I've finally purchased Dr. Riley's dissertation. I've read about half of it thus far but one of the first things I did was a word-search for the phrase: "Self-Attesting Christ of Scripture" ... zero hits. No "self-attestation" talk at all. Given how important this is to a Van Tillian epistemology as well as its prima-facie relevance to Stroudian criticisms, I find this bizarre.
(That said, I had to download the paper from the dissertation website then convert it to a searchable document. I was only able to convert the first 100 pages, so maybe there's some talk of self-attestation towards the end? He sets up Van Til's theology in the first 100 pages, though, so you'd think it'd have been there?) Maybe I've drastically over-read Van Til, but I don't think so. Any attempt to deal with Stroud from a Van Tillian paradigm needs to take self-attestation of Christ (and of Special Revelation, by extension), into account. I was thinking Dr. Riley was going to say "self-attestation" just is a sort of verification principle within Christian theology, then talk about theory-specific truth-makers or some such...
As I listened to this podcast I had thoughts. I believe that CRT and Intersectionality are completely incompatible with the Bible. From it, its very origins come from a Marxist ideology. I would like to see you interview Dr. Voddie Baucham who has written on this and other cultural topics. Also, his book Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe is a wonderful work on this topic from a Biblical perspective. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X0fJUdbdMzU.htmlsi=PvVrj__ksWVr5WmZ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qzXlJh4ITbc.htmlsi=wcjM2borrd3qo2a5
I don't like Stranger in a Strange Land even a little, but Heinlein is still my favorite author. I recommend grabbing (or checking out from a library) his short story anthology, "The Past Through Tomorrow." I like all the stories in it, but I especially recommend, "The Long Watch," "If This Goes On--," and, "Methuselah's Children." Shorter time investment for his redemption round. You'll find less hippy dippy free-love obsession and more competent men and women of action striving to do what's right equipped with their wits and character. Lazarus Long, for example, would be at home adventuring alongside Doc Savage, Conan or John Carter.
Aaaand the myth of the "given" raises its head again! I'm a fan of Tim McGrew but here, when he makes his appeal to foundational beliefs (around the 1-hour mark), eg: 1 + 1 = 2, or the Cogito, etc., he skips over the relevancy of concepts and concept-formation in the epistemic process. I am coming from a Van Tillian perspective here. I think theologian Cornelius Van Til had a unique and, as-of-yet, unexplored epistemology that deserves to have a voice in the arena of epistemic speculation. McGrew's work is helpful in some respects (especially in his approach to Gettier which I think is extremely helpful for Van Tillians), but he makes the mistake of all foundationalists when glossing over conceptualization. He admits to being a Lockean sort of representational realist. This is excellent, but that just means our thoughts (and our "knowings") are necessarily conceptual! So the Cogito (as well as simple mathematics) no matter how intuitive, become subject to conceptualization. Parker pushed back a little via logic when he asked about the paraconsistent guys, but McGrew hand waves that away. But we might mis-conceive all sorts of, otherwise, intuitive phenomena. 1 + 1 = 10 ...in binary! That's equally as intuitive but conceived differently. Foundationalists must reckon with this. They must have some authoritative way - perhaps a word from God Himself - to authorize correct conceptions!
I am getting sick of the identity elements being squeezed into sci-fi pulp fiction today. In nearly every story for the past three years the first thing you learn about a character is their skin color and race. This is followed in a subsequent chapter with their sexual orientation. These traits end up having no relevance to the story so they were only put in to "check the box." I've now taken the step of stopping my reading at that point and down rating the story/book. This is really the only way to get attention to the issue. In the past month or so I've noticed that Amazon is offering up new book suggestions where this does not occur.
Kindle helped me with a lot in these tips. The percentage instead of the page numbers makes it easier to track reading. Goal to read 10% per day, for example. The why for me is to reduce screen time and be an example to my kids. I enjoy reading (a good book) so that’s enough of whys for me. I log what I’ve read on Goodreads so I can see what I’ve read.
The primary reason women read more us because men watch their pvrn while women read it. Most of the literature consumed by women is softcore 50 shades of greyesque.
Wonderful conversation here about some vital points about how our public and culture engage (or lack of engagement) with humanities and the arts. I share a lot of the same concern as you two and I hope I can build something with my channel to provide a similar experience with media and cultural studies. I feel like media literacy, in addition to logic and philosophy, is going to be another cornerstone in understanding truth and beauty in the future given the trends we keep seeing. These things should empower us, all of us, not set us apart in some university somewhere. Loved this episode a lot.
For what it’s worth, there a sci fi novel called Combat Codes in which the protagonist almost literally doing jiu jitsu/mma is the whole plot impetus. So there’s one!
Actually, sir, it causes me no end of grief, as I am forced to endure rude remarks and psychoanalysis from strangers such as yourself on an almost daily basis. I would be much happier writing the books and never making a single public appearance, digitally or otherwise, but I do so because I must sell books to support my wife and my little girl, and because Parker is my friend and he asked me to come on his channel.
@@SunEaterBooks it's a tough world out there my guy. But as Kevin from The Office so eloquently stated: "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?"
Great eloquence and thought and I have hopes of recreating the latter but not the former. Anyways, I’m pretty sure E. E. “Doc” Smith was a food scientist, to that Campbell point.
Good conversation. Some of the points Ruocchio made remind me of this quote about weird fiction from Clark Ashton Smith: “It might be argued that this craving is not, as many shallow modernists suppose, a desire to escape from reality, but an impulse to penetrate the verities which lie beneath the surface of things; to grapple with, and to dominate, the awful mysteries of mortal existence.”
This was a great discussion! I think everybody can agree we need more of this team up! I (selfishly) would love for you guys to make it a regular thing. Anytime I see CR is on a podcast, it’s an instant watch. Bonus having a great group like this that can speak intelligently about these topics and bounce off each other so well. Keep up the great work!
Parker. You are too good to us! I love your podcasts and you’ve brought on one of my favorite RU-vidrs and favorite authors for two hours??? Truly we have been blessed by the Almighty. 🫡 🙏 😅
6 дней назад
The research for this podcast is intense. If you guys like this show, help support it by becoming a member here on RU-vid or by supporting me on Patreon here: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Parker’s bookcase is the starter set. The old MacMillan Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (Read the article on Nothing!) Great Books of the Western World and its ancillaries, like the Syntopicon, etc. (Never the best editions of any of the texts: eventually you swap out for better editions and scholarly commentary.
Jolly! The theists have designed a god that might convince you he/she/it/they exist if you pursue graduate degrees in philosophy, specifically metaphysics. But “might” is crucial. You might be convinced three out of the seven days, unconvinced on four.
It's true that the Stoic God is different from the theistic and christian God since the former is generally seen as material and impersonal, while the latter not. But Seneca and especially Epictetus' God seems to be, if not immaterial, without a doubt personal. Both of them insists that it was a duty to worship and pray to God and they were against the idea that God is indifferent to the universe, like epicureans believed.
I live in Italy where continental philosophy is dominant and I can say, knowing both philosophical traditions, that it is a mess. For them talking (again) about metaphysics is like blasphemy, it's all post-modernism. Also they still have an archaic view of analytic philosophy, like it is still confined solely in philosophy of language (Carnap, Russel, Wittgenstein etc.).
Really interesting, the soul of adam is made of spirit (gods breath) and earth (material) in Genesis. In Kierkegaards view the spirit is the relational part, with the right relation to God being faith. But since the soul contains spirit there is also a spiritual relation from the soul to the body and from the soul back to God. The view Daniel seems to hold is that soul is more the unconscious part, but I think this might not be entirely correct since the human soul seems to contain both spirit and body. We could say this spiritual part is also present in animals, but probably just from soul to body and doesn't relate back to God. But the human soul could be different, both relating to the body (feelings) and relating to God and so relate to eternity.
I can understand that there are parts of Herbert's series that could be changed to make it more coherent. I think the operative word is change. To 'fix' something implies that one has the skills and experience to fix it and that the work has a serious flaw. I say nay to both.
Thanks for clarifying. A Canadian friend of mine told me that, in Ontario, philosophy is required to graduate high school. Maybe it doesn't apply to all of Canada, but that's where I got said information.
Studying the brain means representing our perceptions of the brain and their interpretation in our consciousness. Knowing what it's like to see blue is a different phenomenon. It's the direct perception of blue (rather than perception of the brain). Brain and blue are different things. That's why it's not the same.
I dont agree with your view on magic. Wizards for instance use magic to do "things outside of the ordinary". There is spiritual warfare going on all around us, and we as Christians have to be aware of that. Magic and sorcery use the power of satan to do things out of the ordinary. I know this is all in the confines of "fantasy", but what is fantasy? An augmentation of reality? Its still not right as Christians to watch or read things that have anything to do with witchcraft. Just my two cents.
Dr. Jordan Peterson has a kind of pragmatic philosophy and assumes natural Darwinist paradigm with a view of reality and epistemology influenced by Carl Jung. Peterson's pragmatic inquiry focuses on practical ways to overcome suffering and anything that achieves this goal is true. Billy Graham said, “It isn't an easy issue, because it goes to the heart of our deepest questions about God. After all (the argument runs), how could a loving and gracious God allow suffering? To put it another way, if God lets us suffer, he must not love us." But that conclusion is false. God does love us - and the proof is the suffering He allowed His Son to endure on the cross. In the Bible, a passage that talks about suffering is James 1:2-4 (see also: Romans 5:3-5; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Corinthians 1:3-4; John 16:33)
