Well, it's been a busy month but it has seen some interesting stuff out there within my blogosphere light-cone.
The Maverick Philosopher has had an entertaining series of posts on the difference between fictional and impossible entities. Much of the technical discussion eluded me but I did like the characterisation of fictional as incomplete although I am not completely convinced by his critique of the "story operator".
Mike Flynn has also had a lot of fun in a series of posts on the Christian origins of the Scientific Revolution. He also brought to wider attention the fact that much of the US think that zombies would run their country better than the current Federal Government.
Over at Ed Feser's blog, there was a very interesting discussion about the AT conception of the soul and how it purports to avoid the interaction problem. This was particularly useful because it quoted Bill Vallicella articulating what I think is the most difficult thing to understand about the Thomistic line of reasoning, namely how it is that a form can interact with matter, and by interact he means as an efficient cause rather than a formal or final cause. I'm still not sure I understand the reply but I suspect that that is due to my poor understanding of the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics.
Brandon Watson at Siris echoes what I'm sure a lot of us are feeling when he takes Disney to task for its crass revisionism in the case of "Maleficent". Aside from the lamentably bad premise on which the new film appears to be based, the witlessness of this situation reminds me of the recent TV advert in which a CGI Audrey Hepburn, dazzling in her youth and vitality, rises from a scene in the film "Roman Holiday"... to appear in a chocolate commercial. I seem to recall something similar happened in the last episode of Bablyon 5, and that didn't turn out well either. The members of the Hepburn estate, moneygrabbing philistines that they are, apparently see nothing wrong with it but to me the commercial is a shibboleth which divides those who have an aesthetic sense from those who don't.
Crude, over at Crude Ideas, continues to fight the good fight against the Cult of Gnu. One of the best thing for those of limited intelligence like me is the sight of clever people discussing substantive issues on Faith, Science and Philosophy, e.g. on Feser's blog, but I must also confess to enjoying seeing fish shot in a barrel, and no-one does this better than Crude. I look forward to his new website.
Heuristics from the Citadel Library continues to provide more "beam me up, Scotty" moments and documents that there is nothing new under the sun.
And finally, a hilarious story about Richard Dawkins from Shadow to Light.
Saturday, 30 November 2013
Sunday, 24 November 2013
Friday, 25 October 2013
David Berlinki and the excesses of Darwinism
From Mike Flynn's Blog, an amusing deconstruction of Darwinism by mathematician, David Berlinski.
Batman and the Joker
This has already done the rounds but there was a Quora question (yes, I know, but just occasionally there is something good there that is not written by Tim O'Neill) on why Batman doesn't just kill the Joker. Cue Mr Jesse Richards with what must be the definitive answer to this:
"Because the Joker wins if Batman kills him. That's what the Joker wants. Everything he does is to taunt Batman into killing him. In fact, the interesting part of their relationship, the real conflict of each story, is not to see if Batman will stop him (he will), but to watch Batman struggle with not killing him, because anyone other than Batman would of course kill him. This self-control is Batman's superpower.
The Joker and Batman are each trying to prove a point to society - and really to us, the readers. The Joker wants Batman to kill him because he perfectly embodies chaos and anarchy, and wants to prove a point to everyone that people are basically more chaotic than orderly. This is why he is so scary: we are worried he may be right. If the Joker is right, then civilization is a ruse and we are all truly monsters inside. If the Joker can prove that Batman - the most orderly and logical and self-controlled of all of us - is a monster inside, then we are all monsters inside, and that is terrifying. The Joker is terrifying because we fear that we are like him deep down - that he is us. Batman is what we (any average person) could be at our absolute best, and the Joker is what we could be at our absolute worst. The Joker's claim is that we are all terrible deep down, and it is only the law and our misplaced sense of justice that keeps us in line. Since Batman isn't confined by the law, he is a perfect test case to try to get him to "break". The Joker wants Batman to kill a person, any person, but knows that the only person Batman might ever even remotely consider killing would have to be a terrible monster, so is willing to do this himself and sacrifice himself to prove this macabre point. Batman needs to prove that it is not just laws that keep us in line, but basic human decency and our natural instinct NOT to kill. If Batman can prove this, then others will be inspired by his example (the citizens of Gotham, but again, also the readers), just as we are all inspired every day to keep civilization running smoothly and not descend into violence, anarchy, and chaos. This ability to be decent in the face of the horrors and temptations present all around us is humanity's superpower, the superpower of each of us. The struggle of Batman and the Joker is the internal struggle of each of us. But we are inspired by Batman's example, not the Joker's, because Batman always wins the argument, because he has not killed the Joker."
"Because the Joker wins if Batman kills him. That's what the Joker wants. Everything he does is to taunt Batman into killing him. In fact, the interesting part of their relationship, the real conflict of each story, is not to see if Batman will stop him (he will), but to watch Batman struggle with not killing him, because anyone other than Batman would of course kill him. This self-control is Batman's superpower.
The Joker and Batman are each trying to prove a point to society - and really to us, the readers. The Joker wants Batman to kill him because he perfectly embodies chaos and anarchy, and wants to prove a point to everyone that people are basically more chaotic than orderly. This is why he is so scary: we are worried he may be right. If the Joker is right, then civilization is a ruse and we are all truly monsters inside. If the Joker can prove that Batman - the most orderly and logical and self-controlled of all of us - is a monster inside, then we are all monsters inside, and that is terrifying. The Joker is terrifying because we fear that we are like him deep down - that he is us. Batman is what we (any average person) could be at our absolute best, and the Joker is what we could be at our absolute worst. The Joker's claim is that we are all terrible deep down, and it is only the law and our misplaced sense of justice that keeps us in line. Since Batman isn't confined by the law, he is a perfect test case to try to get him to "break". The Joker wants Batman to kill a person, any person, but knows that the only person Batman might ever even remotely consider killing would have to be a terrible monster, so is willing to do this himself and sacrifice himself to prove this macabre point. Batman needs to prove that it is not just laws that keep us in line, but basic human decency and our natural instinct NOT to kill. If Batman can prove this, then others will be inspired by his example (the citizens of Gotham, but again, also the readers), just as we are all inspired every day to keep civilization running smoothly and not descend into violence, anarchy, and chaos. This ability to be decent in the face of the horrors and temptations present all around us is humanity's superpower, the superpower of each of us. The struggle of Batman and the Joker is the internal struggle of each of us. But we are inspired by Batman's example, not the Joker's, because Batman always wins the argument, because he has not killed the Joker."
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
James Chastek on "The Bad News"
James Chastek has salutary post on the desire for a realised eschatology on earth. The Good News is not tempered by the "Bad News" but it does provide a backdrop for its interpretation and can often be forgotten when it does not immediately make its presence felt.
"This bad news is so awful that the Apostle’s hadn’t learned to accept it even after they came to accept the Resurrection. Literally, the last thing the Apostles ask Christ before the ascension is when he will return to set up his Messianic kingdom in Israel. One wonders if the correct answer to the question would have sent some of the Apostles running, since Christ would have had to say that he would not return for over twenty centuries, that Israel would continue under Roman domination for as long as Rome existed, that the last tribes would be scattered and see Jerusalem left in ruins, and that their descendants would see the temple of an alien religion standing on the temple mount for over a thousand years."
It is worth remembering the historical realities of continuing persecution, injustice and oppression that afflict the people of the Gospel, and indeed those who have not heard it or reject it.
I am reminded of the quote by J.R.R. Tolkien:
“I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
"This bad news is so awful that the Apostle’s hadn’t learned to accept it even after they came to accept the Resurrection. Literally, the last thing the Apostles ask Christ before the ascension is when he will return to set up his Messianic kingdom in Israel. One wonders if the correct answer to the question would have sent some of the Apostles running, since Christ would have had to say that he would not return for over twenty centuries, that Israel would continue under Roman domination for as long as Rome existed, that the last tribes would be scattered and see Jerusalem left in ruins, and that their descendants would see the temple of an alien religion standing on the temple mount for over a thousand years."
It is worth remembering the historical realities of continuing persecution, injustice and oppression that afflict the people of the Gospel, and indeed those who have not heard it or reject it.
I am reminded of the quote by J.R.R. Tolkien:
“I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
Wednesday, 16 October 2013
Twinning Announcement
Following the decision by the Isle of Skye to twin with the fictitious, virtual isles of Skylands, I have decided to hereby twin my house with the Reunited Kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. I have sent off relevant documentation to King Elessar Telcontar and expect to hear back in due course.
Saturday, 5 October 2013
James Chastek on Methodical Naturalism vs Naturalism
A very nice post by James Chastek at his Just Thomism blog.
I never understood why the following was not blindingly obvious, but it clearly isn't.
"If, for example, you wanted to study and learn Euclid’s Elements you have to be “methodologically Euclidian” but this in no way commits you to Euclidianism, i.e. the claim that Lobachevsky’s or Reimann’s geometries were false; if you want to explain classical physics then you have to be “methologically Newtonian”, even if you think that Newtonianism is false."
I never understood why the following was not blindingly obvious, but it clearly isn't.
"If, for example, you wanted to study and learn Euclid’s Elements you have to be “methodologically Euclidian” but this in no way commits you to Euclidianism, i.e. the claim that Lobachevsky’s or Reimann’s geometries were false; if you want to explain classical physics then you have to be “methologically Newtonian”, even if you think that Newtonianism is false."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)