The Human Question

If the argument for abortion rights is based upon bodily autonomy and regards violations thereof as a kind of involuntary servitude, then doesn't this sort of argument also support the claim that the draft is unconstitutional?  This comparison would make women who seek abortion like conscientious objectors.  That's an interesting comparison...

It so happens that the sort of argument that I have been sketching for my book already exists in chapter 3 of Martain's Approaches to God .  Knowledge as participation in a supratemporal community.  Perhaps chapter 4 (on practical reasoning and beauty) will complement other themes in my (not yet existent) book.

One way of arguing for a first mover (or, if you will, a first accelerator), is to make an analogy with a lessee who rents from someone else who is not the landlord but who is instead a subletting lessee.  The second lessee could likewise rent from one who is subletting rather than the landlord, etc.  But in order for this series to be coherent, there must be a landlord, a non-leasing lettor.  But that landlord could have come into this position at a determinate point in time.  Hence this analogy, while clarifying the simultaneity of cause/effect by referring us to the lessor/lessee, is not perfectly analogous to the sort of first mover argument that one would use to argue for God's existence. Another (defective) way would be to argue that God is the first pusher in a mechanistic universe.  Problem with this is that momentum needs no cause.  So God is probably filling the gaps in this argument. The third, best way of arguing for a first mover is to argu...

They are not ways of making evident, for God's existence never becomes evident in the way the existence of something we see in front of us is evident.  They are not ways of inferring one thing that was not evident at all on the basis of another thing that is evident, for we have a primitive, pre-philosophical intuition of being that can be analyzed in to the relation of our contingent being toward being that is not contingent. They are instead five ways of articulating the primitive intuition of being, of showing how it involves reference to that which is being per se.

I would point out that we most definitely can ask, "Why do I exist rather than not exist?" And that is a contrast between being and not-being.  And if that question can be thought, then why couldn't the same question be thought about the world I share with others?

When pointing out how unbelief can be murderous, it is important not to focus on communism, but also on manifestation of hostility to belief that are more closely linked to the Enlightenment.

Convergent evolution, if I've gotten it right, is the notion that different organisms evolve in more or less the same way, albeit independently.  For example, an octopus and a vertebrate might both develop eyes, but not because this phenotype originates from a common ancestor.  The common cause, of course, is light itself. What if different rational beings evolve quite independently in different parts of the universe/multiverse, yet they all know the principle of non-contradiction, mathematical objects and the like: would we say that there is something analogous to light in the previous example? It's easy to imagine what a Platonist would make of the significance of this thought experiment!

Koenig, H. G. (2012). Religion, spirituality, and health: the research and clinical implications.   International Scholarly Research Network - Psychiatry   278730: 1-33. http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/science-of-happiness/spiritual-engagement/key-studies-religiosityspirituality/

Suppose there are two skin-head racists: one was brought up atheist and the other was brought up Catholic. How would you explain to the atheist skinhead that racism is wrong?  (not sure) How would you explain to the theist skinhead that racism is wrong? (we are all made in the image of God) There are many theisms and atheisms, but atheism itself does not suffice to overturn racism.  Ditto with theism.  The sort of humanism that would, however, overturn racism lends support to a humanistic theism and can be seen as deducible therefrom.  Or to be more precise, it would REQUIRE the THEISM in a humanistic theism; whereas that same sort of humanism would NOT require the ATHEISM in a humanistic atheism: rather, it would offer evidence of the incoherence of humanistic atheism.

http://thomism.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/omne-quod-movetur-as-a-principle-of-all-physics/

When we add 2+3, we can see, as it were, with our mind's eye that it equals 5.  Very elaborate proofs, however, cannot be seen to be valid as a whole.  In other words, no single one glance of the "mind's eye" will confirm that the argument as a whole is valid.  Or rather, it is not presently humanly possible, but anyone who asserts that it is valid is likely to imagine a Herculean mind (to steal from Dworkin) that could see all at once the validity of such arguments.  To put it in the language of phenomenology, we "emptily intend" this sort of fulfillment even though it is presently practically unattainable. Might this sort of empty intending be relevant to our concept of justice? Consider the following analogy:  knowing the right way to interact with friends and family is comparable to apprehending the validity of the simple equation (2+3=5) just as knowing how strangers in society are to interact is comparable to knowing that an extremely complex argum...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2539100/How-religion-cuts-crime-Attending-church-makes-likely-shoplift-drugs-download-music-illegally.html

In order to discover momentum, Galileo engaged in a thought experiment involving an infinitely long flat surface.  I propose to do something similar: suppose someone was skating downhill--only the hill is infinitely long.  Ridiculous?  Not any more than an infinitely long plane.  Such a process would not, however, be reversible. I have no idea of what the point of the thought experiment is: I'm just fascinated with it, that's all. Perhaps the inflationary universe is irreversible in an analogous manner.  I dunno....  Hey Tim, are you reading this?  Comments?

(If my memory serves me right), the Summa shifts from talking about what IS an unmoved mover (in the First Way) to what CANNOT be moved by another when Aquinas is using the First Way to make inferences about the divine attributes. Perhaps Aquinas's move makes better sense if we see the first way and the (first part of the) third way as two legs to the same stool.  That is, if what is presently unmoved were given enough time... it would eventually be moved by another UNLESS it could NOT be moved by another.  But giving "enough time" is what happens in the first part of the Third Way...

Great title for a chapter!  All's I need to do is write the rest of the book...

"... nulla est homini causa philosophandi nisi ut beatus sit..." says Schall, quoting Augustine, quoting Varro.

G.E.M. Anscombe  , Human Life, Action and Ethics  edited by M. Geach and L. Gormally Etienne Gilson,  The Unity of Philosophical Experience Anthony Kenny,  The Metaphysics of Mind Alasdair MacIntyre,  Dependent Rational Animals John F. Piefer,  The Concept in Thomism   http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/aquinas-amongst-the-analytics/ http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/aquinas-amongst-the-analytics/2/ 

A Jesuit friend recommended I look at this book by Michael Wyschogrod to address a debate with a brother regarding whether or not monotheism originated from polytheism.  Amazon summary tells me it's more about the difference between a Jewish and Greek approach to God, how Moses Maimonides got it wrong. http://www.amazon.com/The-Body-Faith-People-Israel/dp/1568219105

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2010/09/big-questions-online-is-human.html