Review: Feser – Part 6

Part1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

The Last Superstition – A Refutation of the New Atheism: Spinoza

According to my all-knowing Kindle ‘Spinoza’ is named three times in Feser’s book; once in a quote from philosopher Pierre Manent among a list of names of philosophers, once in the notes [#9] to Chapter 1 in another list of philosophers and once in the index.

So why do I have a review section just on Spinoza when he isn’t even mentioned? Well somethings are conspicuous by their absence. In this case a philosopher who was also concerned with a rational basis for metaphysics whose metaphysical scheme also rested on god being the thing that underpins the existence of everything else. In Spinoza’s scheme god is the only possible kind of substance and it is god that exists and from that everything else. Spinoza was also concerned with causes, as well as necessity and existence. Like Feser Spinoza also made an appeal to mathematics. Here is the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy again:

Spinoza makes similar appeals to conceptual relations when he invokes geometrical examples to describe the necessity with which other things follow from God:

…all things have necessarily flowed, or always follow, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows…that its three angles are equal to two right angles (Ip17s).

Spinoza later identifies this same geometrical relationship with the conceptual involvement relation (IIp49). What it is for things to follow from God necessarily is for those things to be (asymmetrically) conceived through God, whose concept involves (the concept of) existence. The necessity of God and the necessity of existing things are equally explained by and grounded in conceptual relations. Spinoza makes this connection emphatic in Ip35, “Whatever we conceive to be in God’s power, necessarily exists.”

So why no Spinoza? Spinoza heads in the exact opposite direction as Dun Scotus and Ockham – it almost like those medieval Franscians anticipate the kind of concept of god that Spinoza will advance. Spinoza’s god is a necessary god – that is essentially a god that is a set of necessary conditions and hence effectively is not an being who thinks and plans and considers courses of action but one that simply is and acts (in so far as it can be can called acting) by necessity and in the only way it can act. Spinoza’s god is like some sort operating system for the universe chugging away through a predetermined code with no external input.

It is an open question whether (and to what extent and in what way) Spinoza was a pantheist but it is easy to see how tying a conception closely both logic and the manner in which things exists on an immediate basis (i.e. not how they were originally created but how they carry on existing rather than just blinking out) starts looking a lot like pantheism.

Consequently – we don’t hear much about Spinoza. Fewer doesn’t want to consider whether the same metaphysical demands might lead in an unwelcome direction. God in Feser’s scheme is the Biblical god in Aristotle’s overcoat not the god of Spinoza.

In Part 7 more on things that aren’t in Feser’s book.

Review: Feser Part 5

Part1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

The Last Superstition – A Refutation of the New Atheism:The Decline of Western Civilisation

Well naturally I am an atheist leftist with scientism tendencies and amateurish & patchy love of analytical philosophy. I’m not likely to find Aquinas convincing. However Feser finds it not only convincing but LOGICALLY compelling. He regards the sum total of Aquinas’s work as actual proof of the existence of the Christian god and that Aristotle’s metaphysics as the only rational scheme that could be adopted. More than, Feser claims his position on this is like a mathematical proposition – that it is as odd and irrational to doubt the existence of god and Aquinas’s scheme as it would be to doubt Pythagoras’s theorem.

So why would people doubt it? More importantly why did Aquinas fall out of favour long before this current secular century? To Feser this abandonment of Aristotelean metaphysic and Thomistic theology was a massive error committed by multiple notable thinkers which inevitably led to the intellectual decline of Western thought. Feser notes Descrates and Kant and Hume as major culprits but also notes much earlier objections from Franciscan thinkers such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. Like Aquinas these were devote men with a strong interest in logic and rationality and yet these were not people convinced by Aquinas. If Feser is correct then it is rather like discovering two notable and influential mathematicians who weren’t keen on Pythagoras’s theorem – even if they are wrong, not something you can easily ignore.

Feser describes Scotus’s position like this:

Aquinas, in Scotus’s estimation, makes God and his actions too comprehensible, too rational, too open to our puny philosophical investigations. So radically free is God’s will, in Scotus’s view, that we simply cannot deduce from the natural order either His intentions or any necessary features of the things He created, since He might have created them in any number of ways, as His inscrutable will directed. Ockham pushes this emphasis on the divine will even further, holding that God could by fiat have made morally obligatory all sorts of things that are actually immoral; for example, had He wanted to, He could even have decided to command us to hate Him, in which case this is what would be good for us to do.

Feser seems to thing modern atheist interest in Scotus and Ockham  is incoherent because both men were arguing from a position of faith. However, there is a substantial overlap in their thinking with modern understandings of logic.

Simply put Aquinas’s position essentially makes his god subject to logic. A rational god is a logical god and a god which is necessary is a god which is confined to a framework of logic. The grand metaphysical framework is a giant case of passing the buck. God can be the ultimate explanation for nearly, almost everything exception things – logic itself. For Plato the supremacy of mathematics is no problem with his spiritual roots firmly in the Pythagorean ground. However, for Christianity elevating mathematics and logic above god or even just equal to god is a problem.

Feser carries on to criticise Descrates and Kant and Hume for the obvious sins of not being terribly enamored of the Thomistic scheme and searching for other views. Of those three Hume is the closest to a modern day atheist, whereas Kant and Descartes were men of faith. Fewer also has to struggle with the view that somehow the rise of modern science also caused a break with the Aristotelean position. Feser’s point here is that while advances in science and thinking about science (such as Newton or Galileo or in terms of very early modern thinking about science, Francis Bacon) may have ton substantial holes in accepted physical notions borrowed from Aristotle, the metaphysics of Aristotle could always been re-framed.

There is a trivial sense in which Feser’s claim here has to be true. Science doesn’t prove or disprove metaphysics. They are different domains of knowledge and use different methods of inquiry. However Feser is wrong to think that this was just some foolish error. Aristotle’s metaphysical scheme was attractive as a way of thinking about fundamental metaphysical notions of being because of the way Aristotle (and later scholastics and pre-modern natural philosophers) thought about the world.

Consider a world of essences and a world in which heretical taxonomies are at the root of understanding the physical world. This is very much NOT an insane approach. Categorising, cataloging, making sense of the world by seeing things in terms of sets of sets of ordered structures. It is a conceptual structure we employ in many aspects of our lives – ordering a library, building a relational database, programming a computer using a high-level object orientated language. It is this framework on which Plato and then Aristotle (who really did then do some substantial categorising) and later Aquinas and the scholastics engaged with inquiry into how our world is. The metaphysics matched the physics. So what happened?

Modern science engaged with the world and that engagement based on practical experiment and observation discovered a world of bottom up rules and squidgy bits. This was a world that still had general principles but these were more like low level rules that operated underneath our grand schemes – force equal mass times acceleration rather than essences and final causes. Even abstract Platonic like properties such as ‘mass’ were oddly democratic and undifferentiated. A blob of mercury had mass as much as a bishop. Mass, force, energy accounted for everything within a Newtonian framework – which could still be Platonic (and Newton himself was very much not some modern atheistic materialist) but which didn’t really fit with the grand scheme quite so much.

Modern science pointed to a world which was complex but by virtue of being built up from small pieces following simple low level rules. An atomic world. A world of machine code, of pixels rather than structure vector graphics.

For well into the modern era there was one obvious hold out within the sciences. Biology remained very much a science of classification and of hierarchical taxonomies rather than low level rules operating on some modular bits. The revolution in biology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by virtue of genetics, DNA and evolution by natural selection was also a completion of perspective on scientific knowledge towards this same sort of granular, algorithmic perspective. This perspective did not disprove the Aristotelean one but rather it made it un-self evident.

Logic has its own issues of infinite regress, particularly in the classical form. Euclid’s elements starts with a set of axioms or self evident truths. Such truths cannot only be asserted they neccesarily cannot be derived. Likewise the ‘rationality’ of Feser’s metaphysics has the same issue. There are things that need to be asserted as self-evidently true. Modern science doesn’t make these things false but rather the shift in the way people began to think about the world meant that people no longer saw things in those same terms. Self evident truths became less self evident and Aquinas’s work developed that ‘huh?’ feeling that a modern reader experiences.

Feser doesn’t see it this way. The break from Aquinas is due to all sorts of villains. Galileo being petulant, Descartes heading off in his own direction, Martin Luther extending ‘Ockham’s individualist tendencies in religion and politics’ and this all before Kant and Hume really get to work. To Feser it was the agenda of the push to modern thinking that moved people away. Which, well sort of – his characterisation makes everybody sound like wilful children. The book really flops around here – having overstated how compelling Aquinas’s position is, Feser nows struggles to adequately explain why people didn’t go along with it. He sums it up with:

Animus, attitude, agenda, but little in the way of argument. That, I have suggested, is what lay behind the intellectual revolution that displaced the classical philosophy of Plato and Augustine, and especially of Aristotle and Aquinas, and enthroned the modern philosophy of Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Hume and all the rest.

Feser things this is all unfair because the scholastics weren’t trying to advance the world technically and scientifically and hence shouldn’t be blamed for not doing so but the ‘moderns’ failed to properly disprove the Thomist wrong. Amid that petulant point is some truth. Thomas was abandoned while civilisation actually got on with doing stuff and rather than attempt to disprove the unproven but un-disprovable they spent their time doing something worthwhile.

Review: Feser – Part 4

Part1, Part 2, Part 3.

The Last Superstition – A Refutation of the New Atheism: The Age of Aquinas

So time to cut to the chase. Thomas Aquinas 1225 to 1274, which was a long time ago but not as long ago as Aristotle and Plato. Aquinas wrote a lot and while much of it is related to both Plato and Aristotle his work was not simply a rehashing but an extensive program to put Catholicism on sound philosophical footings. You can read more here

For the purposes of Feser’s argument we can concentrate on a couple of related aspects of Aquinas. Firstly that he shares Aristotle’s notion of causality and secondly Aquinas’s ‘Five Ways’ of demonstrating the existence of god. Fewer claims these Five Ways are just one set of a larger set of arguments for god’s existence and Feser also concentrates on just three of the five. Here is Wikipedia’s account of the Five Ways.

Continue reading “Review: Feser – Part 4”

A space-station in space!

Well I discovered quite how long it would take to render a few seconds of 3D animation on my laptop with Cheetah3D: a lonnggg time. So long that I got bored before it managed the full ten seconds. More immediately exciting was adding a new very SF title card in Final Cut Pro – SPAAAAAAAACCCE!!!!! Annoying music courtesy of the DM1 drum machine app.

Review: Feser – Part 3

Read Part One and Part Two first.

menosquareThe Last Superstition – A Refutation of the New Atheism: Plato & Aristotle

Cue wibbly-wobbly flashback effect as we go back in time to Ancient Athens!

Plato, great writer, great thinker, proto-fascist and inventor of Atlantis. In part 2 of this review we left Feser taking potshots at the four-horsemen of atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens) and among the many complaints Feser throws at them is this:

Nor do they evince the slightest awareness of the historical centrality of ideas deriving from classical philosophy – the tradition of thought deriving from Plato and Aristotle and whose greatest representatives within Christianity are Augustine and Thomas Aquinas – to the content and self-understanding of the mainstream Western religious tradition.

This is the essence of Feser’s ‘refutation’ of popular atheist writers – they are ignorant of a whole stream of thought within Western civilisation and hence have never properly engaged with it and hence are blissfully unaware of how wrong they are.

From there Feser can take us to the real core of his argument:

The classical metaphysical picture of the world, which derives from Plato, was greatly modified first by Aristotle and later by Augustine, and was at last perfected by Aquinas and his followers, is, as I came to believe, essentially correct, and it effectively makes atheism and naturalism impossible.

This is the premise of Feser’s book. What he needs to demonstrate is:
The metaphysics of Aquinas (adapted from that of Plato and Aristotle) is essentially correct and…
…given that it is correct atheism and naturalism is impossible.
Put another way – if the Aristotle’s metaphysics is right then god exists. Which would be kind of cool if Feser could pull it off.

Continue reading “Review: Feser – Part 3”

Review: Boxtrolls

Woah, waayyyyy behind in my movie watching and still catching up on things from 2014!

Boxtrolls Review
Movie: 2014

Boxtrolls was the most recent movie by stop-motion animation studio Laika, whose previous efforts included Coraline and Paranorman. Using a mix of classic animation techniques and 3D printing, the studio has perfected a modern style that allows for expressive characters with a distinct visual style.

Boxtrolls is a gothic children’s tale in which the town of Cheesebridge is infested with the eponymous trolls. Rather like wombles or benevolent gremlins, the box trolls are scavengers and tinkerers. They steal things left out on the street and return them to their underground lair were the recycled items are rebuilt into gadgets for their own amusement.

However, when the story starts the box trolls have a sinister reputation. Some years ago a box troll apparently stole a human child – the theft of the ‘Trubshaw baby’ has become a cause-celebre and has been exploited by the sinister Archibald Snatcher – a pest exterminator with social ambitions and a serious cheese allergy.

The film is clever and silly. The box trolls themselves pitch their comedy at a similar point as the minions from Despicable Me – cute, incomprehensible and prone to slapstick. Aside from Winnie – the daughter of the mayor – the film is oddly devoid of women characters. Snatcher’s alter-ego Madame Frouh-Frouh aims for pantomime dame comedy but misses giving parts of the film an overtone of transgender misogyny.