I actually have a lot of respect for Feser's stuff, because he was the only philosopher who could answer the question whether hydrogen and oxygen are in water or not. He said they are potentially in water, not actually. I mean, as atoms they are there, but as materials not. Hydrogen and oxygen are gaseous at room temperature, hydrogen we can burn and oxygen we can breathe. Water is fluid, cannot burn, cannot breathe, so clearly these materials are not there in an actual sense, but they are there in the potential sense because we can take them out. This was the book Aristotle's Revenge, a Thomistic take on modern problems and it is surprisingly good.
He even made a good reply to the challenges from Newtonian physics. The first problem is language. In Latin movere means to change, not to move, to move is loco movere, change place, locomotion. So Newtonian movement can be seen as an unchanging state of motion, which requires external force to change.
Look, modern philosophy practically failed. Wittgenstein destroyed analytical philosophy, Derrida destroyed continental. So our grand 500 years revolt against Aristotle is ultimately unsuccessful. We cannot really brag about modern philosophy for this reason. The problems that seemed solved ultimately turned out to be unsolved. Wittgenstein told us to shut up, Derrida deconstructed absolutely everything, which is also a way to tell us to shut up. So at this point why not re-read Aristotle.
Hylomorphic dualism is obviously true, the universe contains not only matter but also information, and information is not reducable to matter, because showing four fingers, or the pixels on the screen in the shape of 4 or IV are the same information. And information is not even simply intent or message, because DNA is also information. So information is an irreducible part of the universe.
Now what I could never figure out is how Feser connects the potential/actual to form/matter.
Some contentious statements there. I agree that academic Western philosophy is problematic, but that doesn't mean modern philosophy itself is flawed. I don't think Wittgenstein or positivism "destroyed analytic philosophy." On the contrary, that movement self-destructed. And "Continental" philosophy is best read as a series of attempts at expanding your mind with pretentious prose-poetry. I say more about that in the first article linked below.
The problem with Aristotle's philosophy is that it stands between theism and pantheism. I argue that naturalism entails pantheism, so I'd be inclined to critique Aristotle's teleology. By contrast, Feser uses Aristotle to peddle Christian theism, and that's wrongheaded. I say a lot more about Feser in the second article below.
I actually have a lot of respect for Feser's stuff, because he was the only philosopher who could answer the question whether hydrogen and oxygen are in water or not. He said they are potentially in water, not actually. I mean, as atoms they are there, but as materials not. Hydrogen and oxygen are gaseous at room temperature, hydrogen we can burn and oxygen we can breathe. Water is fluid, cannot burn, cannot breathe, so clearly these materials are not there in an actual sense, but they are there in the potential sense because we can take them out. This was the book Aristotle's Revenge, a Thomistic take on modern problems and it is surprisingly good.
He even made a good reply to the challenges from Newtonian physics. The first problem is language. In Latin movere means to change, not to move, to move is loco movere, change place, locomotion. So Newtonian movement can be seen as an unchanging state of motion, which requires external force to change.
Look, modern philosophy practically failed. Wittgenstein destroyed analytical philosophy, Derrida destroyed continental. So our grand 500 years revolt against Aristotle is ultimately unsuccessful. We cannot really brag about modern philosophy for this reason. The problems that seemed solved ultimately turned out to be unsolved. Wittgenstein told us to shut up, Derrida deconstructed absolutely everything, which is also a way to tell us to shut up. So at this point why not re-read Aristotle.
Hylomorphic dualism is obviously true, the universe contains not only matter but also information, and information is not reducable to matter, because showing four fingers, or the pixels on the screen in the shape of 4 or IV are the same information. And information is not even simply intent or message, because DNA is also information. So information is an irreducible part of the universe.
Now what I could never figure out is how Feser connects the potential/actual to form/matter.
Some contentious statements there. I agree that academic Western philosophy is problematic, but that doesn't mean modern philosophy itself is flawed. I don't think Wittgenstein or positivism "destroyed analytic philosophy." On the contrary, that movement self-destructed. And "Continental" philosophy is best read as a series of attempts at expanding your mind with pretentious prose-poetry. I say more about that in the first article linked below.
The problem with Aristotle's philosophy is that it stands between theism and pantheism. I argue that naturalism entails pantheism, so I'd be inclined to critique Aristotle's teleology. By contrast, Feser uses Aristotle to peddle Christian theism, and that's wrongheaded. I say a lot more about Feser in the second article below.
https://benjamincain.substack.com/p/the-abyss-thats-engulfing-western
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/anthropocentrism-and-the-downfall-of-medieval-apologetics-c65b4afab165?sk=733c9341bd9e0fe5f59645edd4ef2657