It seems to me this can be avoided, but it requires some footwork to do so. Of course, lots more possible states of affairs go against Loser's nature than against God's, but we're looking for technical definitions here. For instance, Loser McWeaksauce can realize any possible state of affairs except those ones that go against his nature. The problem with that conclusion, though, is that then lots of beings become omnipotent. This starts to lead to the conclusion that "God is omnipotent" means "God can realize any possible state of affairs so long as doing so doesn't contradict God's nature". It's only self-contradictory for God to do these things. ![]() The only reason that these states of affairs are self-contradictory is that they go against God's nature, not because there's something incoherent about divorce, or tripping, or doing immoral things. Some think those are all possible states of affairs.I'm dubious that said, it certainly seems imaginable that God could become human and trip over a rock or become human and get married and divorce his wife or do something that would be immoral if he did it. I think what Anon was going for was something like this:Ĭan God get a divorce? Can God trip over a rock? Can God act immorally? Perhaps I am reading things the wrong way and over-reacting, but their overall outlook seems to marginalize any idea of philosophy as a legitimate "search for truth" what's left seems to be a notion of philosophy as will-to-power or as a tool for "culture shaping".Īs I said, I know this is off topic, but I would be grateful for any comments or recommended resources that might help me understand the perspective of these philosophers better. As I read through the essays I find myself aking the following question: if the philosophic enterprise is as limited as these authors conceive it to be why the hell would anyone bother to philsophize? What's the point? Who is the audience? Has anyone read this book? Specifically, can anyone speak (from an A-T perspective) to what is meant in modern philosophical circles by the "linguistic turn". This turn seems to involve a wide array of modern developments/conclusions which, taken together, render any attempt at traditional metaphysics impossible and ill concieved from the start. The comment is made that every one of these philosophers has "taken the linguistic turn". Some of the above contributors are of the opinion that philosophy is at an "end" (not worth doing anymore?) others maintain that it is at a point of "transformation" into something quite different from what the average person understands as "philosophy".įrom what I gather from the book's "General Introduction", not a single one of the contributors believes that traditional metaphysics is possible (this comment comes from the book's editor(s), not the contributors -so perhaps the editor(s) over-states the case). ![]() The general idea behind the book is that modern philosophy is at an impass or watershed moment. The book consists of a compilation of contributing articles by the following philosophers: I am now reading a book claiming to gernerally represent the modern state of affairs in philosophy called: "Philosophy: End or Transformation". As a pre-cursor I have been spending a LOT of time within history of philosophy so that I have an understanding of the historical landscape in which modernity is situated. In preparing for graduate work in philosophy, I have been trying to gain a firmer grasp of general trends in modern philosophy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |