Thanks for this discussion I have watched a "debate" recently between Dave and Kent Hovid and this video is great example how this sort of argumentation should look like. Keep up the good work!

Great line up Suan. Thanks! Dr. Minerd, I won't stop until you go back to R&T and finish the Summa lectures 😔

@matthewminerd7693

2 жыл бұрын

Christ is risen ! I’m coming back to do an episode tomorrow, and then this summer I’m picking right up. I was trying to time it around some editing on a book that is related to Christology. However, CUA press is taking a while and is behind. Thus I’m just going to do it this summer since I have the time. I am going to use the talk tomorrow actually as the point of entrée. I assure you that the delay actually has been beneficial I think, so let’s at least take refuge in that! Thank you so much for your patience. It also has been a crazy year publication wise. I’ve been doing so much editing that I can barely keep up. But it’s slowing down.

@pxsmythe8913

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewminerd7693 I’m not sure you slowing down is good my library is benefiting from your speed

@TheVeganVicar

Жыл бұрын

​@@matthewminerd7693 I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism is moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.

Really interesting episode, thanks for posting :)

What is the name spoken at 39:00, please?

@matthewminerd7693

2 жыл бұрын

Glory to Jesus Christ! Sorry for the delay. I believe that you are referring to my reference to Ambroise Gardeil

@TheVeganVicar

Жыл бұрын

​@@matthewminerd7693 philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

Great show☺️🐺👍🐺

@matthewminerd7693

2 жыл бұрын

Christ is risen! Great to be on! It was very enjoyable and edifying

@TheVeganVicar

Жыл бұрын

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Seth - Why are you a Biological Realist? Why and how do you hold to species realism and to evolution at the same time? Doesn't the whole concept of speciation render Species-Realism untenable? I don't understand how one could be a species realist without also being a realist about the difference between a Human Adolescent and a Human Child... I'm glad I waited till the end to post. At 40 minutes you say you still struggle with speciation. All - I am currently an "agnostic atheist" and I tentatively hold to the following positions: mereological nihilism, methodological naturalism, and moral antirealism. This combination just seems to much more parsimonious than moral realism, species / biological realism, mind body dualism, teleological realism, etc. What I mean here is that these latter positions seem to be more of a case of needing to justify something that appears to be obvious but upon closer inspection, doesn't hold up to scrutiny, while the former positions appear to be more of a case of "Well I guess the thing that appeared to be obvious isn't true after all!" Just ramblings from a fan. Thank you Suan for putting out such valuable content!

@intedominesperavi6036

2 жыл бұрын

I frequently chew on my socks. ^ The above statement is why I'm not a naturalist. Now, I don't frequently chew on my socks, but me doing so would be just as reasonable as putting them on my feet, or looking for truth, or rambling incoherent sentences because I have dementia - there is no fundamental difference between the natural processes happening during all of these situations. There is really no qualitative difference between the insane and me. Thus, I have reasoned myself into denying any validity to reason, which is really just absurd, because it's so obvious that this is false. Me chewing on my socks is as sane as naturalism gets. A really not sophisticated reply from a stranger. God bless you!

@kevinoconnor3859

2 жыл бұрын

@@intedominesperavi6036 Hi friend, thanks for engaging - When you say "there is no fundamental difference between the natural processes happening during all of these situations. There is really no qualitative difference between the insane and me.", that isn't quite right. The human body is subject to the same laws of nature as everything else, and in most cases, human brains do not prompt humans to chew on socks. For this reason, humans do not often chew on socks. Certainly, some humans have chewed on socks, because some human brains DO prompt humans to chew socks, but that is rather rare I imagine. The human brain appears to operate under all the same natural laws as everything else in the observable universe, and so I have no reason to imbue any special dualism into my thinking about human brains, and I have no need to assume any teleology either. Since I am not forced to accept Teleology to make sense of the universe, it strikes me as more parsimonious to reject Teleology.

@intedominesperavi6036

2 жыл бұрын

@@kevinoconnor3859 I thought you were a mereological nihilist. If you are right, there is no such thing as brains and socks, there are just natural processes happening, forces moving matter. Again, no qualitative difference. The same goes for quenching the thirst of a sick child or suffocating it. The same goes for the conclusions the insane make and what we are doing here. Any time you and me try to have any meaningful interaction, we are leaving the naturalist framework, which honestly seems quite presuppositional, kind of like "Okay, I think matter and energy are everything that exists, let's see if I can kind of make sense of everything obvious to me..." When you say "human brains appear to operate [...]", isn't that "teleology through the back-door" in some way, because the way you put it into your argument at least implies that there is a way in which humans operate that actually can "make sense" of the universe. You seem to imply also that there are ways in which human brains operate that don't make sense of the universe, that make them chew on people's socks. But really the only reasonable way of differentiating between these two is by looking at how well each brain operates, how well it achieves it's end. But even then mereological nihilism says to the last paragraph "There is no point to anything you wrote." It seems to me that naturalism and mereological nihilism need to leave their own framework here and there, just to say anything meaningful, just to make any meaningful statement about the real world. Otherwise they are really boxed into the Descartian notion of 'I think, therefore I am', being unable to say anything more, the only difference being that there is no 'I' and 'thought' is not really distinguishable from the tree rotting in the woods, since both are moving matter and nothing more. They seem to me to only work (and quite meagerly so) when held as a presupposition, simply shown by the fact that they completely nullify the process which should have led up to them being held as a position - human thought.

@kevinoconnor3859

2 жыл бұрын

@@intedominesperavi6036 *I thought you were a mereological nihilist. If you are right, there is no such thing as brains and socks* Yes, I write the word "sock" instead of "mereological simples arranged sock wise" and I write "brain" instead of "mereological simples arranged brain-wise" simply for the convenience. Apologies if I wasn't being clear enough. *The same goes for quenching the thirst of a sick child or suffocating it.* While I agree that chewing socks and suffocating children are both examples of molecules in motion, those are very different kinds of molecules in motion. *Any time you and me try to have any meaningful interaction, we are leaving the naturalist framework* I disagree and I would insist that I haven't left the naturalistic framework at all yet *When you say "human brains appear to operate [...]", isn't that "teleology through the back-door" in some way* That depends on what you mean when you talk about Back Door Teleology. I do agree that it is useful to say things like "Brains ought to operate this way", but I would further argue that what we really mean is more akin to "Brains which function like most other brains tend this way" rather than "Brains have a Telos of doing this thing". What I reject is that there are any Teloi that exist, but I do not deny that its useful to speak as if Teloi do exist. But even then mereological nihilism says to the last paragraph "There is no point to anything you wrote." That is more run-of-the-mill nihilism. Mereological Nihilism doesn't concern itself at all with meaning. Mereology only concerns itself with parthood relations. I do call myself a Mereological Nihilist, because I deny that composite objects exist, but I do not call myself a nihilist, because I believe that things to matter to humans, ie, humans care about things. Now, since I deny that there is intrinsic value, you might want to call me a nihilist, and I'll say "That's fine, call me what you will", but I do not call myself a nihilist, since I do believe in "extrinsic value". *It seems to me that naturalism and mereological nihilism need to leave their own framework here and there, just to say anything meaningful, just to make any meaningful statement about the real world.* I do not agree, but this will boil down to what you mean by "meaningful".

@kevinoconnor3859

2 жыл бұрын

@Boulanger No, emergentism. I believe that all mental states are simply emergent properties of neurons. This is actually the mainstream view among biologists today.

Seth is cool. 😎😎😎

Doesn't Jesus give us a lesson on teleology when He say's that He is the Vine and we are the branches, and also, that the Father prunes the tree, and cuts off dead branches for the purpose of having more fruit? Did He not also relate that even sinful people of Sodom would have grown and thrived in the world if that generation had heard His teaching and seen the miracles that He was performing in Israel at that time? That is to say, perhaps the people of Sodom wouldn't have been 'pruned' out of physical existence by the Father, if Jesus was present to them back then. So, it is clear that there are continual processes of physical and natural evolution going on in the world at every moment, and these evolutionary processes are all created and managed ( ie. pruned) by God Himself. God is therefore the active designer operating on a continual basis both in Heaven and on Earth. And even Jesus Himself would undergo a certain type of physical pruning, for the good of mankind, at His passion, crucifixion and death. And He Himself accepted this pruning...as is indicated when He said to His Father on the Mount of Olives : "Thy will be done". So, God is both the original creator, and the active sustainer of the present world...due to His continual work of pruning and adapting His creation according to His own particular designs and desires.

@cosmicnomad8575

5 ай бұрын

I like your thinking here