I'm not through with the book yet. I read the intro and a little from the beginning of every chapter and then chose to read the sixth chapter first. So far all I can say is that I like the plan of the book.
RomanJoe wrote:
The Rationalist proof is quite strong. I don't think Feser really addresses, however, the First Cause's reason for creating this specific contingent world as opposed to any other. He seems to argue that something being specific or particular implies that it is contingent (i.e. we need a reason for it being specifically one way as opposed to being some other way). But he doesn't seem to apply this criteria to the First Cause who specifically chooses, loosely speaking, to create this world rather than some other.
The issue might be that Feser is a Christian/Catholic author, so instead of laying out the most consistent philosophy ever, which would be the aim of a consistent philosopher, he keeps in the back of his mind a few dogmas such as how God created the world, that Jesus Christ is the savior etc. Without this, he would not be a Christian/Catholic author.
In contrast, an author who has a looser religious affiliation or none of it, can afford to follow consistently the tenets of his philosophy instead of those of his church or temple or scripture. For example, if ex nihilo nihil fit, then creatio ex nihilo is out of question.
Rationalism would probably most consistently lead to something like deism, not necessarily (classical) theism. Neo-Platonism would be solidly classical theist, but the role of Personal Creator can hardly be attributed to God under that system. Neo-Platonists would more likely hold either emanationist views or they would regard the universe as a marginal side-effect of the activity of the spirit that God is, like panentheism (if I understand that word right), so God has no personalistic direct involvement with the world. These are more like some strands of ancient Gnostic views, not Christian.
Last edited by seigneur (9/09/2017 8:05 am)
