4 of 4
4
Empiricism
Posted: 23 April 2007 03:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

He his arguing against property nominalism, and for a notion of universals. That is, he is arguing that properties are more than their particular instantiations; that there is some universal form present in all things with the same property.

This is a controversial point of view in philosophy, but no more controversial than any other point of view ...  :wink: ... it is one that I myself share.

But it is perfectly compatible with a naturalist program. Indeed, many of the most famous people who argue for universals are themselves fervent naturalists. I am thinking in particular of the philosophers David Armstrong and David Lewis, among others.

So what he’s arguing may be true, but it is entirely irrelevant to theism.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2007 04:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

You assume that the human mind is able to furnish the unity that must bind together the diversity of factual experience.

Of course, this is exactly what the mind does. Individual bits of sensory information are processed and integrated with each other and with pre-existing knowledge into coherent patterns. This requires no “law outside the mind,” it’s what the mind (i.e. brain) is for. So I don’t see how he in any way challenges naturalism here.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2007 03:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  984
Joined  2005-01-14

I found it totally incoherent.  The “object and the subject of knowledge” can’t “come into contact” with each other?  And how does he get the idea that naturalism assumes metaphysics “out of the question”?  Is this some special meaning of metaphysics I’m not aware of?  It’s no use asking him, he just states the same thing again in different words!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 08:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Yes, Advocatus!

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4