, hearts that cannot pump blood are actually defective. AT metaphysics attempts to explain the knowledge of these things.
Other metaphysical explanation explain these things away, and in the process of doing that they explain why you cannot ever rely on your intellect for knowledge - which nobody actually thinks is true.
SteveK said...
One Brow,
Me: "What a thing is [essence] changes every second?"
You "Yes."
and then
Me: "I’ll bet you think that you are a human being at all times"
You: "You're right."
The intent of my second question was to refer to the essence of a thing, not the meaningless category that you gave yourself (descendant of apes). Ancestry doesn't tell you WHAT a thing is. Your toenails are also descendant of apes. Explain why your *intellect* says that you remain the same thing (human) all the time?
I don't remain the same thing at all times. Never changing would be incredibly dull. However, I still remain a human being. My toenails, while not beings, are still human.
Regarding the ball, you said its essence remains the same despite the color change.
I said it's category remains the same, because we don't categorize whether something is a ball based on its color (unless we do).
"The thing that it is" has changed however you agree that the label "ball" should still applies. Don't tell me about the mental category you are forcing it into. We agreed that is irrelevant to what a thing is. Explain why your *intellect* says the object is the same thing?
Because the category created by my intellect did not use color as a determinative factor.
Regarding essence...
1) Your intellect says what a thing is (essence) remains the same despite many physical changes
2) Your metaphysical commitment says that that thing (essence) changes into another thing (essence) every second.
3) Your metaphysical commitment says that your intellect is wrong.
You really should stop telling me what my intellect says, or at least make a better effort to understand what it says.
How would a rational person resolve this conflict?
There is no conflict. Both my intellect and my metaphysical commitments agree that everything in the universe is changing, constantly.
bmiller said...
Nonsense. You claim to know what final causes are within the AT framework. You then invented foreign concepts and insisted on using those in the dialog. You've made no attempt to show how your invented concepts relate to final causes as defined within AT philosophy.
Since all I did was identify the arguments you were making to support the existence of final causes, it was on you to tie those arguments into the notion of final cause (as you did, for two of them).
No, now you've moved to the point where I demonstrated you were equivocating and you simply don't see anything wrong with it. Instead you've responding with an entirely new load of fallacies
Stop whining. You can't identify why a lack of fertility is an impediment that does not interfere with the unitive purpose of sex, but a lack of a penis or vagina is an impediment that does interfere with the unitive purpose of sex. Get over it.
Change of subject. We were talking about AT philosophy, realism, not your philosophy.
Exactly. The defects in AT philosophy only exist in the mind.
Doctor's treat diseases and optometrists prescribe corrective lenses. The purpose of both is to improve the health of the patient from the defects that prevent them from living a good, healthy life. They don't prescribe wings. This was the only response that was not a blatant fallacy.
It's unfortunate that you find other perspectives so difficult to understand, but your continuing cry of "fallacy", with your inability to use the correct terminology or to apply them correctly, is embarrassing for you.
Another change of subject. If a bird has a disease, veterinarians recognize it and treat it.
Which is just as easily explained by "improve functioning" as it is by "defect".
SteveK said...
Maybe you think evolutionary changes show that the principles of AT metaphysics are somehow wrong. It doesn't.
I didn't say wrong, I said there was a gap.
Birds are naturally directed toward flight.
Penguins, emus, and ostriches are birds. I have yet to see a penguin, emu, or ostrich that was naturally directed toward flight. How does a form from the members of a population change from being directed toward flight to not being directed toward flight?
A bird that cannot fly is still a bird.
Biologically, birds are descendants of a common population of ancestors, even when a current population loses the the ability to fly as a group.
AT metaphysics attempts to explain what your intellect knows about reality. It doesn't attempt to explain why a bird that cannot fly isn't really a bird. It doesn't attempt to explain why your concept of essence (birdness) exists only in your mind. It doesn't attempt to explain why concepts such as 'injure', 'defect', 'health', 'natural' exist only in your mind.
I acknowledge/agree that these are the intentions. We disagree with the success rate.
One Brow,
"I said it's category remains the same, because we don't categorize whether something is a ball based on its color (unless we do)."
Category=essence. I don't see any principled disagreement with AT.
"Because the category created by my intellect did not use color as a determinative factor."
Then your intellect is in agreement with the principles of AT metaphysics. Your intellect recognized that color isn't essential to its identity as a ball.
"There is no conflict"
Given your recent comments it's looking that way. It appears that you agree with the principles of AT metaphysics, but since you are using different language/terms it only seems like there is disagreement. If you have an actual disagreement then you need to make it very clear.
"I didn't say wrong, I said there was a gap"
Good to hear this. Gaps in knowledge are everywhere and gaps don't disprove what we know, so I agree with you that AT metaphysics doesn't explain everything. I'm okay with a gap.
One Brow,
Since all I did was identify the arguments you were making to support the existence of final causes, it was on you to tie those arguments into the notion of final cause (as you did, for two of them).
You didn't correctly identify my arguments and it's strange for you to expect me to explain your own muddle.
Stop whining. You can't identify why a lack of fertility is an impediment that does not interfere with the unitive purpose of sex, but a lack of a penis or vagina is an impediment that does interfere with the unitive purpose of sex. Get over it.
First of all, I have explained the differences and you do understand them. You just don't like it. Apparently the truth hurts so much you think it justifies your attempts to change the subject.
It's unfortunate that you find other perspectives so difficult to understand, but your continuing cry of "fallacy", with your inability to use the correct terminology or to apply them correctly, is embarrassing for you.
I'm OK with listening to other perspectives and I understand what you were talking about. I wrote (and you quoted me) This was the only response that was not a blatant fallacy.. It's embarrassing for one of us I agree.
Which is just as easily explained by "improve functioning" as it is by "defect".
Which missed the point again. You had changed the subject from an injured bird to evolutionary change.
But let me ask you a question regarding your response.
Why do you think eyeglasses or medication "improve functioning"? Doesn't that presuppose that your health is less than optimal? Otherwise, how can you tell it needs improving? Perhaps you are actually evolving into a mole-person or something.
SteveK,
It doesn't do this because NOBODY actually think this is true. Explanations for these things are invented as part of a thought experiment that nobody actually believes is true of reality.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Lots of people make lots of strange philosophical arguments like "there are no such things as causes" or "reality is not how you perceive it", but none of them actually live their own lives as if they actually believed it themselves. When a car is speeding toward them, they all jump out of the way!
@bmiller,
I'm not sure why people put forward arguments that they know are not grounded in reality. Perhaps it's the cultural influence of all these sci-fi and super hero movies.
SteveK said...
AT metaphysics attempts to explain what your intellect knows about reality. It doesn't attempt to explain why a bird that cannot fly isn't really a bird.
Right. Instead, it makes the false claim that birds have a direction toward flight.
It doesn't attempt to explain why your concept of essence (birdness) exists only in your mind.
No, it mistakenly assumes the concept has an extra-mental existence.
It doesn't attempt to explain why concepts such as 'injure', 'defect', 'health', 'natural' exist only in your mind.
Of those four, I only recall saying "defect" was the product of a mental category. I find the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" to be strained and unnecessary, but it does have physical meaning.
It doesn't do this because NOBODY actually think this is true. Explanations for these things are invented as part of a thought experiment that nobody actually believes is true of reality.
I genuinely think defect is a mental category with no physical meaning.
Everyone will tell you that they know birds are actually injured when they cannot fly,
Penguins are injured when they can not fly?
tables are actually non-natural objects, hearts that cannot pump blood are actually defective.
Unless something else pumps blood and the heart has a different purpose.
AT metaphysics attempts to explain the knowledge of these things.
I acknowledge the attempt.
Other metaphysical explanation explain these things away, and in the process of doing that they explain why you cannot ever rely on your intellect for knowledge - which nobody actually thinks is true.
That is insulting, untrue, and arrogant.
Category=essence. I don't see any principled disagreement with AT.
Categories are things we make up in our head. Essences are supposed to be physical manifestations.
Then your intellect is in agreement with the principles of AT metaphysics. Your intellect recognized that color isn't essential to its identity as a ball.
AT metaphysics was carefully designed and honed to agree with how we use terminology, so it should not be a surprise there is an agreement.
Given your recent comments it's looking that way. It appears that you agree with the principles of AT metaphysics, but since you are using different language/terms it only seems like there is disagreement. If you have an actual disagreement then you need to make it very clear.
Sure, I will spell it out more clearly for you, again.
1) Your intellect says what a thing is (essence) remains the same despite many physical changes
My intellect makes no such claim. My intellect denies the existence of some underlying essence in a group sense. Whatever essence is, physical changes also change essence.
2) Your metaphysical commitment says that that thing (essence) changes into another thing (essence) every second.
Yes.
3) Your metaphysical commitment says that your intellect is wrong.
My metaphysical commitment says my intellect is correct.
How would a rational person resolve this conflict?
There is no conflict.
Good to hear this. Gaps in knowledge are everywhere and gaps don't disprove what we know, so I agree with you that AT metaphysics doesn't explain everything. I'm okay with a gap.
Great. When AT metaphysics can offer an explanation of when and how forms change in a population (for example, how the forms of various populations of birds change from flying to flightless), I will take it more seriously as a metaphysical system.
I'm not sure why people put forward arguments that they know are not grounded in reality.
I think it's more often because they are invested in centuries-old teachings that have been outdated by modern discoveries.
bmiller said...
You didn't correctly identify my arguments and it's strange for you to expect me to explain your own muddle.
Then, it was on you to point out what my description failed failed to depict, and you did not do that either.
First of all, I have explained the differences and you do understand them.
Crying "equivocation" is not an explanation. Although, with Feser as a mentor, I can see where you think it would be.
You just don't like it.
Well, I feel both amusement from it and pity for you that it's the best you can do.
Apparently the truth hurts so much you think it justifies your attempts to change the subject.
The truth that all you could do was cry "equivocation" when I pointed our that boh reasons were from impediments?
I'm OK with listening to other perspectives and I understand what you were talking about. I wrote (and you quoted me) This was the only response that was not a blatant fallacy.. It's embarrassing for one of us I agree.
Now that was an excellent example of a tu quoque.
Which is just as easily explained by "improve functioning" as it is by "defect".
Which missed the point again. You had changed the subject from an injured bird to evolutionary change.
These responses get so long, I can understand why you would lose track. You didn't say anything about an injury. You said, "A man is not thought to be defective because he cannot fly, but a bird of a species known to fly, who cannot fly, is considered to have a defect."
I accept your apology for accusing me of changing the subject.
But let me ask you a question regarding your response.
Why do you think eyeglasses or medication "improve functioning"? Doesn't that presuppose that your health is less than optimal?
Yes, it presupposes my bodily functioning is less than optimal.
Otherwise, how can you tell it needs improving? Perhaps you are actually evolving into a mole-person or something.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. Sometimes, birds don't fly as well as their parents, but are better swimmers. Over the course of generations, this trend may continue until they lose the ability to fly at all, but become very good swimmers.
However, from what I can tell, by AT terminology all penguins are defective because they can't fly even though their ancestors did, and yet they are not supposed to fly, either.
Lots of people make lots of strange philosophical arguments like "there are no such things as causes" or "reality is not how you perceive it",
I presume you are not referring to anyone in this conversation.
One Brow,
Then, it was on you to point out what my description failed failed to depict, and you did not do that either.
Sorry but you're the one who created the alternate description. You have the burden to show it's apt, not me.
Crying "equivocation" is not an explanation. Although, with Feser as a mentor, I can see where you think it would be.
You've told me that you understand that only a male/female pair can perform coitus (which is the marriage act) so this statement is nonsense. But when you do equivocate, I'll point it out.
The truth that all you could do was cry "equivocation" when I pointed our that boh reasons were from impediments?
No. First I pointed out that you equivocated by introducing the phrase "sex play" in a discussion about the male/female marital act in order to inject ambiguity. Later you decided to be ambiguous wrt to the word impediment and I pointed it that out also and explained why. You've made no effort to tell us how what you did was not equivocation, only complain that I pointed it out. So if you don't want me to point out that you are equivocating you can simply stop doing it.
Yes, it presupposes my bodily functioning is less than optimal.
But that means that there must be some sort of state that you consider a more or less an optimal state. Right?
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. Sometimes, birds don't fly as well as their parents, but are better swimmers. Over the course of generations, this trend may continue until they lose the ability to fly at all, but become very good swimmers.
Right. Thanks for finally getting my point that you changed the subject from an individual to an evolutionary change.
However, from what I can tell, by AT terminology all penguins are defective because they can't fly even though their ancestors did, and yet they are not supposed to fly, either.
Since AT philosophers have no trouble with evolutionary theory in principle and don't consider the penguin species defective I wonder how you reached that conclusion. H2 is a particular form and O is a particular form. When a spark causes them to combine into a new form. The resulting water is not considered a defective form of H2 or O. So it is actually fundamental to AT metaphysics that a new form can arise from existing forms.
One Brow,
”Right. Instead, it makes the false claim that birds have a direction toward flight.”
False? Saying that only makes you look foolish. If you agree with the statement “birds fly” then you agree with AT metaphysics that birds are directed toward flight. You wouldn’t say “humans fly” for the reason that humans aren’t directed toward flight. It’s common sense.
”No, it mistakenly assumes the concept has an extra-mental existence.”
You think some extra-mental things have the quality of ‘birdness’ while other extra-mental things do not. So it’s not just AT metaphysics that thinks this is true about reality – you also think it is true.
”Of those four, I only recall saying "defect" was the product of a mental category.”
“I genuinely think defect is a mental category with no physical meaning.”
You genuinely think it accurately describes the quality of some extra-mental things, but not others. You think it’s a true of these things and AT is simply agreeing with you and then explaining the metaphysics behind it.
If you genuinely thought there were no physical defects, you would not think there were any inherent quality differences – but you do.
”That is insulting, untrue, and arrogant.
Your complaint is with your intellect, not me. Your intellect informs you of extra-mental differences that you claim do not actually exist. If your intellect says that some extra-mental things have the quality of ‘birdness’, while other things do not, I would conclude that your intellect is unreliable.
”My intellect makes no such claim. My intellect denies the existence of some underlying essence in a group sense. Whatever essence is, physical changes also change essence.”
You just told me that your intellect affirms that color is NOT essential to what a ball is. That’s confirmation that you have knowledge of an essence that is not identical to the physical thing. If you didn’t know about essence then your intellect could not know about difference. AT explains it like this:
1) You know WHAT a thing is (essence).
2) You know THAT it exists (existence)
Essence and existence are distinct, not identical. Logic proves this to be true in the following way.
(a) It’s possible to know WHAT a thing is (essence) without knowing THAT it exists (existence). If they were identical then knowledge of one must entail (by necessity) knowledge of the other. A person who had no knowledge of Harry Potter, Barack Obama and Donald Trump could know WHAT these things are without knowing if any of them ever actually existed.
(b) Knowledge of essence must logically precede knowledge of existence. Without knowledge of essence it would be impossible to know THAT differences exist.
bmiller said...
Sorry but you're the one who created the alternate description. You have the burden to show it's apt, not me.
While I was trying to explain it to you (and I think that occurred), I'm not trying to convince you. This argument started because you were trying to convince me that I really believed in final causes.
You've told me that you understand that only a male/female pair can perform coitus (which is the marriage act) so this statement is nonsense. But when you do equivocate, I'll point it out.
Right, there are those who have sex, but not coitus, due to various impediments, that you would say can't perform the procreative aspect of sex because of their impediment, and so should not engage in the unitive aspect, even while their are those can't perform the procreative aspect of sex because of their impediment, and but are permitted to engage in the unitive aspect.
You've made no effort to tell us how what you did was not equivocation, only complain that I pointed it out.
My above paragraph is the explanation as to why I am not equivocating. Point out the error in what I said in that paragraph.
But that means that there must be some sort of state that you consider a more or less an optimal state. Right?
There are states I consider optimal for the situation I am in. Some of them are constant, such as reducing my blood pressure. Others are occasional, such as using reading glasses. Lower blood pressure is always optimal because it reduces the risk of stroke, a severe functional limiter. On the other hand, wearing reading glasses is sub-optimal when I drive, but very useful when I read.
Thanks for finally getting my point that you changed the subject from an individual to an evolutionary change.
Evolution is a gap in AT theology that I have not seen addressed, and it's not a change in subject since I am directly responding to your claim about how being different from your ancestors is a defect.
However, from what I can tell, by AT terminology all penguins are defective because they can't fly even though their ancestors did, and yet they are not supposed to fly, either.
Since AT philosophers have no trouble with evolutionary theory in principle and don't consider the penguin species defective I wonder how you reached that conclusion.
From you, and Feser, when you talk about how a if a bird's ancestors flew, and a particular bird doesn't fly, than that bird is defective. Are you withdrawing that statement?
So it is actually fundamental to AT metaphysics that a new form can arise from existing forms.
So, when any particular bird can't fly, how can you tell if is from a defect, or if it is the result of a new form different from existing forms, and the bird is a good example of the new form?
SteveK said...
False? Saying that only makes you look foolish. If you agree with the statement “birds fly” then you agree with AT metaphysics that birds are directed toward flight. You wouldn’t say “humans fly” for the reason that humans aren’t directed toward flight. It’s common sense.
Except, not all birds fly. Each bird individually may or may not be directed toward flight, and may or may not fly.
You think some extra-mental things have the quality of ‘birdness’ while other extra-mental things do not. So it’s not just AT metaphysics that thinks this is true about reality – you also think it is true.
I also recognize that the category of 'birdness' is my creation inside my mind, one that has no effect on the actual things outside of my mind.
You genuinely think it accurately describes the quality of some extra-mental things, but not others. You think it’s a true of these things and AT is simply agreeing with you and then explaining the metaphysics behind it.
I think the notion of "defect" describes how I categorize some things in my mind, which categories have no physical meaning. AT is disagreeing with me via AT pretending that my mental shortcuts represent some physical reality.
If you genuinely thought there were no physical defects, you would not think there were any inherent quality differences – but you do.
What's an "inherent quality difference", as opposed to an inherent difference?
Your complaint is with your intellect, not me.
No, it's with you.
Your intellect informs you of extra-mental differences that you claim do not actually exist.
Make up your mind. Do you think my intellect tell me there are too many differences, or too few?
If your intellect says that some extra-mental things have the quality of ‘birdness’, while other things do not, I would conclude that your intellect is unreliable.
Most mental shortcuts are.
You just told me that your intellect affirms that color is NOT essential to what a ball is.
What I said was that I don't categorize what is or is not a ball based on color. No notion of "essential" needed.
Knowledge of essence must logically precede knowledge of existence. Without knowledge of essence it would be impossible to know THAT differences exist.
So, it's impossible to encounter something you have never experienced before? What a dull life you must lead.
More seriously, if AT metaphysics has a proof that you must understand the essence of something before you can experience it, that's a great reason to say AT metaphysics is false.
One Brow,
"Except, not all birds fly. Each bird individually may or may not be directed toward flight, and may or may not fly."
Here you have recognized the reality of essence ('bird') and are distinguishing it from humans. You didn't make this same comment about humans because you recognize what they are and recognized their inherent differences compared to birds. Despite all your protesting, you are agreeing with AT.
"I also recognize that the category of 'birdness' is my creation inside my mind"
I will take your use of the term 'also' to mean that you agree with my statement and are adding to it. I agree with your statement here too. I see lots of agreement.
"What's an "inherent quality difference", as opposed to an inherent difference?"
No difference as far as I can tell.
One Brow,
Me:
You've told me that you understand that only a male/female pair can perform coitus (which is the marriage act) so this statement is nonsense. But when you do equivocate, I'll point it out.
You:
Right, there are those who have sex, but not coitus, due to various impediments, that you would say can't perform the procreative aspect of sex because of their impediment, and so should not engage in the unitive aspect, even while their are those can't perform the procreative aspect of sex because of their impediment, and but are permitted to engage in the unitive aspect.
My above paragraph is the explanation as to why I am not equivocating. Point out the error in what I said in that paragraph.
We both agree that homosexuals do not engage nor intend to engage in the male/female marital act. You just introduced a different term, "sex", in order to find a term that you could claim both "engaged in". That is the first error of equivocation.
The second error is that you've simply ignored the distinctions I've pointed out wrt impediments and the equivocal manner in which you are using the term. I won't go through them again.
Finally, although you understand that the male/female marital act is fundamentally different in intent and act from a homosexual act you ignore that a homosexual act by its' very nature is not open to procreation and so is also not open to the unitive aspect of the male/female marital act.
There are states I consider optimal for the situation I am in. Some of them are constant, such as reducing my blood pressure.
So I'm wondering why you are allergic to the term deficient since it just means suboptimal.
Evolution is a gap in AT theology that I have not seen addressed, and it's not a change in subject since I am directly responding to your claim about how being different from your ancestors is a defect.
I was talking about a bird with a suboptimal wing just like your suboptimal blood pressure.
From you, and Feser, when you talk about how a if a bird's ancestors flew, and a particular bird doesn't fly, than that bird is defective. Are you withdrawing that statement?
Check your blood pressure.
So, when any particular bird can't fly, how can you tell if is from a defect, or if it is the result of a new form different from existing forms, and the bird is a good example of the new form?
The same way you can tell if you are or are not a mole-man when your vision is suboptimal.
@bmiller,
"The same way you can tell if you are or are not a mole-man when your vision is suboptimal."
Somehow the internet manages to cripple common sense.
SteveK,
I had no idea that it was so controversial to point out that the medical community's goal was to improve health by correcting deficiencies in one's health. Amazing!
SteveK said...
Here you have recognized the reality of essence ('bird') and are distinguishing it from humans. You didn't make this same comment about humans because you recognize what they are and recognized their inherent differences compared to birds. Despite all your protesting, you are agreeing with AT.
I have recognized a category of birds, which category, as we have discussed before, I identify through common ancestry. To my knowledge there are no humans that currently tend to fly, but if a human is born with a tendency to fly, they will still be human.
I have not once claimed that I disagree with everything in AT. There are parts that seem to be useful descriptions, and parts that are projections of the observer onto the world.
I will take your use of the term 'also' to mean that you agree with my statement and are adding to it. I agree with your statement here too. I see lots of agreement.
As you should, as long as you do not confuse partial agreement with agreement in whole.
"What's an "inherent quality difference", as opposed to an inherent difference?"
No difference as far as I can tell.
The the statement, "If you genuinely thought there were no physical defects, you would not think there were any inherent quality differences – but you do." is patently false. Inherent differences can exist without either difference indicating a defect.
Somehow the internet manages to cripple common sense.
Yes, but I keep trying to boost yours up.
bmiller said...
We both agree that homosexuals do not engage nor intend to engage in the male/female marital act. You just introduced a different term, "sex", in order to find a term that you could claim both "engaged in". That is the first error of equivocation.
There is no error, just your arbitrary elevation of one physical expression of sexual interaction over all other physical expressions.
The second error is that you've simply ignored the distinctions I've pointed out wrt impediments and the equivocal manner in which you are using the term. I won't go through them again.
You didn't go through any supposed distinctions with the use of the term "impediments" a first time, so it is vacuously true you will not go through them again. In fact, it is likely you will not go through them at all, from what I can tell.
Finally, although you understand that the male/female marital act is fundamentally different in intent and act from a homosexual act
I recognize no such thing. Sex between homosexuals is fundamentally the same in intent as sex between an infertile couple, and the the difference in act it trivial, unless you arbitrarily elevate it.
you ignore that a homosexual act by its' very nature is not open to procreation and so is also not open to the unitive aspect of the male/female marital act.
I see two different definitions for "open to procreation". If you meant, "would willingly/happily raise any children that result from the sex, should it be possible to have such children", then many married homosexuals are certainly open to procreation, and go out of their wayto make it happen by other means. If you meant, "do not have a natural pathway to procreation within the act of sex", than that is equally true of both the infertile couple and the homosexual couple. Either way, there is no difference.
So I'm wondering why you are allergic to the term deficient since it just means suboptimal.
I don't recall objecting to "deficient", which is only tenuously related to "defect", as the adjective for "defect" would be "defective".
Since we were talking about my blood pressure, I would not say it is deficient at all. Instead, it would be excessive.
I was talking about a bird with a suboptimal wing just like your suboptimal blood pressure.
I was not born with high blood pressure. Birds are born with different wing structures.
From you, and Feser, when you talk about how a if a bird's ancestors flew, and a particular bird doesn't fly, than that bird is defective. Are you withdrawing that statement?
Check your blood pressure.
That's good advice, thank you. When you talk about how a if a bird's ancestors flew, and a particular bird doesn't fly, than you seem to think that bird is defective. Are you withdrawing that statement?
The same way you can tell if you are or are not a mole-man when your vision is suboptimal.
I know I am not becoming a mole-man because individuals don't evolve. How does that help us with the birds who are different from their parents?
I had no idea that it was so controversial to point out that the medical community's goal was to improve health by correcting deficiencies in one's health. Amazing!
I had every idea that, after complaining that I was equivocating, you would then result to equivocation.
One Brow
There is no error, just your arbitrary elevation of one physical expression of sexual interaction over all other physical expressions.
Maybe you don't even know what ambiguity is. That or you see no problem using it. And why do you think noticing a distinction is an "elevation" in and of itself?
You didn't go through any supposed distinctions with the use of the term "impediments" a first time,
I did May 03, 2019 9:13 AM .
I recognize no such thing. Sex between homosexuals is fundamentally the same in intent as sex between an infertile couple, and the the difference in act it trivial, unless you arbitrarily elevate it.
Although you quoted what I wrote, you simply ignored it and substituted your ambiguous term "sex" again. So your reply is irrelevant.
I see two different definitions for "open to procreation". If you meant, "would willingly/happily raise any children that result from the sex, should it be possible to have such children", then many married homosexuals are certainly open to procreation, and go out of their wayto make it happen by other means. If you meant, "do not have a natural pathway to procreation within the act of sex", than that is equally true of both the infertile couple and the homosexual couple. Either way, there is no difference.
Once again you've simply ignored my point and changed terms so this too is irrelevant.
I don't recall objecting to "deficient", which is only tenuously related to "defect", as the adjective for "defect" would be "defective".
So you're OK with "deficient"?
I know I am not becoming a mole-man because individuals don't evolve. How does that help us with the birds who are different from their parents?
My question did not imply you were evolving. It implied that you have some reason to believe that you are not a mole-man even though you have suboptimal vision. Why would you not apply that same standard to bird with a suboptimal wing? Just like your vision, the bird's wing could have become damaged or it could have been congenital. In either case your parents would have taken you to a doctor and not thought you were a new species.
I had every idea that, after complaining that I was equivocating, you would then result to equivocation.
You were the one who decided to introduce evolution into the discussion, not me.
You should re-read my posts of May 03, 2019 9:13 AM and May 04, 2019 10:04 PM where I made the point that we don't expect humans to have wings but we do expect birds to have wings and that humans that do not have wings are not considered to be suffering some suboptimal condition while a bird (of a species known to fly) what does not have wings is considered to be suffering a suboptimal condition.
Now you can go ahead and avoid the point I made by invoking penguins, evolution and what not, but to what purpose? I really don't understand what you are arguing against.
bmiller said...
Maybe you don't even know what ambiguity is. That or you see no problem using it.
Since you don't seem to have trouble understanding what I am saying, I don't seem to be very ambiguous.
And why do you think noticing a distinction is an "elevation" in and of itself?
You're not just noticing a distinction, you are saying the distinction is a reason to deny one couple (who can't have children naturally) from participation in the unitive aspect of sex while permitting another couple (who can't have children naturally) to participate in the unitive aspect of sex. That's elevation.
You didn't go through any supposed distinctions with the use of the term "impediments" a first time,
I did May 03, 2019 9:13 AM .
Did you mean this?
The marital act of male/female intercourse is naturally directed toward and should be open to procreation and is affirmation of their binding marital vows. That is a different goal than whatever is the intent of 2 males doing a different act altogether.
It's a lie. The infertile couple can no more engage in an act directed toward procreation than the homosexual couple, and I've know several homosexual couples that would be very open to to procreation in the affirmation of their marital vows. You are lying to yourself with this statement, and you have failed to make a distinction regarding the impediments these couples face with this statement.
Although you quoted what I wrote, you simply ignored it and substituted your ambiguous term "sex" again. So your reply is irrelevant.
Actually, I addressed what you wrote when I mentioned that you elevate one particular sexual act above the others. It's a curious kind of worship.
Once again you've simply ignored my point and changed terms so this too is irrelevant.
Your point being that coitus is holy, as if that is not arbitrary.
So you're OK with "deficient"?
Depending upon the usage, yes. If your coronary artery is partially blocked and the blood flow is insufficient for the purpose of keeping the keeping the heart nourished, the blood flow is deficient. However, my blood pressure being somewhat elevated is not deficient, it is excessive.
My question did not imply you were evolving. It implied that you have some reason to believe that you are not a mole-man even though you have suboptimal vision. Why would you not apply that same standard to bird with a suboptimal wing?
Because the wing that is suboptimal for flying may be more optimal for another purpose, such as swimming. I am unaware how having poorer vision helps me dig through ground.
Just like your vision, the bird's wing could have become damaged or it could have been congenital. In either case your parents would have taken you to a doctor and not thought you were a new species.
If the wing is damaged, sure. If it is congenital, sure.
You were the one who decided to introduce evolution into the discussion, not me.
So, that excuses you from equivocating? I introduced evolution as an example of where AT metaphysics, as put forth by Feser, has gaps in the area of understanding the difference between having a defect and having a new type of form, and that ultimately there is no such thing as a human form, just various forms that we lump together as being human.
You should re-read my posts
They weren't hard to understand the first time.
Now you can go ahead and avoid the point I made by invoking penguins, evolution and what not, but to what purpose? I really don't understand what you are arguing against.
As above.
One Brow
Your objections regarding evolution are covered by AT. The reason you think they are not covered is because you refuse to let AT explain them on its own terms. You want AT to explain on your terms - by denying essence, by denying final causality - and it can’t do that. That’s not a failure of AT though.
One Brow,
Since you don't seem to have trouble understanding what I am saying, I don't seem to be very ambiguous.
I understand you're being ambiguous. On purpose now I have to assume.
You're not just noticing a distinction, you are saying the distinction is a reason to deny one couple (who can't have children naturally) from participation in the unitive aspect of sex while permitting another couple (who can't have children naturally) to participate in the unitive aspect of sex. That's elevation.
Actually, I addressed what you wrote when I mentioned that you elevate one particular sexual act above the others. It's a curious kind of worship.
Your point being that coitus is holy, as if that is not arbitrary.
Since I keep pointing out your ambiguity and you just continue to use it, I don't see much reason to continue repeating myself. I'm going to conclude that's all you can do.
Depending upon the usage, yes. If your coronary artery is partially blocked and the blood flow is insufficient for the purpose of keeping the keeping the heart nourished, the blood flow is deficient. However, my blood pressure being somewhat elevated is not deficient, it is excessive.
OK, if you don't want to tell me why you are OK with words that mean optimal but not OK with words that mean suboptimal I guess you've decided I don't need to know.
Because the wing that is suboptimal for flying may be more optimal for another purpose, such as swimming. I am unaware how having poorer vision helps me dig through ground.
I'm unaware of how poor flying helps a bird to swim, but I can see how eyesight would be distracting while tunneling undergroud mole-man.
If the wing is damaged, sure. If it is congenital, sure.
Which has been my point throughout this "discussion".
So, that excuses you from equivocating?
My post to SteveK was regarding how you've been arguing with me about what doctors do. How do you think that's equivocating?
I introduced evolution as an example of where AT metaphysics, as put forth by Feser, has gaps in the area of understanding the difference between having a defect and having a new type of form, and that ultimately there is no such thing as a human form, just various forms that we lump together as being human.
Since I can't tell whether you're a human with bad eyesight or a new form of mole, I'll choose one and just refer to you as mole-man from now on. You've left me no consistent way to reach a decision.
@bmiller,
"You've left me no consistent way to reach a decision."
Yup. He's just a form that "we lump together as being human" as if a social convention determines that a thing actually is. You and I can form our own social convention and say he's a mole-man, not a human. It's useful for me to do that so that's what he is.
SteveK said...
One Brow
Your objections regarding evolution are covered by AT. The reason you think they are not covered is because you refuse to let AT explain them on its own terms.
In that case, perhaps you have a source where someone who believes in AT discusses how to tell the difference between a defect and a change in form between parent and offspring?
You want AT to explain on your terms - by denying essence, by denying final causality - and it can’t do that. That’s not a failure of AT though.
On the contrary, I would be much more inclined to accept AT, should such an explanation exist.
bmiller said...
I understand you're being ambiguous. On purpose now I have to assume.
As usual, when you can't force the conversation to go your way, you resort to accusations of dishonesty.
Since I keep pointing out your ambiguity and you just continue to use it, I don't see much reason to continue repeating myself. I'm going to conclude that's all you can do.
I agree your position has no real foundation other than an arbitrary determination, which is what I said over 270 comments ago, and agree there is little point in discussing it further.
OK, if you don't want to tell me why you are OK with words that mean optimal but not OK with words that mean suboptimal I guess you've decided I don't need to know.
I just said I was OK with deficient, in a specific context.
I'm unaware of how poor flying helps a bird to swim,
I suggest you study penguin anatomy a little more, to get a better understanding.
but I can see how eyesight would be distracting while tunneling undergroud mole-man.
I do have eyelids, after all.
If the wing is damaged, sure. If it is congenital, sure.
Which has been my point throughout this "discussion".
There are other reasons for differences beside injury and developmental mishaps.
My post to SteveK was regarding how you've been arguing with me about what doctors do. How do you think that's equivocating?
Since I've never objected to the notion of correcting deficiencies, that's equivocation.
Since I can't tell whether you're a human with bad eyesight or a new form of mole, I'll choose one and just refer to you as mole-man from now on. You've left me no consistent way to reach a decision.
You seem to think you are making some sort of point by using absurdity. All youare really doing is showing your ignorance of how evolution works. Even if I, or my descendants, were to develop many/all of the characteristics you ascribe to moles, we would still be humans. At most, we would be a sub-species of humans.
SteveK said...
Yup. He's just a form that "we lump together as being human" as if a social convention determines that a thing actually is. You and I can form our own social convention and say he's a mole-man, not a human. It's useful for me to do that so that's what he is.
You are indeed free to form mental categories however you choose, in whatever way you find useful.
Mole-man,
You seem to think you are making some sort of point by using absurdity.
What absurdity? You've won the argument. You've convinced me that your poor eyesight makes you a different kind of thing. Congratulations.
As usual, when you can't force the conversation to go your way, you resort to accusations of dishonesty.
If you mean *can't get you to be honest* by *can't force the conversation to go your way* then you're right.
I agree your position has no real foundation other than an arbitrary determination, which is what I said over 270 comments ago,
Well you certainly keep claiming my position is arbitrary, but then you've ignored what I've written. I suppose that bit of fiction comforts you. But I'm only guessing as I wouldn't know how your species thinks.
@bmiller
”But I'm only guessing as I wouldn't know how your species thinks.”
I literally laughed out loud at this.
On a more serious note, Mole-man’s argument mades law enforcement and judicial decisions impossible. Who’s to say what you are?
One Brow,
”In that case, perhaps you have a source where someone who believes in AT discusses how to tell the difference between a defect and a change in form between parent and offspring?”
I can explain in simple English. How to know which one is which is different than the explanation that AT provides for why these differences exist in the first place. AT acknowledges that we don’t have complete knowledge of natural ends so it can be difficult to know if a change results in a defect or merely a difference. AT starts with what we know so we will do the same.
A defect results when a being’s natural end is frustrated / thwarted due to a change. A change that results in a human’s inability to procreate is a defect. A genetic change resulting in sterility for example.
A natural aging of the body that results in infertility is a change that results in the same effect, but it’s not a defect because infertility due to age is the fulfillment of a natural end.
SteveK,
I literally laughed out loud at this.
Gotta have some fun. Life is short :-)
bmiller said...
If you mean *can't get you to be honest* by *can't force the conversation to go your way* then you're right.
Refusing to accept your arbitrary standards is not dishonesty on my part; I merely refusing to adopt the lies that you tell yourself.
Well you certainly keep claiming my position is arbitrary, but then you've ignored what I've written.
I have just spent 100+ comments probing, analyzing, and sorting out what you were writing. So, to claim I ignored it comes across as whining. What I did not do is accept what you wrote at face value. In particular, I did not accept that there is a mystical significance to coitus as opposed to other kinds of sex. However, rejecting your position is still not ignoring it.
I don't see any further productive future in this conversation at this time. Thank you for your time and efforts.
SteveK said...
I can explain in simple English. How to know which one is which is different than the explanation that AT provides for why these differences exist in the first place. AT acknowledges that we don’t have complete knowledge of natural ends so it can be difficult to know if a change results in a defect or merely a difference. AT starts with what we know so we will do the same.
A fair position to take, and one that closely approaches what I have been saying about defects.
A defect results when a being’s natural end is frustrated / thwarted due to a change. A change that results in a human’s inability to procreate is a defect. A genetic change resulting in sterility for example.
What if the natural end for that particular human is to devote their life to the care of other people's children, or just other people generally? If holy orders are your natural end, how is sterility a defect?
"What if the natural end for that particular human is to devote their life to the care of other people's children, or just other people generally? If holy orders are your natural end, how is sterility a defect?"
I explained how it's a defect. Asking about some other natural end is interesting but I really don't see the point when it's already been explained.
"A fair position to take, and one that closely approaches what I have been saying about defects."
You: "I genuinely think defect is a mental category with no physical meaning."
Your position is nowhere close to the AT position.
Mole-man,
Refusing to accept your arbitrary standards is not dishonesty on my part; I merely refusing to adopt the lies that you tell yourself.
I have just spent 100+ comments probing, analyzing, and sorting out what you were writing. So, to claim I ignored it comes across as whining. What I did not do is accept what you wrote at face value. In particular, I did not accept that there is a mystical significance to coitus as opposed to other kinds of sex. However, rejecting your position is still not ignoring it.
The first problem is, that since I've given principled reasons for making the distinctions I do (and that you yourself recognize), it is simply false to call them arbitrary whether you agree with the general argument or not.
The second problem is that instead of engaging with the distinctions I've pointed out (and that you yourself recognize) and arguing for your position on that basis, you just continue to subsume the distinctions under a broader more ambiguous category ("sex"). Your tactic is akin to arguing that there is no "mystical" difference between social intercourse and sexual intercourse and since social intercourse is morally permissible between strangers then so is sexual intercourse.
One Brow,
"What I did not do is accept what you wrote at face value. In particular, I did not accept that there is a mystical significance to coitus as opposed to other kinds of sex. However, rejecting your position is still not ignoring it."
AT finds the distinction significant and whether you accept the AT explanation or not, the reason natural sex is significant is neither ambiguous nor arbitrary. It's spelled out in great detail.
Societies throughout history - secular and religious alike - think natural sex is significant by comparison. They might not know anything about AT but these societies put a higher value on it because it produces children, which serves to strengthen a culture. AT explains why that reasoning makes sense.
SteveK said...
I explained how it's a defect.
Except, it's not a defect if you don't need the function.
Asking about some other natural end is interesting but I really don't see the point when it's already been explained.
I suppose that depends on whether or not you are still trying to persuade me of something.
Your position is nowhere close to the AT position.
You said, "AT acknowledges that we don’t have complete knowledge of natural ends so it can be difficult to know if a change results in a defect or merely a difference." That's pretty close to saying a defect is merely a mental category, without a true physical marker.
AT finds the distinction significant and whether you accept the AT explanation or not, the reason natural sex is significant is neither ambiguous nor arbitrary. It's spelled out in great detail.
It's an arbitrary distinction spelled out unambiguously in great detail. Being unambiguous and having great detail does not detract from it being arbitrary.
Societies throughout history - secular and religious alike - think natural sex is significant by comparison. They might not know anything about AT but these societies put a higher value on it because it produces children, which serves to strengthen a culture. AT explains why that reasoning makes sense.
So do many other types of reasoning; AT is doing nothing special there. Further, making the same arbitrary distinction as some other societies have made does nothing to make the position non-arbitrary.
bmiller said...
The first problem is, that since I've given principled reasons for making the distinctions I do (and that you yourself recognize), it is simply false to call them arbitrary whether you agree with the general argument or not.
Except, you abandon those principles to elevate one particular type of sex act above all other sex acts, thereby claiming one type of impediment does not prevent a unitive purpose and another type of impediment does, and you lie (to yourself as much as anyone) in the process of so doing.
The second problem is that instead of engaging with the distinctions I've pointed out (and that you yourself recognize) and arguing for your position on that basis, you just continue to subsume the distinctions under a broader more ambiguous category ("sex"). Your tactic is akin to arguing that there is no "mystical" difference between social intercourse and sexual intercourse and since social intercourse is morally permissible between strangers then so is sexual intercourse.
I recognize that the natural end of social intercourse differs within AT theology from the natural end of sexual intercourse. What I don't see is a difference in the natural end between the infertile, married male-female couple and the married homosexual couple. The natural end for sex in both sorts of couples is the unitive aspects of sex.
I have engaged with the distinctions you have made by pointing out that they are arbitrary and based on a false depiction of homosexual unions.
"Except, it's not a defect if you don't need the function."
The difference between defect and non-defect is explained by AT. How a defect comes to exist is explained by AT. You disagree with AT but so what?
"That's pretty close to saying a defect is merely a mental category, without a true physical marker."
LOL.
"It's an arbitrary distinction spelled out unambiguously in great detail"
This is not correct. You really don't understand the basics of AT. There is nothing arbitrary about the distinction between act/potency, essence/existence, form/matter, substance/accident, 4 causes, etc. The definition of a defect follows from those non-arbitrary distinctions. You disagree with AT, but so what?
One Brow,
Except, you abandon those principles to elevate one particular type of sex act above all other sex acts, thereby claiming one type of impediment does not prevent a unitive purpose and another type of impediment does, and you lie (to yourself as much as anyone) in the process of so doing.
I said I gave principled (non-arbitrary) reasons. Your accusation about my *principles* is a confused response. Then you just continue to subsume distinctions in order to equivocate thereby proving my point.
I recognize that the natural end of social intercourse differs within AT theology from the natural end of sexual intercourse. What I don't see is a difference in the natural end between the infertile, married male-female couple and the married homosexual couple. The natural end for sex in both sorts of couples is the unitive aspects of sex.
I suppose you only see the difference in the first case because you aren't committed to *not* seeing the difference in that case while you are committed to *not* seeing the difference in the second case.
The homosexual couple is infertile in the same way a sex doll is infertile. It's simply not the kind of thing that ever was or could ever possibly be fertile in the first place. You don't have to understand AT philosophy or even be particularly smart to understand this.
You also keep insisting that the act homosexuals engage in is a "unitive" act. It's not. The unitive is an aspect of the conjugal marriage act between a husband and wife.
SteveK said...
The difference between defect and non-defect is explained by AT. How a defect comes to exist is explained by AT. You disagree with AT but so what?
Earlier, you said AT had trouble telling when a change was or was not a defect.
This is not correct. You really don't understand the basics of AT.
The basics are fairly straightforward. I just don't agree with them.
There is nothing arbitrary about the distinction between act/potency, essence/existence, form/matter, substance/accident, 4 causes, etc. The definition of a defect follows from those non-arbitrary distinctions. You disagree with AT, but so what?
I agree that there is nothing arbitrary about act/potency, existence, matter, substance, and 1 of the four causes.
bmiller said...
I said I gave principled (non-arbitrary) reasons.
Which were false.
I suppose you only see the difference in the first case because you aren't committed to *not* seeing the difference in that case while you are committed to *not* seeing the difference in the second case.
I'm not committed to seeing, or not seeing, any particular differences. They are either there or they are not.
The homosexual couple is infertile in the same way a sex doll is infertile. It's simply not the kind of thing that ever was or could ever possibly be fertile in the first place. You don't have to understand AT philosophy or even be particularly smart to understand this.
Yet, people born infertile, who could not ever possibly be fertile, are not prevented from engaging in the unitve aspects of sex with their marriage partners.
You also keep insisting that the act homosexuals engage in is a "unitive" act. It's not. The unitive is an aspect of the conjugal marriage act between a husband and wife.
What about the male/female act is more unitive that the male/male or female/female act?
One Brow,
Which were false.
Now you're merely making an assertion that you've never even tried to back up (and in fact, you yourself recognize the distinctions). Instead you've only ever resorted to equivocation.
Yet, people born infertile, who could not ever possibly be fertile, are not prevented from engaging in the unitve aspects of sex with their marriage partners.
That's right. Since they are the types of beings that are, by nature, capable of the moral marital conjugal act which requires committed members of the opposite sex open to the possibility of the creation of a new family member conceived in loving unity. It is the encompassing intent of these types of beings that determines the morality of the act, not the probability of a particular outcome. Homosexual activity with or without a sex doll does not involve the same types of beings nor does it (or can it) have the same natural and moral intent.
What about the male/female act is more unitive that the male/male or female/female act?
See the above response. You can tell me that social intercourse is unitive as well and so are handshakes but to equate them to the unitive aspect of the marital conjugal act would amount to equivocation.
"Earlier, you said AT had trouble telling when a change was or was not a defect."
I did not say that. At has no trouble explaining in metaphysical language what a defect is and how it's different than a change. I said we sometimes have trouble distinguishing which is which (in our daily lives) because we don't have complete knowledge.
bmiller said...
Now you're merely making an assertion that you've never even tried to back up (and in fact, you yourself recognize the distinctions). Instead you've only ever resorted to equivocation.
You seem to be having a memory problem.
The infertile couple can no more engage in an act directed toward procreation than the homosexual couple, and I've know several homosexual couples that would be very open to to procreation in the affirmation of their marital vows.
That's right. Since they are the types of beings that are, by nature, capable of the moral marital conjugal act which requires committed members of the opposite sex open to the possibility of the creation of a new family member conceived in loving unity.
Homosexuals are also beings that are, by nature, capable of the moral marital conjugal act which requires committed members open to the possibility of the creation of a new family member conceived in loving unity. Your inclusion "of the opposite sex" is arbitrary.
It is the encompassing intent of these types of beings that determines the morality of the act, not the probability of a particular outcome.
Yes, that is exactly my point!
Homosexual activity with or without a sex doll does not involve the same types of beings nor does it (or can it) have the same natural and moral intent.
I don't understand why you would work a sex doll into your moralizing. That's curious.
Since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are humans, the sex does indeed involve the "same types of beings". I mean, you don't really mean that homosexuals are a fundamentally different type of being from heterosexuals, do you?
What about the male/female act is more unitive that the male/male or female/female act?
See the above response.
I did. Outside of the arbitrary inclusion of the phrase "of the opposite sex", you did not point out a distinction.
You can tell me that social intercourse is unitive as well and so are handshakes but to equate them to the unitive aspect of the marital conjugal act would amount to equivocation.
I agree that equating handshakes to sex wold be equivocation.
SteveK said...
I did not say that. At has no trouble explaining in metaphysical language what a defect is and how it's different than a change. I said we sometimes have trouble distinguishing which is which (in our daily lives) because we don't have complete knowledge.
If AT is just our construction to explain the universe, as opposed to something with an existence of its own, how is that different? Are you saying there is some sort of AT out there that humans don't fully grasp?
"If AT is just our construction to explain the universe, as opposed to something with an existence of its own, how is that different?"
AT provides a metaphysical explanation involving various things that have existence. This is similar to how Physics provides a physical explanation and Biology provides a biological explanation. Understanding Physics is not the same as understanding a particular physical interaction. You can find yourself not knowing what's going on in that interaction, but you know Physics can explain it. Likewise with AT. That's what I meant.
One Brow,
You seem to be having a memory problem.
The infertile couple can no more engage in an act directed toward procreation than the homosexual couple, and I've know several homosexual couples that would be very open to to procreation in the affirmation of their marital vows.
Repeating assertions don't count as a defense of your position. I understand that you want to equate an infertile male/female couple with a homosexual couple and you keep asserting it, but I've given you reasons why they are not the same:
1) Normally functioning homosexuals are naturally incapable of procreating so cannot intend it in the first place
2) A normally heterosexual pair can by nature have that intent. So can an couple diagnosed as infertile couple even though their odds of procreation are less than the normally functioning pair.
You have given no reasons why you disagree with my argument.
I don't understand why you would work a sex doll into your moralizing. That's curious.
I did it to emphasize how you are being ambiguous when you use the word "sex".
Since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are humans, the sex does indeed involve the "same types of beings". I mean, you don't really mean that homosexuals are a fundamentally different type of being from heterosexuals, do you?
I wonder if you are misreading on purpose. "Homosexual activity" requires 2 individuals of the same sex, while "heterosexual activity" requires a man and a woman.
I did. Outside of the arbitrary inclusion of the phrase "of the opposite sex", you did not point out a distinction.
Now I'm pretty sure you are misreading on purpose.
I agree that equating handshakes to sex wold be equivocation.
Thanks for your opinion. It seems to me that you think that merely providing your opinion amounts to actually arguing for a position.
@bmiller,
"Now I'm pretty sure you are misreading on purpose."
I agree.
SteveK said...
AT provides a metaphysical explanation involving various things that have existence. This is similar to how Physics provides a physical explanation and Biology provides a biological explanation. Understanding Physics is not the same as understanding a particular physical interaction. You can find yourself not knowing what's going on in that interaction, but you know Physics can explain it. Likewise with AT. That's what I meant.
Physics is also a model of the universe we construct, and we get changes in physics precisely because we we see things we can't explain within physics. By contrast, the AT you and bmiller put forth does not seem to change in response to new information in the world.
However, let's go with what you are saying right now. You are saying that AT recognizes that the form of an offspring can be different from that of a parent, and so when a child has a significant difference from a parent (say in wing structure for birds), that may or may not be a defect in AT terms, and any attempt by you to call it a defect is merely a guess. Is that correct?
bmiller said...
Repeating assertions don't count as a defense of your position.
Ignoring assertions don't count as a refutation, either.
I understand that you want to equate an infertile male/female couple with a homosexual couple and you keep asserting it, but I've given you reasons why they are not the same:
1) Normally functioning homosexuals are naturally incapable of procreating so cannot intend it in the first place
Just as a naturally infertile, heterosexual couple is naturally incapable of procreating, and so can not intend to.
2) A normally heterosexual pair can by nature have that intent.
Not in AT causal terms. They can have that desire, but the natural outcome of their union can never be children.
So can an couple diagnosed as infertile couple even though their odds of procreation are less than the normally functioning pair.
With chances of 0, the same as the homosexual couple.
You have given no reasons why you disagree with my argument.
I don't disagree with arbitrary choices. I merely point them out as arbitrary, and say that I prefer to draw the line differently.
I did it to emphasize how you are being ambiguous when you use the word "sex".
I distinguish between sex (interaction between people) and masturbation. I would agree there is no unitive component to masturbation.
I wonder if you are misreading on purpose. "Homosexual activity" requires 2 individuals of the same sex, while "heterosexual activity" requires a man and a woman.
So, did you mean men and women are different types of beings? If not, why use that phrase at all?
Now I'm pretty sure you are misreading on purpose.
Disagreeing is not misreading.
Thanks for your opinion. It seems to me that you think that merely providing your opinion amounts to actually arguing for a position.
You mean, the way you present heterosexual sex and fundamentally different from homosexual sex, despite finding no relevant difference other than having opposite sexes involved?
SteveK said...
I agree.
As another reminder, both of you engaged in this conversation to convince me of something, not the other way around. If you feel the continued effort is fruitless, I have no objection to your (either of you) withdrawal from the discussion.
One Brow,
"You are saying that AT recognizes that the form of an offspring can be different from that of a parent, and so when a child has a significant difference from a parent (say in wing structure for birds), that may or may not be a defect in AT terms, and any attempt by you to call it a defect is merely a guess. Is that correct?"
It's not a guess when the natural end is known. I explained this already. A defect results when a being’s natural end is frustrated / thwarted due to a change. We've studied birds enough to know their natural ends. The irony (from my perspective) is that science spends all its time studying things in order to discover their natural limits (natural ends) and here you are thinking that AT is all guesswork.
Here's a paper that lists several genetic disorders (defects) in birds. I don't see a lot of guessing.
Regarding convincing you of something: Your mind causes you to become convinced. I can't cause you to be convinced, but I can lead you to the point where you have what you need. Surely you've heard of the saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"?
One Brow,
Ignoring assertions don't count as a refutation, either.
I agree, but I didn't ignore your assertions.
Not in AT causal terms. They can have that desire, but the natural outcome of their union can never be children.
This is a good example of an assertion of yours' that I've already addressed and you are content to ignore. In AT philosophy a final cause does not depend on the outcome, only what it is naturally directed toward since the natural outcome may be impeded as would be the case of an infertile woman. If an act is not naturally directed toward an end, it is directed toward a different end, so it would be wrong to say it is impeded from an end it was never directed toward. It's like trying to argue that Starhopper's baseball hitter is impeded from scoring a touchdown in the same way a halfback is by being tackled.
With chances of 0, the same as the homosexual couple.
Not true, couples diagnosed as infertile sometimes still have children (since they are the types of beings that are naturally capable). Homosexual couples don't (since they are naturally incapable wrt to their act).
I don't disagree with arbitrary choices. I merely point them out as arbitrary, and say that I prefer to draw the line differently.
You've spent hundreds of comments disagreeing so that is false. But for all your disagreement you've only made assertions like this one when you are not equivocating.
I distinguish between sex (interaction between people) and masturbation. I would agree there is no unitive component to masturbation.
So it's a sin?
So, did you mean men and women are different types of beings? If not, why use that phrase at all?
Because men, being men, are different than women (and vice versa). You understand that, right?
Disagreeing is not misreading.
You mean, the way you present heterosexual sex and fundamentally different from homosexual sex, despite finding no relevant difference other than having opposite sexes involved?
Purposely ignoring distinctions is purposely misreading. Thanks for demonstrating it again so soon.
As another reminder, both of you engaged in this conversation to convince me of something, not the other way around. If you feel the continued effort is fruitless, I have no objection to your (either of you) withdrawal from the discussion.
Where did you get that idea? I engaged in this discussion to illustrate the absurdity of your position and tactics for the benefit of other readers here. It's been very fruitful in that respect.
SteveK said...
It's not a guess when the natural end is known. I explained this already. A defect results when a being’s natural end is frustrated / thwarted due to a change. We've studied birds enough to know their natural ends. The irony (from my perspective) is that science spends all its time studying things in order to discover their natural limits (natural ends) and here you are thinking that AT is all guesswork.
Science can identify loss/lack of functioning. Your equivalence of natural limits and natural ends is partial, at best, because you fold purpose into natural ends, and science only looks at what happens without trying to put purpose into the mix.
Here's a paper that lists several genetic disorders (defects) in birds. I don't see a lot of guessing.
Loss of function is easy to identify.
Regarding convincing you of something: Your mind causes you to become convinced. I can't cause you to be convinced, but I can lead you to the point where you have what you need. Surely you've heard of the saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"?
Unfortunately, you seem to have lead me to contaminated water.
bmiller said...
I agree, but I didn't ignore your assertions.
I have yet to see you acknowledge that homosexual sex within a marriage can be just as welcoming of children as heterosexual sex, were it nor for the impediment of improper genitals, nor have you tried to contest it.
This is a good example of an assertion of yours' that I've already addressed and you are content to ignore.
Saying something is untrue is the opposite of ignoring it.
In AT philosophy a final cause does not depend on the outcome, only what it is naturally directed toward since the natural outcome may be impeded as would be the case of an infertile woman.
In that sense, homosexual sex would also be naturally directed toward children, but the natural outcome is impeded by the lack of compatible genitalia. This is where you say coitus is special, and I say your position is arbitrary.
If an act is not naturally directed toward an end, it is directed toward a different end, so it would be wrong to say it is impeded from an end it was never directed toward.
What's your objective method for deciding what homosexual sex within a marriage is directed toward?
It's like trying to argue that Starhopper's baseball hitter is impeded from scoring a touchdown in the same way a halfback is by being tackled.
that's based upon your arbitrary distinct, not any particular objective fact.
Not true, couples diagnosed as infertile sometimes still have children ...
Now you are changing the terms of the discussion from "infertile" to "diagnosed as infertile". Go on, accuse me of equivocation again. It's fun.
You've spent hundreds of comments disagreeing so that is false.
I've disagreed on the the application of AT metaphysics in this particular case, but not once have I told you you could not believe coitus is special.
But for all your disagreement you've only made assertions like this one when you are not equivocating.
See all the fun we're having.
So it's a sin?
Under Aquinas' theology, I would think so.
Because men, being men, are different than women (and vice versa). You understand that, right?
I think the differences get exaggerated, but I now understand you comment better.
Purposely ignoring distinctions is purposely misreading. Thanks for demonstrating it again so soon.
There are all kinds of distinction people can make. In the past some people (not you, I realize) made distinction based on skin color in determining whether a sex act in a marriage was sinful or not. I'm sure we would both agree that is a distinction, but it is an irrelevant distinction.
Similarly, your task (if you are still trying to convince me) is not to show that coitus is distinct from non-coital sex, but that this distinction is relevant, and that the relevance has nothing to do with the possibility of children arising from the act.
Where did you get that idea? I engaged in this discussion to illustrate the absurdity of your position and tactics for the benefit of other readers here. It's been very fruitful in that respect.
I think it's a safe bet that there are only three readers of this thread on the second page of the comments (you, SteveK, and myself), so that task is moot.
One Brow,
I have yet to see you acknowledge that homosexual sex within a marriage can be just as welcoming of children as heterosexual sex, were it nor for the impediment of improper genitals, nor have you tried to contest it.
It's true that I don't "acknowledge that homosexual sex within a marriage can be just as welcoming of children as heterosexual sex, were it nor for the impediment of improper genitals," and I've given the reasons multiple times. Since they are not a male/female couple they are not of the proper form and matter to engage in an act of procreation and so cannot intend it. The act they do engage in is a different act altogether. It's as if someone tried to convince me that when they are shaking hands it is directed toward procreation if they intend it. After all, it is a unitive act of intercourse. And BTW, why are you claiming that homosexuals have "improper gentitals"?
nor have you tried to contest it."
Wow. How blatantly false.
In that sense, homosexual sex would also be naturally directed toward children, but the natural outcome is impeded by the lack of compatible genitalia. This is where you say coitus is special, and I say your position is arbitrary.
There is no "sense" that homosexual sex is naturally directed toward procreation. You know it and by now and you know the AT argument for final cause. But look at your position. By your standard all and every act could be said to be "naturally directed toward children" whether genitalia is compatible or not. Be careful. Typing your next reply could result in you paying child support!
What's your objective method for deciding what homosexual sex within a marriage is directed toward?
Let's see. The generation of a new human being in a loving unifying act is always or for the most part the result of male/female sexual intercourse within a marriage and never a result of homosexual activity. So whatever homosexual acts are directed toward, it isn't that.
Now you are changing the terms of the discussion from "infertile" to "diagnosed as infertile". Go on, accuse me of equivocation again. It's fun.
It's not true that I equivocated. It is true that I added a qualifier to the term infertile. I did it to emphasize the difference between a what a couple is naturally capable of as opposed to what they are not even in principle capable of. Now it's your turn to tell me why you equivocate on purpose.
Under Aquinas' theology, I would think so.
Well I asked you not Aquinas.
but it is an irrelevant distinction.
So you claim. But you don't explain why you think some distinctions are relevant and others aren't. AT philosophy does explain the reasoning for the distinctions. Whether you agree with the reasons for the distinctions or not is a different story, but since the reasons are given it's false to claim the distinctions are arbitrary.
Similarly, your task (if you are still trying to convince me) is not to show that coitus is distinct from non-coital sex, but that this distinction is relevant, and that the relevance has nothing to do with the possibility of children arising from the act.
Like I said I'm not trying to convince you. Just letting other readers observe the absurdity of your position and tactics. It may help prepare them if they encounter this type of "reasoning" in the future.
"In that sense, homosexual sex would also be naturally directed toward children, but the natural outcome is impeded by the lack of compatible genitalia. This is where you say coitus is special, and I say your position is arbitrary."
This is so, so confused and nonsensical. Your "in that sense" reference has nothing to do with natural ends, final causality, sex, gender, or even human beings.
In the sense you mean it, a pack of wolves can be directed toward human children if they desire to bring one into the pack. The natural outcome is impeded by the lack of compatible species. Jeepers, what a load of garbled nonsense this line of thinking is.
Your knowledge of AT is beyond poor. I give you an F-
SteveK,
This is so, so confused and nonsensical. Your "in that sense" reference has nothing to do with natural ends, final causality, sex, gender, or even human beings.
You noticed that too. It seems that in order to attempt to refute AT philosophy has to resort to nonsense.
One of two things are very clear. Either
1) He doesn’t understand AT, or
2) He understands AT and is trolling us
Which one is it, One Brow?
Like Peter Quill, I suspect it's "A bit of both." :-)
bmiller said...
One Brow,
I have yet to see you acknowledge that homosexual sex within a marriage can be just as welcoming of children as heterosexual sex, were it nor for the impediment of improper genitals, nor have you tried to contest it.
It's true that I don't "acknowledge that homosexual sex within a marriage can be just as welcoming of children as heterosexual sex, were it nor for the impediment of improper genitals," and I've given the reasons multiple times. Since they are not a male/female couple they are not of the proper form and matter to engage in an act of procreation and so cannot intend it.
An infertile male/female couple also does have the form and matter to engage in an act of procreation(if they did have the form and matter capable of procreation, they would be fertile), and by your standard, can not intend it. In their case, you excuse this by means of an impediment, but you disallow it for the homosexual couple, for arbitrary reasons.
The act they do engage in is a different act altogether. It's as if someone tried to convince me that when they are shaking hands it is directed toward procreation if they intend it. After all, it is a unitive act of intercourse.
However, not an act of sex, most of the time.
And BTW, why are you claiming that homosexuals have "improper gentitals"?
Very careless of me. I should have said "incompatible for the function of procreation". Thank you for the correction.
Wow. How blatantly false.
Still waiting for you to contest it a consistent, non-arbitrary manner that distinguishes the homosexual sex act and the heterosexual sex act of an infertile couple.
There is no "sense" that homosexual sex is naturally directed toward procreation. You know it and by now and you know the AT argument for final cause.
Well, your argument for final cause goes back and forth. One couple who can't have children engage in an act with a final cause of procreation (even those procreation is not even a possible cause), and another couple who can't have children can't engage in act with a final cause of procreation. It's just arbitrary.
But look at your position. By your standard all and every act could be said to be "naturally directed toward children" whether genitalia is compatible or not. Be careful. Typing your next reply could result in you paying child support!
If you get pregnant, let me know.
However, the real disparity is your saying a couple who can't have children are naturally directed to having the children they can't have.
So whatever homosexual acts are directed toward, it isn't that.
So for all you know, they could be directed toward the unitive aspect of a marriage after all?
It's not true that I equivocated. It is true that I added a qualifier to the term infertile.
It's so much fun when you contradict yourself in consecutive sentences.
Well I asked you not Aquinas.
I don't recognize the concept of "sin" as a valid description of human activity.
AT philosophy does explain the reasoning for the distinctions.
Making arbitrary distinctions is not "reasoning".
Just letting other readers observe the absurdity of your position and tactics.
It's so self-delusional that you think there are still other readers in this topic, that it's cute.
You noticed that too. It seems that in order to attempt to refute AT philosophy has to resort to nonsense.
You can't refute a metaphysical system. Either it's a good depiction of the universe, or it is not, but there is no refutation to be had.
Now, I am trying to show where I see the gaps in the AT metaphysical system from the 12th century, that make it less useful than I would like in a system I adopt.
SteveK said...
This is so, so confused and nonsensical. Your "in that sense" reference has nothing to do with natural ends, final causality, sex, gender, or even human beings.
It's almost as if, when you told me that anyone who believed that events which followed a predictable pattern believed in final cause, that you didn't really mean it. Because I have been discussing the natural ends/final cause of homosexual and heterosexual sex.
In the sense you mean it, a pack of wolves can be directed toward human children if they desire to bring one into the pack. The natural outcome is impeded by the lack of compatible species.
You and bmiller are arguing that an infertile couple can be naturally directed toward children, even though children are impossible and thus can not be a natural end. I'm not worried about how ludicrous I look in that discussion.
Your knowledge of AT is beyond poor. I give you an F-
I take you assessment with all the respect you have earned.
One of two things are very clear. Either
1) He doesn’t understand AT, or
2) He understands AT and is trolling us
Which one is it, One Brow?
I think Aristotelian metaphysics has a lot of interesting and useful ideas, and some of the additions by Thomas are also useful. However, too much of the 12th century AT is baggage that needs to be discarded for the system to be a good guide in understanding our world.
One Brow,
"Because I have been discussing the natural ends/final cause of homosexual and heterosexual sex."
You were commenting on bmiller's AT explanation and said "in that sense", meaning that if you accepted as true what bmiller said, that it also means homosexual unions are naturally directed toward children. You're saying that "in the same sense" that AT means to explain why heterosexual unions are directed toward children, homosexual unions are too.
That idiocy earns you a big hearty "LOL" and a failing grade of F- when it comes to understanding AT.
"It's just arbitrary."
According to AT there is nothing arbitrary about it. It's very clearly spelled out. You imagine it is, but that's not a problem for AT.
One Brow,
However, not an act of sex, most of the time.
//Channeling One Brow// "You're making an arbitrary distinction!" //Channeling off//
It's the line of reasoning you've been pursuing. Entertaining to see you start making distinctions.
So for all you know, they could be directed toward the unitive aspect of a marriage after all?
They might if they weren't homosexual acts. But since they are not the type of act that is even in principle capable of being ordered toward that end they are by definition disordered. Too many possible disorders to guess what any particular sinner is up to.
Me:It's not true that I equivocated. It is true that I added a qualifier to the term infertile.
You:It's so much fun when you contradict yourself in consecutive sentences.
This statement of your's clears up something I've been wondering about. I realize that you're trolling, but I was wondering what percentage of your posts were intentional trolling and what percentage was ignorance. It's now clear you don't know what a contradiction is and you are confused about the definition of an equivocation. Seems to be equal percentages to me now.
I don't recognize the concept of "sin" as a valid description of human activity.
Just validating that you're trolling (albeit lamely). Thanks.
Me:AT philosophy does explain the reasoning for the distinctions.
You:Making arbitrary distinctions is not "reasoning".
Wow. Too confused of a response to even try to unwind. Drunk posting?
It's so self-delusional that you think there are still other readers in this topic, that it's cute.
I get called cute alot 😎 😎
You can't refute a metaphysical system. Either it's a good depiction of the universe, or it is not, but there is no refutation to be had.
You've been trying to show that the AT conclusion of the immorality of homosexual activity is inconsistent with itself. If you could prove that, it would be a refutation.
It may have been interesting to see if you could actually come up with counter arguments for why you think these distinctions shouldn't be made while other distinctions (that you acknowledge) are legitimate. Instead you just keep reporting your opinion on this distinction or that without giving any principled reasons. It's risibly ironic then that you accuse AT of setting arbitrary distinctions.
SteveK said...
You were commenting on bmiller's AT explanation and said "in that sense", meaning that if you accepted as true what bmiller said, that it also means homosexual unions are naturally directed toward children. You're saying that "in the same sense" that AT means to explain why heterosexual unions are directed toward children, homosexual unions are too.
As I have pointed out before, what I have been doing is pointing out that heterosexual sex between an infertile couple is no more directed toward reproduction than homosexual sex, yet is treated different because of a difference directedness to having children that does not exist.
That idiocy earns you a big hearty "LOL" and a failing grade of F- when it comes to understanding AT.
I thank you again for your evaluation, and again accept it with all the respect you have earned.
bmiller said...
It's the line of reasoning you've been pursuing. Entertaining to see you start making distinctions.
Were we discussing whether handshakes were inherently sinful at some point? If not, and we both agree there is a relevant difference between a handshake and sex, what is your point?
They might if they weren't homosexual acts. But since they are not the type of act that is even in principle capable of being ordered toward that end they are by definition disordered. Too many possible disorders to guess what any particular sinner is up to.
So, an infertile heterosexual couple, which can not in principal perform an act directed toward reproduction, performs what is by definition a disordered act. Yet, that disordered act is recognized by you as fulfilling a unitive purpose, and the homosexual act is not. Hence, an arbitrary distinction (which is still a distinction, of course, just not one founded upon some other principal).
It's now clear you don't know what a contradiction is and you are confused about the definition of an equivocation. Seems to be equal percentages to me now.
Actually, your description of your action fits under equivocation, by which follows you also contradicted yourself. Feel free to engage in a recourse to the dictionary, if you like.
Just validating that you're trolling (albeit lamely). Thanks.
Pointing out that you are making a hurtful distinction for arbitrary reasons is not trolling.
Wow. Too confused of a response to even try to unwind. Drunk posting?
That's been my position since the comments were in single digits. The distinction made by AT reasoning is, in this case, arbitrary. Making an arbitrary distinction is not reasoning. While I know you disagree with the second sentence of this paragraph, I hope we agree on the third.
You've been trying to show that the AT conclusion of the immorality of homosexual activity is inconsistent with itself. If you could prove that, it would be a refutation.
It's not inconsistent. It's just arbitrary.
It may have been interesting to see if you could actually come up with counter arguments for why you think these distinctions shouldn't be made while other distinctions (that you acknowledge) are legitimate.
So, to be clear, you want me to make an argument that from AT principles that handshakes and sex are distinct things, and then you will try to show that distinction is arbitrary? If not, what is your point here?
So far, my point has been that, when you discuss how the natural end of homosexual sex can not result in reproduction, you can make a similar point about sex between an infertile heterosexual couple. You are trying to justify your position using categories of forms of sex, while pushing past that the actual forms of the individuals in the infertile couple do not allow for reproduction.
One Brow,
Me:It may have been interesting to see if you could actually come up with counter arguments for why you think these distinctions shouldn't be made while other distinctions (that you acknowledge) are legitimate.
You:So, to be clear, you want me to make an argument that from AT principles that handshakes and sex are distinct things, and then you will try to show that distinction is arbitrary? If not, what is your point here?
Forget about AT philosophy, my point is that you've made certain distinctions in this discussion while calling others arbitrary without telling us why. For instance you draw a distinction when I equivocated on the term "intercourse" but you deny the distinctions I draw when you continue to equivocate on the term "sex". Why is it OK for you to equivocate but not for me?
So far, my point has been that, when you discuss how the natural end of homosexual sex can not result in reproduction, you can make a similar point about sex between an infertile heterosexual couple.
I have not discussed the "natural end" of homosexual sex at all whatever you mean by that. But to the point, I do understand your argument and I've been addressing it. Basically you want to disregard the basic AT category of substance and insist there is no difference between things that are normally directed toward a final cause but cannot achieve it due to a lack of a potential being activated and those things that never had such a potential in the first place. That's fine, but then you are not making an argument against an AT position.
You are trying to justify your position using categories of forms of sex,
Then you should at least attempt to argue why I'm wrong about the categories rather than ignoring the categories by equivocating.
while pushing past that the actual forms of the individuals
You are using a definition of "forms" foreign to AT philosphy. That is why it's difficult to understand what your objections really are.
in the infertile couple do not allow for reproduction.
Per AT, the couple you are referring to are instances of male and female human beings. As instances of a form they have certain potentials that may or may not be actualized and in fact that is what differentiates them from other males and females. The male form has certain potentials and the female form has different potentials, but they are potentials distinct to their own sex and are complementary to each other especially in the case under discussion (potential for procreation). The fact that a potential may not be actualized (as in fertility) does not change the form of the individual into a different form with different potencies. So in other words, because one or both of the couple is infertile does not change their heterosexual act into a homosexual act.
You are welcome to reject AT philosophy and to come up with your own. But please. Don't claim you are critiquing it when you clearly don't understand it.
bmiller said...
Forget about AT philosophy, my point is that you've made certain distinctions in this discussion while calling others arbitrary without telling us why. For instance you draw a distinction when I equivocated on the term "intercourse" but you deny the distinctions I draw when you continue to equivocate on the term "sex". Why is it OK for you to equivocate but not for me?
Because, looking at notions like actual forms and impediments, homosexual sex serves the same purpose in a marriage that heterosexual sex serves for the infertile couple, and both are prevented from conceiving by an impediment. This is, as far as I can tell, the best interpretation of the four causes as they apply to marital relations. So I'm not equivocating, I'm giving my honest assessment.
I have not discussed the "natural end" of homosexual sex at all whatever you mean by that.
Then, why are skirting around that? What is the natural end of homosexual sex within a marriage, and why does it differ from heterosexual sex to you, besides the inclusion of coitus? Because if coitus is the only reason, you are effectively setting up a physical act as a holy activity.
bmiller said...
But to the point, I do understand your argument and I've been addressing it. Basically you want to disregard the basic AT category of substance and insist there is no difference between things that are normally directed toward a final cause but cannot achieve it due to a lack of a potential being activated and those things that never had such a potential in the first place.
Sex between an infertile, heterosexual couple has no potential for reproduction to be activated; that's what it means to be infertile. It is not directed toward reproduction because they are infertile. It's potential for reporoduction is identical to homosexual sex; none.
That's fine, but then you are not making an argument against an AT position.
True. All I am doing is pointing out the AT position is arbitrary.
Then you should at least attempt to argue why I'm wrong about the categories rather than ignoring the categories by equivocating.
Since categories are arbitrarily created in our minds, they are neither wrong nor right. They can be founded on meaningful criteria (useful) or meaningless criteria (arbitrary).
bmiller said...
You are using a definition of "forms" foreign to AT philosphy. That is why it's difficult to understand what your objections really are.
Not at all. In AT philosophy, everything has its own individual form. You have your form, and I have mine. We are both human because our forms have many features that we identify as human, but our forms are not identical. "Human" as a set, or category, of forms to which both of ours belong, so we both have human forms. Our forms have other features (hair color, height, etc.) which vary within a human form.
What's the part you disagree with there? Keep in mind that below, you discuss a male (human) form and a female (human) form, while you would recognize both as having human forms. What else could is mean but that "human" is only a part of an individual's form.
Per AT, the couple you are referring to are instances of male and female human beings. As instances of a form they have certain potentials that may or may not be actualized and in fact that is what differentiates them from other males and females. The male form has certain potentials and the female form has different potentials, but they are potentials distinct to their own sex and are complementary to each other especially in the case under discussion (potential for procreation). The fact that a potential may not be actualized (as in fertility) does not change the form of the individual into a different form with different potencies.
What makes you think this is any different than the way I have been using form? Outside of using a generic notion of form rather than looking at the individual forms of the people, that is? Most male human forms have the potetial to make children, but not all of them. Most female human forms have the potential to make children, but not all of them.
So in other words, because one or both of the couple is infertile does not change their heterosexual act into a homosexual act.
Agreed. Where did I say it did?
You are welcome to reject AT philosophy and to come up with your own. But please. Don't claim you are critiquing it when you clearly don't understand it.
Perhaps you could point out the part you think I don't understand? Because if it was that last paragraph on form, I haven't said anything to contradict it.
"In AT philosophy, everything has its own individual form. You have your form, and I have mine. We are both human because our forms have many features that we identify as human, but our forms are not identical. "Human" as a set, or category, of forms to which both of ours belong, so we both have human forms. Our forms have other features (hair color, height, etc.) which vary within a human form.
What's the part you disagree with there?"
What you are describing in the bold section is not what AT teaches, specifically the "that we identify as human" phrase that implies that a human being is a social convention that is grounded in what WE say it is. We've been over the essence/existence distinction and you already told me that you don't agree with AT on that.
One Brow,
It seems you can't understand my points, the terms I use or my questions. Not to mention the basics of AT philosophy.
For instance, your answer to my question regarding why, in this dialog, you ignore some equivocations ("sex") but not others ("intercourse") I explicitly said to ignore AT philosophy, yet not only do you demonstrate that you should know what I was asking by your use of the phrases "homosexual sex" and "heterosexual sex" but you go on to answer in terms of AT philosophical terms (as you think you understand them). You can't even understand and respond to a simple question like that.
You routinely conflate your own concepts with what you think are AT concepts or attempt to redefine them. Its all a muddle and even though you're trolling it comes across as more of an inept trolling attempt.
This is evident in your responses to what a substance is defined as, what a form is defined as, what act and potency are defined as etc. You claim you are "pointing out the AT position is arbitrary" but you are "pointing" at the muddle in your own head that you invented.
I'm afraid that I can't help you understand basic AT philosophy if you don't even understand what the terms contradiction, equivocation or what arbitrary mean. You need to read more books....at least on how to be a more entertaining troll.
SteveK said...
What you are describing in the bold section is not what AT teaches, specifically the "that we identify as human" phrase that implies that a human being is a social convention that is grounded in what WE say it is. We've been over the essence/existence distinction and you already told me that you don't agree with AT on that.
Sorry, but you just failed reading basic English there. The bold part said "We are both human" (so, not a social convention, but a state of being), and that we had "features that we identify as human". If you prefer, you can substitute properties for features in that sentence. Human forms have features/properties like locomotion, will, etc. in AT philosophy.
As for whether I agree with AT or not, what does that have to do with my ability to understand it?
bmiller said...
It seems you can't understand my points, the terms I use or my questions. Not to mention the basics of AT philosophy.
Your points are quite simple to understand, as is your terminology. The basics of AT aren't too much more difficult.
For instance, your answer to my question regarding why, in this dialog, you ignore some equivocations ("sex") but not others ("intercourse") I explicitly said to ignore AT philosophy,
The context of the entire discussion is the arbitrariness of AT philosophy.
Also, I again deny that I am engaged in equivocation. There has been nothing ambiguous in my descriptions, you knew at almost every response exactly what I meant. Perhaps you meant "false equivalence", but then again, my whole point has been that the distinction you have been making is arbitrary, so it would seem that way to you. If I were to tell a racist that white men and black men were the same, he would also think of that as a false equivalence.
yet not only do you demonstrate that you should know what I was asking by your use of the phrases "homosexual sex" and "heterosexual sex" but you go on to answer in terms of AT philosophical terms (as you think you understand them). You can't even understand and respond to a simple question like that.
I'm not your student, nor your child. Just because you make a request and I understand said request does not require me to comply with it.
That said, my recollection is that you asked if there was a difference between coitus and other types of sex, and my response was that there was, and that the point of discussion was whether that difference was relevant.
You routinely conflate your own concepts with what you think are AT concepts or attempt to redefine them.
Then it should be easy to clarify, using a non-arbitrary distinction.
This is evident in your responses to what a substance is defined as, what a form is defined as, what act and potency are defined as etc. You claim you are "pointing out the AT position is arbitrary" but you are "pointing" at the muddle in your own head that you invented.
Yet, you have failed to point out a non-arbitrary distinction between the impediments faced by an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.
Your problem is not that I don't understand what a natural end is, but that it's all too easy to understand, and it doesn't support your prejudice.
I'm afraid that I can't help you understand basic AT philosophy if you don't even understand what the terms contradiction, equivocation or what arbitrary mean. You need to read more books...
I think retreating from the field, failing to accomplish any of your objectives, and howling victory is fairly commonplace for you.
"Yet, you have failed to point out a non-arbitrary distinction between the impediments faced by an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple."
Here it is in plain English. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending to not understand.
- Is pregnancy the natural biological result of male/female unions? Yes.
- Is there an impediment of some kind that can explain why the natural biological result doesn't always occur? Yes.
- Is pregnancy the natural biological result of male/male unions? No.
- Is pregnancy the natural biological result of female/female unions? No.
- Is there an impediment that explains why pregnancy is never the result? No.
SteveK said...
Here it is in plain English. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending to not understand.
I would not want to impose upon your specialty.
- Is pregnancy the natural biological result of male/female unions? Yes.
Pregnancy is the natural biological result of unions between fertile males and fertile females. Pregnancy is not the natural biological result of unions between infertile males and infertile females.
- Is there an impediment of some kind that can explain why the natural biological result doesn't always occur? Yes.
One type of impediment is the lack of complementary plumbing.
- Is pregnancy the natural biological result of male/male unions? No.
- Is pregnancy the natural biological result of female/female unions? No.
Agreed.
- Is there an impediment that explains why pregnancy is never the result? No.
Yes, the impediment would be the lack of complementary plumbing.
A healthy, normally functioning human being does not have any biological impediments. That is the non-arbitrary distinction you are missing.
SteveK said...
A healthy, normally functioning human being does not have any biological impediments. That is the non-arbitrary distinction you are missing.
Impediments can be due to the surroundings of a phenomena, not due to the phenomena itself. The very example bmiller used was a book trying to fall, but being stopped by the table. In AT, the existence of the impediment does not imply any defect in the object itself, nor any defect in the object creating the impediment, just circumstances preventing a natural outcome.
One Brow,
"Impediments can be due to the surroundings of a phenomena, not due to the phenomena itself. The very example bmiller used was a book trying to fall, but being stopped by the table. In AT, the existence of the impediment does not imply any defect in the object itself, nor any defect in the object creating the impediment, just circumstances preventing a natural outcome."
A male/male union cannot cause a pregnancy. Never. Not once. Impossible. The potential does not exist. If that's too confusing, consider the fact that an acorn/soil union cannot cause a pregnancy either. Is it becoming more clear to you now?
A pack of wolves (yes, the same pack I referenced above) cannot cause a human pregnancy either. The word "impediment" doesn't enter into the equation because the nature of the thing in question is not the kind of thing that has the potential to produce the effect.
A male/female union can cause a pregnancy because the potential exists in that union to produce the effect of pregnancy. The effect can be impeded.
Your inability to understand basic biology, and basic AT concepts becomes more clear with every comment you make. Keep digging that hole you're in.
I invite you to focus your attention on the phrase "the nature of the thing in question".
Untold unions of things cannot produce the effect of human pregnancy. An acorn/soil union cannot produce this effect.
Do sane people probe the acorn and soil looking for the impediment that is preventing the potential pregnancy from being actualized - an impediment of some kind that could potentially be removed so that the pregnancy can naturally occur? No because there's no impediment to find and nothing to fix. A dumb person would say an acorn lacks the complementary plumbing. Dumb people should be ignored as being dumb.
Male/male unions are just like that. There's nothing to find and fix. The nature of the thing in question (male/male) is not the kind of thing that can naturally produce the effect. Dumb people say they lack the complementary plumbing.
By contrast, the impediments in a male/female union can be found and in some cases they can be fixed so that a pregnancy can naturally occur. That only happens because the nature of the thing (male/female) IS the kind of thing that can naturally produce the effect.
SteveK said...
A male/male union cannot cause a pregnancy. Never. Not once. Impossible. The potential does not exist. If that's too confusing, consider the fact that an acorn/soil union cannot cause a pregnancy either. Is it becoming more clear to you now?
Got it. I don't think I've ever argued that homosexual unions can create kids, but if you feel the need to constantly repeat it, why not? Infertile people can not cause pregnancies, either. Books don't fall through tables. Now, Why is one type of impossibility an due to an impediment and the other type not due to an impediment?
A pack of wolves (yes, the same pack I referenced above) cannot cause a human pregnancy either. The word "impediment" doesn't enter into the equation because the nature of the thing in question is not the kind of thing that has the potential to produce the effect.
Much like sex between infertile people does not have the nature to produce pregnancy. Got it.
A male/female union can cause a pregnancy because the potential exists in that union to produce the effect of pregnancy. The effect can be impeded.
The potential only exists if the people involved are fertile. If they are infertile, no potential for pregnancy exists.
Your inability to understand basic biology, and basic AT concepts becomes more clear with every comment you make. Keep digging that hole you're in.
Your delusion that the issue is basic biology or basic AT concepts is very amusing.
I invite you to focus your attention on the phrase "the nature of the thing in question".
Untold unions of things cannot produce the effect of human pregnancy. An acorn/soil union cannot produce this effect.
Do sane people probe the acorn and soil looking for the impediment that is preventing the potential pregnancy from being actualized - an impediment of some kind that could potentially be removed so that the pregnancy can naturally occur? No because there's no impediment to find and nothing to fix.
OK. Let me know when you are done discussing acorns.
A dumb person would say an acorn lacks the complementary plumbing. Dumb people should be ignored as being dumb.
How judgmental. I often keep talking to people who are writing out dumb things.
Male/male unions are just like that. There's nothing to find and fix.
There's the lack of a womb. In few hundred years, we may indeed be able to put wombs into men.
The nature of the thing in question (male/male) is not the kind of thing that can naturally produce the effect.
Much like the nature of infertile people.
Dumb people say they lack the complementary plumbing.
Dumb people get so caught up in their prejudice that they don't see obvious parallels.
By contrast, the impediments in a male/female union can be found and in some cases they can be fixed so that a pregnancy can naturally occur.
Sometimes, the impediments are not fixable.
That only happens because the nature of the thing (male/female) IS the kind of thing that can naturally produce the effect.
Are you saying that if a couple has fixable impediments, they can have sex, but if their impediments are not fixable, they can't? Of course not. Your introduction of impediments being fixable is nothing but a distraction to the issue.
You: "Sometimes, the impediments are not fixable."
You: "Your introduction of impediments being fixable is nothing but a distraction to the issue."
Impediments are the non-arbitrary distinction that you've been missing. Your acknowledgement that they exist means you can stop using the word 'arbitrary'.
Me: "The nature of the thing in question (male/male) is not the kind of thing that can naturally produce the effect."
You: "Much like the nature of infertile people."
Nope. They are different. You acknowledged that fact when you acknowledged that one thing can have an impediment that the other cannot possibly have. That real difference means they are not identical things.
Since they are not identical things, we are justified in valuing them differently based on those inherent differences.
Me: "Societies throughout history - secular and religious alike - think natural sex is significant by comparison. They might not know anything about AT but these societies put a higher value on it because it produces children, which serves to strengthen a culture. AT explains why that reasoning makes sense."
SteveK said...
Impediments are the non-arbitrary distinction that you've been missing. Your acknowledgement that they exist means you can stop using the word 'arbitrary'.
Since (for over 100 comments) I have been referring to the lack of a womb in a male/male coupole, or lack of testes in female/female couple, as an impediment, this is obviously inaccurate.
Nope. They are different.
Everyone's different. The question is whether that difference comes naturally out of the notion of final causes, or has to be arbitrarily grafted in, to be treated as relevant.
You acknowledged that fact when you acknowledged that one thing can have an impediment that the other cannot possibly have.
People are unique, and they each face unique impediments. Some may be more similar than others.
That real difference means they are not identical things.
Nothing between two different people is truly identical.
SteveK said...
Since they are not identical things, we are justified in valuing them differently based on those inherent differences.
Since my body is not identical to yours, I am justified in saying that your having sex is filthy and dirty, while mine is holy and approved? OK.
Me: "Societies throughout history - secular and religious alike - think natural sex is significant by comparison. They might not know anything about AT but these societies put a higher value on it because it produces children, which serves to strengthen a culture. AT explains why that reasoning makes sense."
Many societies throughout history have valued gay relationships as well, and thought they strengthened a culture for various reasons.
”Since (for over 100 comments) I have been referring to the lack of a womb in a male/male coupole, or lack of testes in female/female couple, as an impediment, this is obviously inaccurate.”
This is the dumb comment I referenced above. You didn’t like me talking about acorns and wolves but I did that for a reason and you missed the point. “Acorns don’t have wombs so that’s an impediment”. Substitute males for acorns and the stupidity is identical.
What you are describing here is not an impediment to a natural end. The natural end of pregnancy doesn’t exist as a potential so it cannot be impeded.
”The question is whether that difference comes naturally out of the notion of final causes, or has to be arbitrarily grafted in, to be treated as relevant.”
I’ve answered this question several times.
I know you're "listening in", bmiller. I'm about done here too since I'm just going to be repeat myself.
You lasted longer than me.
I suspect that he doesn't believe that rational thought has much to do with reality. It's his constant refrain that any reasons anyone gives are just arbitrary, even his own. So that leaves only the will to power.
@bmiller,
I know he's never going to agree with me, you or Aquinas. That's not what's troubling. It's his inability, or unwillingness, to learn the AT argument well enough to accurately restate it in his own words. After dozens of comments that point out where he goes wrong, he's still unable to do it. Over 300 comments and he's still saying that same stupid thing.
SteveK,
I think the only interest he has in AT philosophy is that it provides a good argument against gay marriage.
He sees nothing wrong with gay marriage and considers those who oppose it wrong or evil. He has convinced himself that rational argumentation is ultimately meaningless and that it's all "arbitrary" in the end. So he's chosen to hang his hat on irrational emotion.
Those poor gay people. They aren't hurting anyone. Why are you being mean to them by calling them sinners? You're *discriminating* (the one unforgivable sin!).
That is why he is unfazed by rational argumentation. He could care less....unless he can somehow use the pretense that he cares to make you do as he wishes. In this case, he's kind of stuck. His responses don't make sense and we've noticed. So he's decided to just go into an infinite loop until we go away (or comments reach 400?)
SteveK said...
This is the dumb comment I referenced above. You didn’t like me talking about acorns and wolves but I did that for a reason and you missed the point. “Acorns don’t have wombs so that’s an impediment”. Substitute males for acorns and the stupidity is identical.
Acorns don't find their natural inclination to have human children impeded by the lack of a womb, and neither do wolves.
What you are describing here is not an impediment to a natural end. The natural end of pregnancy doesn’t exist as a potential so it cannot be impeded.
Which is just as true of the infertile couple.
I’ve answered this question several times.
Unfortunately, never in a fashion that does not make an arbitrary distinction between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.
I know you're "listening in", bmiller. I'm about done here too since I'm just going to be repeat myself.
You could have been finished 100 comments ago under that standard.
I know he's never going to agree with me, you or Aquinas. That's not what's troubling. It's his inability, or unwillingness, to learn the AT argument well enough to accurately restate it in his own words. After dozens of comments that point out where he goes wrong, he's still unable to do it. Over 300 comments and he's still saying that same stupid thing.
Again, you confuse my understanding of a position with my acceptance of a position. I understand the AT position well enough to see its flaws as well as it's strengths. I understand it well enough to see where it could be made even more useful than it is.
I suspect that he doesn't believe that rational thought has much to do with reality. It's his constant refrain that any reasons anyone gives are just arbitrary, even his own. So that leaves only the will to power.
Well, I'm sure we could go on for another 200 comments if you wanted to discuss what I actually believe. We could start with rational thought being an attempt to bring order and understanding into an inherently chaotic universe, and formal systems (such as Thomism) being things that can't be proven true or false, but rather as being more or less useful in helping us understand the universe.
I think the only interest he has in AT philosophy is that it provides a good argument against gay marriage.
Your argument is just as good as the argument of any other bigot. Since the whole thread was about gay marriage to begin with, I did keep coming back to that topic.
However, I do find many of the concepts of hylomorphism interesting. I think there is value in discussion the four causes as explanations of why changes occur. You can invest in study in that without the bigotry.
He sees nothing wrong with gay marriage and considers those who oppose it wrong or evil.
I don't share the Catholic hangups with sex anymore.
He has convinced himself that rational argumentation is ultimately meaningless and that it's all "arbitrary" in the end. So he's chosen to hang his hat on irrational emotion.
So, you think I just spent 100+ comment in rational discussion because I don't value rational discussion? You feel that's a rational position on your end?
Those poor gay people. They aren't hurting anyone. Why are you being mean to them by calling them sinners? You're *discriminating* (the one unforgivable sin!).
I have *no* objection to you calling homosexually married people sinners (I'm sure you only accidentally included celibate gay people in that little whine), since I'm sure once you stop the self-pity you'll acknowledge that you are just as much a sinner as they are. I only object to the pretense that your declaration is based on something besides bigotry.
That is why he is unfazed by rational argumentation.
Rational argumentation has been behind every paradigm shift in my thinking over the last 40 years of my life.
He could care less....unless he can somehow use the pretense that he cares to make you do as he wishes. In this case, he's kind of stuck. His responses don't make sense and we've noticed.
Bigots always cry about how non-bigots don't see the obvious reasoning behind their bigotry.
So he's decided to just go into an infinite loop until we go away (or comments reach 400?)
I am unlikely to go past 400.
SteveK,
See how it works? His argumentation always boils down to "You're a bigot, I'm not, and therefore you're wrong/evil.". I've noticed it's the same no matter what the topic is.
Seems like a disability of the secular liberal kind.
"I understand the AT position well enough"
Your words prove otherwise. The proof that you don't understand it at all is here:
"Which is just as true of the infertile couple."
and here:
"Unfortunately, never in a fashion that does not make an arbitrary distinction between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple."
Anyway, I'm bowing out. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss AT and final causality. I never expected you to change your mind and fully agree with AT. I did expect you to correct your misunderstandings of final causality and other AT teachings when they were pointed out to you. Unfortunately that didn't happen but I hope that one day you'll take the time to honestly and correctly understand it. If you treat it like you would learning, say, organic chemistry, you'll eventually get there.
See you around on another blog post!
@bmiller
"See how it works?"
I see it all the time. If he could explain the metaphysics behind the claim of bigotry then maybe I would agree with him. From the secularist point of view it's a term that doesn't have any teeth.
One Brow,
Can you tell what I think is wrong with this as a rational, meaningful response? Hint: There is one word that does not belong. What is it?
So, you think I just spent 100+ comment in rational discussion because I don't value rational discussion? You feel that's a rational position on your end?
bmiller said...
See how it works? His argumentation always boils down to "You're a bigot, I'm not, and therefore you're wrong/evil.". I've noticed it's the same no matter what the topic is.
Actually, unlike StardustyPsyche, I don't think you are the type of bigot that is particularly evil. All humans use cognitive shortcuts, and because of that, we all exhibit various forms of prejudice and bigotry.
Seems like a disability of the secular liberal kind.
Recognizing a central feature of the human condition is a disability?
One Brow,
Can you tell what I think is wrong with this as a rational, meaningful response? Hint: There is one word that does not belong. What is it?
"So, you think I just spent 100+ comment in rational discussion because I don't value rational discussion? You feel that's a rational position on your end?"
Based on past conversation, I'm sure you don't think I'm approaching this rationally. However, I don't see why I would allow your mis-perception to affect my behavior.
SteveK said...
Your words prove otherwise. The proof that you don't understand it at all is here:
"Which is just as true of the infertile couple."
and here:
"Unfortunately, never in a fashion that does not make an arbitrary distinction between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple."
Incorrect. I completely understand this is not the Thomist position. That why I have been calling the Thomist position arbitrary. If I thought the Thomist position agreed with the obvious consequences of following final cause, I would not have called it arbitrary. That's one difference between understanding a position and agreeing with it.
Anyway, I'm bowing out. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss AT and final causality. I never expected you to change your mind and fully agree with AT. I did expect you to correct your misunderstandings of final causality and other AT teachings when they were pointed out to you. Unfortunately that didn't happen but I hope that one day you'll take the time to honestly and correctly understand it. If you treat it like you would learning, say, organic chemistry, you'll eventually get there.
Organic chemistry is a empirical knowledge form, metaphysics is a formal knowledge form. A better comparison would be to treat Thomism like you would learning mathematics.
As for final causality, again I understand it. I just disagree with how you, bmiller, Feser, et. al., apply it in this situation. I have a surprise for you: none of you own the notion of final causality, and none of you are the final arbiters of what is or is not the correct way to use it.
I see it all the time. If he could explain the metaphysics behind the claim of bigotry then maybe I would agree with him. From the secularist point of view it's a term that doesn't have any teeth.
You mean, the explain why this particular interpretation of the metaphysics supports the cultural bigotries against homosexuals? I would have thought that obvious.
One Brow,
Based on past conversation, I'm sure you don't think I'm approaching this rationally. However, I don't see why I would allow your mis-perception to affect my behavior.
Yeah. You missed my point again.
Have a good day.
bmiller,
I don't read your mind correctly, you leave the conversation. Works for me. Ciao.
So, one last example of the wonderful rationality that is natural law here.
Perhaps a man loses his testes in some sort of accident while in his 20s. However, his prostate still functions, so he still produces semen, and his adrenal glands still make testosterone. He later marries a woman, and they have coitus in the traditional manner. Even though there is no chance of children, he is still depositing semen in a vagina, so this is a wonderful act that fulfills the unitive purpose of a marriage.
However, should he develop prostate cancer, and as a consequence have his prostate removed, now coitus has become sinful and wicked. Sure, the actions of the couple would be the same, the experience of intimacy the same, but there is no more semen to be deposited. Even though this has not changed the chance of reproduction in any way, any act of coitus is an act of sin which they must avoid.
Natural law at its finest.
All hail the holy goo.
Equating the metaphysics of natural law with natural theology and ethics: ignorant
Getting just about everything about AT and Christianity wrong while claiming victory: priceless
Equating the metaphysics of natural law with natural theology and ethics: ignorant
Not understanding how natural theology and ethics are rooted in natural law metaphysics: amusing.
By the way, there's no victory to claim. I haven't won anything, you haven't lost anything.
Post a Comment