Edward Feser: Aristotle, call your office

[The Pixie]

This is a response to an article by Edward Feser, following a recommendation by @Caroljeen.

Aristotle, Call Your Office | Edward Feser

To untutored common sense, the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes. A man is a radically different sort of thing from a...

www.firstthings.com

Feser is a well-known philosopher who seems to reject modern science, and this article is about that. He starts by saying how Aristotle et al. based their science on common sense, and compares this to modern science (weird use of quotemarks are from the original).

Indeed, at bottom these are all just the same kinds of thing”arrangements within the one vast ocean of physical particles, the differences between the arrangements ultimately no deeper than the differences between waves on the same sea. Color, sound, odor, heat, and cold”understood in the qualitative way common sense understands them”are relegated to the mind, existing only in our conscious representation of the natural world, not in the world itself. Color, sound, and the rest as objective features would be redefined in quantitative terms”reflectance properties of physical surfaces, compression waves, and the like.

Modern science says that all matter is made up of different atoms, which in turn are all made of protons, neutron and electrons, and the entire diversity of things we know and see are ultimately just different arrangements of those three different particles. But it is worse than that (worse to Feser anyway) - those three things are nothing more than wave functions, not even real particles.

The conception of matter they share with the Cartesian dualist says matter is inherently devoid of the qualitative features we know from conscious experience”color, sound, heat, cold, etc.”as well as of meaning or purpose of any kind. To deny that there is anything immaterial that has these features is therefore to imply that there is nothing at all that has them”and thus, in turn, to deny that our conscious experiences or the meanings of our very thoughts and words are real. This “eliminative materialist” position is ultimately incoherent, and few philosophical naturalists are willing to embrace it”though Alex Rosenberg’s recent The Atheist’s Guide to Reality promotes a version of eliminativism”but the conclusion that a consistent materialism leads to it is difficult to avoid.

What Feser chooses to ignore is the evidence that science is right. There is a vast amount of evidence that shows that quantum mechanics is an excellent model. And a huge amount of technology built on that science. Why does he not address that fact?

In fact while Feser quotes and talks about a number of prominent people, none of them are scientists.

One is discusses at some length in Thomas Nagel.

For example, Nagel argues that it is impossible to explain our rational capacities in terms of the consciousness we share Value, which Nagel insists is a real feature of the world rather than a projection of our subjective desires or sentiments, is, he says, a byproduct of teleology “even if teleology is separated from intention, and the result is not the goal of an agent who aims at it””again, a standard Aristotelian thesis. (He rightly suggests that theists ought to be open to the idea of immanent teleology of the Aristotelian sort. He may not be aware that medieval theologians like Aquinas were committed to precisely that.)

We are to think it is true because "Nagel insists" it is? Really? I think Nagel and Feser need to come up with a better argument than that!

Okay, I am being a little unfair here, and perhaps Nagel has rather more in his book, but Feser's argument is little more than this. He takes the view that "materialism" does not make sense, studiously ignoring the evidence for quantum mechanics, and tells us what to believe based on what a fellow philosopher insists is right.

Throughout the book Nagel emphasizes that for phenomena like life, consciousness, rationality, and value to arise in the later stages of the history of the universe, we have to suppose they were somehow “latent in the nature of things” from the beginning”thereby hinting at the Aristotelian notion of change as the actualization of built-in potentialities, and the Scholastic principle that whatever is in an effect must in some way be contained in its total cause.

I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say. I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

 

[Lucian]

I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say. I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

Rather than guessing, you could perhaps read some philosophy, and from there understand this is crass nonsense.

 

[Temujin]

Rather than guessing, you could perhaps read some philosophy, and from there understand this is crass nonsense.

I think that the OP has made a fair case that Feser's philosophy is indeed crass nonsense.

 

[Lucian]

I think that the OP has made a fair case that Feser's philosophy is indeed crass nonsense.

I wouldn't say so, but this is neither here nor there as far as my comment is concerned.

 

[The Pixie]

Rather than guessing, you could perhaps read some philosophy, and from there understand this is crass nonsense.

Do you want to argue Nagel or Feser's case? I am happy to argue the case for QM if so.

 

[Caroljeen]

This is a response to an article by Edward Feser, following a recommendation by @Caroljeen.

Aristotle, Call Your Office | Edward Feser

To untutored common sense, the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes. A man is a radically different sort of thing from a...

www.firstthings.com

I was looking for a review of Nagle's book and found this article. I knew that Feser is a classical theist (which I am not.) I found the article interesting because Feser points out how materialists have trouble explaining nonmaterial "things" like color, cold, hot, consciousness, etc. Nagal, an atheist, has somehow found a way to fit Aristotle's philosophy into his atheistic explanation of the conscious. It's an interesting article but Feser did not explain Nagel's controversial view of the human consciousness. I will have to look elsewhere.

If you can show how QM explains the human consciousness, I'm all ears.

 

[Lucian]

Do you want to argue Nagel or Feser's case? I am happy to argue the case for QM if so.

No, since I don't agree with either (insofar as I understand Nagel's).

Do you perhaps want to argue that in philosophy one doesn't have to substantiate one's claims? What philosophy have you read that exemplified this?

 

[The Pixie]

No, since I don't agree with either (insofar as I understand Nagel's).

Okay.

Do you perhaps want to argue that in philosophy one doesn't have to substantiate one's claims? What philosophy have you read that exemplified this?

See the article cited in the OP.

 

[Lucian]

See the article cited in the OP.

I did. Would an online 'article' from a scientist of comparable quality entail that in science one doesn't have to substantiate one's claims?

 

[docphin5]

This is a response to an article by Edward Feser, following a recommendation by @Caroljeen.

Aristotle, Call Your Office | Edward Feser

To untutored common sense, the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes. A man is a radically different sort of thing from a...

www.firstthings.com

Feser is a well-known philosopher who seems to reject modern science, and this article is about that. He starts by saying how Aristotle et al. based their science on common sense, and compares this to modern science (weird use of quotemarks are from the original).

My impression from the brief link you provided is that you may have misunderstood Fraser. I have not read his book so maybe he does say in his book what you claim he does,

But this seems to be the same ol’ argument based on consciousness being a higher level of existence containing a perception of good/values VERSUS mere material existence. iOW, there is something more to this universe than matter existing.

The accusation condemning atheism is that it refuses to recognize that moral consciousness adds a layer of meaning to life above and beyond mere material existence. We humans have the capability to to perceive something greater than mere material existence, which, to theists originates with a good cause of causes.

He is NOT knocking science in its absolute sense as you characterize it. He is merely asserting that science does a really good job studying material things, breaking them down to their particles and waves but science does very little to explain the moral good we perceive in daily life, in living itself, the values that give meaning, and his point is that these things actually do exist above and beyond the study of mere particles and waves and may possibly demonstrate a purpose of creation itself.

Modern science says that all matter is made up of different atoms, which in turn are all made of protons, neutron and electrons, and the entire diversity of things we know and see are ultimately just different arrangements of those three different particles. But it is worse than that (worse to Feser anyway) - those three things are nothing more than wave functions, not even real particles.

Right, science is digging deeper and deeper into the particles that make up matter but science has yet to tell me what you or I are thinking. iOW, science knows next to nothing about the invisible moral consciousness in billions of living things.

We get so focused on the benefits of science especially in the last few hundred years that we forget that it still cannot tell us what we think. what we think is invisible to science, Nevertheless, our consciousness actually exists. It forms our values, gives us meaning, shares bonds between conscious lives, for example, the hug from our children contains more value than all the gold at fort knox, yet science cannot see it, study it, break it down to its particles because consciousness perceives something other than mere particles.

What Feser chooses to ignore is the evidence that science is right. There is a vast amount of evidence that shows that quantum mechanics is an excellent model. And a huge amount of technology built on that science. Why does he not address that fact?

IMO, he is merely pointing out the limitations of science see above.

In fact while Feser quotes and talks about a number of prominent people, none of them are scientists.

One is discusses at some length in Thomas Nagel.


We are to think it is true because "Nagel insists" it is? Really? I think Nagel and Feser need to come up with a better argument than that!

Okay, I am being a little unfair here, and perhaps Nagel has rather more in his book, but Feser's argument is little more than this. He takes the view that "materialism" does not make sense, studiously ignoring the evidence for quantum mechanics, and tells us what to believe based on what a fellow philosopher insists is right.

I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say. I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

Latent and potential are synonyms. Therefore, we were are all latent or potentials in the universe from its very beginning because everything happens for an unbroken chain of causes going back to the Big Bang and probably before. Presumably, an intelligent cause of causes would have known us before the foundation of the world, would have known us as potentials from before creation, would have created for that very purpose, that is, to raise up moral beings, like himself.

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (Eph 1:5)​

 

[The Pixie]

My impression from the brief link you provided is that you may have misunderstood Fraser. I have not read his book so maybe he does say in his book what you claim he does,

But this seems to be the same ol’ argument based on consciousness being a higher level of existence containing a perception of good/values VERSUS mere material existence. iOW, there is something more to this universe than matter existing.

I agree that that is part of what Feser is arguing for, but at the same time he is saying we should reject quantum mechanics because it does not follow "common sense".

The accusation condemning atheism is that it refuses to recognize that moral consciousness adds a layer of meaning to life above and beyond mere material existence. We humans have the capability to to perceive something greater than mere existence, which, to theists originates with a good cause of causes.

Where does atheism do that?

He is NOT knocking science in its absolute sense as you characterize it. He is merely asserting that science does a really good job studying material things, breaking them down to their particles and waves but science does very little to explain the moral good we perceive in daily life, in living itself, the values that give meaning, and his point is that these things actually do exist above and beyond the study of mere particles and waves and may possibly demonstrate a purpose of creation itself.

I think you are wrong. To me he is saying science has got it all wrong, that we should abandon quantum mechanics and relativity - any thing, in fact, that defies common sense. When Feser says:

The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms. The differences between dirt, water, rocks, trees, dogs, cats, and human bodies are on this view superficial.​

... he is setting up a dichotomy between the common sense view of Aristotle and the mainstream science view that everything comes down to wavefunctions. And he is siding firmly with the former.

Right, science is digging deeper and deeper into the particles that make up matter but science has yet to tell me what you or I are thinking. iOW, science knows next to nothing about the invisible moral consciousness in billions of living things.

Okay. So...?

Latent and potential are synonyms. Therefore, we were are all latent or potentials in the universe from its very beginning because everything happens for an unbroken chain of causes going back to the Big Bang and probably before. Presumably, an intelligent cause of causes would have know us before the foundation of the world, would have known us as potentials from before creation.

When he says "latent", I understand that to mean it is preloaded in someway. A pile of bricks has the potential to be a house, but the house is not latent in the bricks.

Throughout the book Nagel emphasizes that for phenomena like life, consciousness, rationality, and value to arise in the later stages of the history of the universe, we have to suppose they were somehow “latent in the nature of things” from the beginning”thereby hinting at the Aristotelian notion of change as the actualization of built-in potentialities, and the Scholastic principle that whatever is in an effect must in some way be contained in its total cause.​

Mainstream science would say that there was the potential for intelligent life to evolve right from the first cells. But it would not say intelligent life was latent in those cell, which is what Feser is claiming.

And as far as I can see, claiming on the basis of zero evidence.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

What Feser chooses to ignore is the evidence that science is right.

But scienTISTS are often wrong. And even science is only right insofar as it can evaluate within the limited domain of the material realm. Science cannot even tell us whether or not all the knowledge it can bring us is exhaustive.

I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say.

You said yourself that Nagel is a scientist, not a philosopher. Scientists cannot for example tell us if love is latent in a mama bear's nurturing of her cubs, so they slap a label on it: INSTINCT.

I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

Well, of course. Substantiation requires materialistic methods. Philosophy deals with that which if it exists transcends the material realm. That's like stating that measuring the amount of vitamins in a meal is superior to evaluating the meal based on its taste.

 

[docphin5]

I agree that that is part of what Feser is arguing for, but at the same time he is saying we should reject quantum mechanics because it does not follow "common sense".

Where does atheism do that?

Your personal bias is blinding you. I see atheist comments all the time in these forums that emphasize the material world while downplaying moral consciousness. They down play the love between a parent and child to be merely physiological reactions, mere neural stimulation, rather than what it ACTUALLY is part of an existence above mere material things. How much gold in the universe would a loving parent exchange for a hug from his/her child? None, that I know of, but many atheists would argue that gold and physiological neural impulses are equivalent in value. Essentially, meaningless material things because matter is all there is in existence. It is also the logical conclusion of atheism. Which is why some atheists, namely, Nagel, are beginning to relook philosophical arguments made in the past which emphasize moral consciousness over mere existence and consider a purpose to life.

I think you are wrong. To me he is saying science has got it all wrong, that we should abandon quantum mechanics and relativity - any thing, in fact, that defies common sense. When Feser says:

The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms. The differences between dirt, water, rocks, trees, dogs, cats, and human bodies are on this view superficial.​

... he is setting up a dichotomy between the common sense view of Aristotle and the mainstream science view that everything comes down to wavefunctions. And he is siding firmly with the former.


Okay. So...?


When he says "latent", I understand that to mean it is preloaded in someway. A pile of bricks has the potential to be a house, but the house is not latent in the bricks.

Throughout the book Nagel emphasizes that for phenomena like life, consciousness, rationality, and value to arise in the later stages of the history of the universe, we have to suppose they were somehow “latent in the nature of things” from the beginning”thereby hinting at the Aristotelian notion of change as the actualization of built-in potentialities, and the Scholastic principle that whatever is in an effect must in some way be contained in its total cause.​

Mainstream science would say that there was the potential for intelligent life to evolve right from the first cells. But it would not say intelligent life was latent in those cell, which is what Feser is claiming.

Your personal bias shows here, your over emphasis on science and evolution to the point of excluding causes before evolution. Back up to a time before evolution,…back way up to the beginning of our universe. Science actually says that there was potential for intelligent life right from the Big Bang, which first created the hydrogen atoms flowing in our veins. Thus, science asserts that intelligent life was latent (potential) at the Big Bang. The fact that you do not see this demonstrates an atheistic blind spot.

And as far as I can see, claiming on the basis of zero evidence.

 

[5wize]

This is a response to an article by Edward Feser, following a recommendation by @Caroljeen.

Aristotle, Call Your Office | Edward Feser

To untutored common sense, the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes. A man is a radically different sort of thing from a...

www.firstthings.com

Feser is a well-known philosopher who seems to reject modern science, and this article is about that. He starts by saying how Aristotle et al. based their science on common sense, and compares this to modern science (weird use of quotemarks are from the original).


Modern science says that all matter is made up of different atoms, which in turn are all made of protons, neutron and electrons, and the entire diversity of things we know and see are ultimately just different arrangements of those three different particles. But it is worse than that (worse to Feser anyway) - those three things are nothing more than wave functions, not even real particles.


What Feser chooses to ignore is the evidence that science is right. There is a vast amount of evidence that shows that quantum mechanics is an excellent model. And a huge amount of technology built on that science. Why does he not address that fact?

In fact while Feser quotes and talks about a number of prominent people, none of them are scientists.

One is discusses at some length in Thomas Nagel.


We are to think it is true because "Nagel insists" it is? Really? I think Nagel and Feser need to come up with a better argument than that!

Okay, I am being a little unfair here, and perhaps Nagel has rather more in his book, but Feser's argument is little more than this. He takes the view that "materialism" does not make sense, studiously ignoring the evidence for quantum mechanics, and tells us what to believe based on what a fellow philosopher insists is right.



I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say. I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

The model can be explained to a satisfactory degree (for me at least) by emergence. Stuart Kauffman’s book Reinventing the Sacred outlines that while rote materialism of any particular physical system can be materially reduced it does however generate emergent properties along the way that are not defined by the dismantling of its parts. These emergent properties are real things too, but are most certainly a sum of its parts.

 

[docphin5]

The model can be explained to a satisfactory degree (for me at least) by emergence. Stuart Kauffman’s book Reinventing the Sacred outlines that while rote materialism of any particular physical system can be materially reduced it does however generate emergent properties along the way that are not defined by the dismantling of its parts. These emergent properties are real things too, but are most certainly a sum of its parts.

IMO, your concession that emergent properties are “real things too”, in this case, moral consciousness as THE emergent property of mere substance, IS the beginning of theism. The first steps on a long path which leads to the Good Cause of causes. You are not there yet, and may never progress another step, but others do, and did, especially the great moral thinkers of western civilization. It is the same path, the one road, “the only way” to the absolute Good. We perceive the absolute Good through a moral consciousness, aka, “light”, “spirit”, “Wisdom”, ARISING in humans, and only humans: “Let us make man in our image.”

 

[5wize]

IMO, your concession that emergent properties are “real things too”, in this case, moral consciousness as THE emergent property of mere substance, IS the beginning of theism.

I think it is more than just the beginning of theism. It is theism. Like the God the religious project externally, their own moral consciousness is the throne room they seek.

The first steps on a long path which leads to the Good Cause of causes.

Yes. Even though the true path leads within, it is as much a searchable mystery as the externalized religious projections.

You are not there yet, and may never progress another step,

That’s not possible in this paradigm we are addressing. I progress every day I live and figure out my effect on the world, on myself, and its effect back. It never stops. Those that never progress another step towards that personal reality are dead.

but others do, and did,

Everybody does all the time.

especially the great moral thinkers of western civilization.

The moral thinkers do not progress in this paradigm any more or less than anybody else. Their skill is merely a closer observance, reflection, categorization, and reporting of the phenomenon they are swimming in with no more or less success than anybody else. It is a special brand of stoicism that tries to overcome with knowledge of reality as oppose to just stay properly integrated with it. A fish does not need to be told how he is swimming.

It is the same path, the one road, “the only way” to the absolute Good. We perceive the absolute Good through a moral consciousness, aka, “light”, “spirit”, “Wisdom”, ARISING in humans, and only humans: “Let us make man in our image.”

Yup.

 

[The Pixie]

Your personal bias is blinding you.

Entirely possible, which is why I asked you to show me where it happens.

I see atheist comments all the time in these forums that emphasize the material world while downplaying moral consciousness.

Then it should be easy for you you to show me where it happens.

They down play the love between a parent and child to be merely physiological reactions, mere neural stimulation, rather than what it ACTUALLY is part of an existence above mere material things. How much gold in the universe would a loving parent exchange for a hug from his/her child? None, that I know of, but many atheists would argue that gold and physiological neural impulses are equivalent in value. Essentially, meaningless material things because matter is all there is in existence. It is also the logical conclusion of atheism.

So show me atheists doing that.

Your personal bias shows here, your over emphasis on science and evolution to the point of excluding causes before evolution. Back up to a time before evolution,…back way up to the beginning of our universe. Science actually says that there was potential for intelligent life right from the Big Bang, which first created the hydrogen atoms flowing in our veins. Thus, science asserts that intelligent life was latent (potential) at the Big Bang. The fact that you do not see this demonstrates an atheistic blind spot.

But I agree there was potential.

The issue is whether intelligent life was latent in the first cells, or the Big Bang if you prefer.

I firstly think those two things are significantly different, and secondly that the second claim is entirely unsubstantiated. You do not address either of those. Perhaps you have your own blind spot?

 

[The Pixie]

The model can be explained to a satisfactory degree (for me at least) by emergence. Stuart Kauffman’s book Reinventing the Sacred outlines that while rote materialism of any particular physical system can be materially reduced it does however generate emergent properties along the way that are not defined by the dismantling of its parts. These emergent properties are real things too, but are most certainly a sum of its parts.

Agreed. And I think that that stands in opposition to Feser's position.

 

[Tercon]

This is a response to an article by Edward Feser, following a recommendation by @Caroljeen.

Aristotle, Call Your Office | Edward Feser

To untutored common sense, the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes. A man is a radically different sort of thing from a...

www.firstthings.com

Feser is a well-known philosopher who seems to reject modern science, and this article is about that. He starts by saying how Aristotle et al. based their science on common sense, and compares this to modern science (weird use of quotemarks are from the original).


Modern science says that all matter is made up of different atoms, which in turn are all made of protons, neutron and electrons, and the entire diversity of things we know and see are ultimately just different arrangements of those three different particles. But it is worse than that (worse to Feser anyway) - those three things are nothing more than wave functions, not even real particles.


What Feser chooses to ignore is the evidence that science is right. There is a vast amount of evidence that shows that quantum mechanics is an excellent model. And a huge amount of technology built on that science. Why does he not address that fact?
In fact while Feser quotes and talks about a number of prominent people, none of them are scientists.

One is discusses at some length in Thomas Nagel.


We are to think it is true because "Nagel insists" it is? Really? I think Nagel and Feser need to come up with a better argument than that!

Okay, I am being a little unfair here, and perhaps Nagel has rather more in his book, but Feser's argument is little more than this. He takes the view that "materialism" does not make sense, studiously ignoring the evidence for quantum mechanics, and tells us what to believe based on what a fellow philosopher insists is right.

I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say. I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

Actually I agree with you here, I too think that "quantum mechanics is an excellent model". It proves that reality is the result of a mind, because even physicality logically requires a believing mind to collapse into, it needs a way and place to occur and a mind works quite well in making that occur.

 

[Algor]

This is a response to an article by Edward Feser, following a recommendation by @Caroljeen.

Aristotle, Call Your Office | Edward Feser

To untutored common sense, the natural world is filled with irreducibly different kinds of objects and qualities: people; dogs and cats; trees and flowers; rocks, dirt, and water; colors, odors, sounds; heat and cold; meanings and purposes. A man is a radically different sort of thing from a...

www.firstthings.com

Feser is a well-known philosopher who seems to reject modern science, and this article is about that. He starts by saying how Aristotle et al. based their science on common sense, and compares this to modern science (weird use of quotemarks are from the original).


Modern science says that all matter is made up of different atoms, which in turn are all made of protons, neutron and electrons, and the entire diversity of things we know and see are ultimately just different arrangements of those three different particles. But it is worse than that (worse to Feser anyway) - those three things are nothing more than wave functions, not even real particles.


What Feser chooses to ignore is the evidence that science is right. There is a vast amount of evidence that shows that quantum mechanics is an excellent model. And a huge amount of technology built on that science. Why does he not address that fact?

In fact while Feser quotes and talks about a number of prominent people, none of them are scientists.

One is discusses at some length in Thomas Nagel.


We are to think it is true because "Nagel insists" it is? Really? I think Nagel and Feser need to come up with a better argument than that!

Okay, I am being a little unfair here, and perhaps Nagel has rather more in his book, but Feser's argument is little more than this. He takes the view that "materialism" does not make sense, studiously ignoring the evidence for quantum mechanics, and tells us what to believe based on what a fellow philosopher insists is right.



I would love to know if Nagel had any reason to suppose something is latent in the nature of a thing, but Feser does not say. I guess that is the big difference between science and philosophy. In science you have to actually substantiate your claims.

Feser does not give an entirely fair representation of Nagel's argument IMO. Nagel's argument is more along the lines of "We can't explain how mind arose in the terms of evolutionary biology in principle, because of the nature of mind and the nature of explanation (note, both of those premises are disputable and are important to his argument) and evolutionary biology can't discriminate among possibilities for important events, therefore it is not a powerful paradigm, therefore we need something better. Perhaps teleology is a way forward, although I confess I don't see how exactly". Nagel does NOT say evolutionary biology is wrong: just that it has not proved to be a powerful paradigm wrt the questions he thinks are important, so we need something better: lack of progress means we are missing something important. To me, Nagel's opinion is fair, although entirely too tentative to be satisfactory, and hinging rather strongly on what is not known. Arguments from current states of ignorance about the nature of science are not terribly convincing to me.

IIRC, Nagel is a moral realist, and it flows from this that value is real. He also holds that everything flows from everything else: everything you see you see because its potential is intrinsic in its material parts. Hence, goodness (and evil) are real things intrinsic in material, even though mind is not material (I may be misremembering). Personally I think this is just a way of saying that the potential for mind is intrinsic in material, which is a far cry from saying that goodness is intrinsic to any given material object ALTHOUGH if teleological principle were somehow (? seems to be a big somehow) worked in, that latter argument could be true.