What more can I add? I woke up this morning as a beloved child of God and now this title assures me that I am not "a mere animal."

But if I was? I would be a horse!

The problem is that our comprehension of what is going on in higher animals' and babies' cognition is rather limited. Once it is concluded that animals have only sense cognition, we have to be very careful of anthropomorphic interpretations. Given that most animal researchers are likely to be naturalists, it is very hard for them to avoid anthropomorphism even when they are trying to avoid it -- since philosophically they are assuming that animal cognition and human cognition are essentially both sensist.

Yes, I knew you'd point to an intellectual grasp of something incongruous (or of someone's inferiority or whatever). Do babies' laughs when they see something incongruous - as in peek-a-boo games - signal intellectual recognition of anything, or do they only have physiological pleasure reactions? I have read about higher animals playing tricks.

While "risibility" etymologically means "having the ability to laugh," what was actually meant was "having a sense of humor." Having a sense of humor entails the intellectual recognition of what is humorous.

The fact that other animals exhibit the physiological reactions that parallel our own, when we find something funny, does not demonstrate that they have intellects.

Yes. Laughing hyenas laugh. But it does not prove that they have a sense of humor.

Indeed, if you want a really intellectually challenging topic, try to explain exactly what it is that makes something funny. And I don't mean whatever it is that provokes babies to laugh. Tickling works great!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter_in_animals

In A-T, "risibile" is a proprium of "rational animal."

Someone who says, 'Well, it's not really laughter' can't, I suppose, be refuted, but if it seems to match what happens when, say, human babies laugh, I think many will accept that some other species laugh.

So shall the dictum be dropped, at least on epistemic prudential grounds, that ability to laugh is proper to humans among animals? Or shall we allow some rationality to animals other than humans?

can anyone explain why the opponent is not called to task for saying that God is in a genus of intellective/intelligent things?

This part of the In Sent is arguing that humans can know truths without the aid of grace. The objector in arg. 5 says...

"... quaecumque sunt in genere aliquo, reducuntur sicut in causam in unum primum, quod est maximum in genere illo. Sed primum in genere intellectivorum est ipse Deus. Ergo est maxime intelligens, et causa intelligendi omnibus intelligentibus," In II Sent. 28.1.5 arg 5. ["... whatever things are in any genus are reduced to one first thing as though to their cause, and that thing is the greatest in that genus. But the first in the genus of intellective things is God Himself. Therefore He is maximally intelligent and is the cause of understanding in all intelligent things."]

In the reply, ad 5, the Thomas voice disagrees with the contention that all human knowledge is by direct influence of grace, but he does not contest the statement that God is first "in the genus of intellective things."

Since Aquinas had early in his career, in the De Ente et Essentia, argued that God can't be in any genus because His essence is identical with His existence, it would seem that arg. 5 should have been written differently.

Thoughts? Is Aquinas just allowing his objector to speak loosely, or does he have a theory of generic inclusion by reduction such that he can allow both that God is in a genus by reduction and that God is per se in no genus? (The distinction between real and logical genera might be in play here, but I'm not sure that that distinction would rescue God from being an instance of a kind even if the kind is only a logical and not a natural one.)

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/01/preternatural-theology.html?showComment=1580744926804#c8595156959310920408

LB: On this reasoning, the fact that there are pseudoscientists means that there is no reliable epistemology for doing science.

GHF: An astrologist could make the same claim--just because some astrology is superstition, doesn't mean there isn't a reliable epistemology for astrology...

I was presupposing that there is demonstrated reliable science, because I assumed you would agree with me on that. Was I wrong? If I were right, then in fact this is disanalogous, because neither of us believes there is any demonstrated reliable astrology—excepting the patterns with fallacious causes I have discussed.

Do you agree there is a difference between the epistemology for science, and that of astrology?

This turns on your definition of 'reliable'. If it merely requires methodological uniformity so that when different people are subjected to the same sense-experience, they describe it the same way, then one can have reliable astrology. But if you add in pragmatic effectiveness—that is, helping one accomplish one or more purposes—then we can start generating a difference.

There is no more agreement in interpreting the Bible than there is for astrological readings.

There is remarkable disagreement among psychologists and sociologists as well. When a system of thinking touches on how I should live my life and how society should be ordered, you're going to get a lot of pluralism. You can certainly throw up your hands in such situations and declare that it is impossible to make forward progress; I choose not to do that.

Have you?

Not that I recall. I generally see "Appealing to emotions rather than facts" as irrationality and unreliable in the long term.

LB: Then please draw out more similarities to demonstrate that there are no appreciable differences which matter.

GHF: I am not claiming there are NO differences. It wouldn't be an analogy if it was 100% identical. I am claiming there are some similarities. For example, both provide generic advice (make us face ourselves).

You seem to struggle with analogies. Not sure why.

If you cannot see a relevant difference between the underlined, then I will continue to "seem to struggle with analogies", from your perspective. Since I have no idea what astrology has to say about facing ourselves, I cannot do anything with your claimed analogy. You're going to have to teach me enough about astrology in order to make the analogy relevant. Are you up for that task?

GHF: You infer causation by reading the Bible and certain benefits (facing ourselves), just like an astrologist infers causation.

LB: At this level of generality, Lord Kelvin inferred from past successes of classical physics that it would surmount present anomalies (luminiferous aether & ultraviolet catastrophe). Was he warranted in this trust of future success of classical physics?

GHF: Let's compare Lord Kelvin to astrology.

How about you answer my question, first?

Of course, but I am still confused by the latter part of your sentence--"being a synchronizing of subjectivity and objectivity."

Perhaps part of my confusion is because I don't see the "self" as a single thing, nor do I see it as "objective".

You are here assuming that there are true and false statements about the "self". It is not the self that is objective; instead, I took objectivity to be related to an accurate assessment of the self. One can view a situation objectively (vs. subjectively) and one can view the self objectively.

LB: Erm, any method "properly followed" will yield the same thing on repeated executions.

GHF: Not if the process leads to a subjective outcome, such as tarot card reading or astrology. The same process could be followed with widely different results.

Then it's not a 'method' per the understanding at play, here. Note here that one could reliably yield bad results. Method just brings about uniformity, not correctness.

If you think there are words with unambiguous meaning, that apply when "facing oneself" please give me a few examples. I am confident I can show how these words can be viewed in many different lights.

Do you just think there aren't true statements about selves? I'm really confused by all the trouble you're having, here.

It seems your conclusion is based on your feelings. Do you feel comforted in the idea that there are universal objective normative values?

Either normative forces exist or they don't—regardless of whether they are "universal". If you think they simply don't exist, please say so. If instead you're merely saying that in the present day and age, it's incredibly hard to talk about them reliably (vs. 100% subjectively), then I might actually agree with you. The more unstable we are in the domain of normative force, the harder it will be for us to make stable measurements of that realm.

To suggest there is only one "right" knowledge "of normative forces" doesn't allow any room for disagreement or minority opinions.

It is a good thing I was doing neither of these things.

So is Tarot Card reading in the IS domain by helping us "face ourselves"?

I don't know how Tarot Card reading helps us face facts about ourselves. It remains to be seen whether you think there are any facts about ourselves to be known in the first place.

On this reasoning, the fact that there are pseudoscientists means that there is no reliable epistemology for doing science.

An astrologist could make the same claim--just because some astrology is superstition, doesn't mean there isn't a reliable epistemology for astrology...

Do you agree there is a difference between the epistemology for science, and that of astrology?

There is no more agreement in interpreting the Bible than there is for astrological readings.

Have you employed that strategy with me? Has it worked?

To a degree.

Do you think I've employed it with you?

Not sure. Have you?

Then please draw out more similarities to demonstrate that there are no appreciable differences which matter.

I am not claiming there are NO differences. It wouldn't be an analogy if it was 100% identical. I am claiming there are some similarities. For example, both provide generic advice.

You seem to struggle with analogies. Not sure why.

GHF: You infer causation by reading the Bible and certain benefits (facing ourselves), just like an astrologist infers causation.

LB: At this level of generality, Lord Kelvin inferred from past successes of classical physics that it would surmount present anomalies...

I did NOT saying that infer causation from correlation is always wrong. I am saying that for a good epistemology, strong criteria should be met before we make a connection between correlation and causation.

Let's compare Lord Kelvin to astrology. Did Lord Kelvin have more or less evidence than an astrologist? Maybe we could also compare Lord Kelvin to someone who believes in alchemy.

LB: What is there to explain about "facing truths about ourselves" being a synchronizing of subjectivity and objectivity?

LB: Have you seriously not encountered real-life or fictional accounts where a person had a false idea of himself/​herself

Of course, but I am still confused by the latter part of your sentence--"being a synchronizing of subjectivity and objectivity."

Perhaps part of my confusion is because I don't see the "self" as a single thing, nor do I see it as "objective".

GHF: If X is an objective IS (about oneself), and your method reliably leads to X (whether we accept X is a different question), then X is the reliable result.

LB: Erm, any method "properly followed" will yield the same thing on repeated executions.

Not if the process leads to a subjective outcome, such as tarot card reading or astrology. The same process could be followed with widely different results.

I recently participated in an actual tarot card reading (to see what it was like). It was exactly like I suspected--completely subjective interpretation of the card and how it related to that person.

GHF: That's part of the problem with the idea that a particular objective method (facing our self) leads to truth (about oneself)!!!

LB: Nope, you can just not use words with connotation (or intentionally omit the connotation) when facing yourself.

GHF: All words have connotation! All words can be interpreted in MANY ways. Words are subjective tools!

LB: If what you said were true and relevant, it would be impossible for scientists to operationalize terms.

In a field, there is an intersubjective agreement on the idea a word represents. But when you "facing yourself" the words and their meaning are entirely subjective.

Some will claim that tarot cards help you "face yourself". You might pick a card that says "you should be more kind". Even if we assuming arguendo that the card is a correct representation of yourself, there are hundreds of ways that could be interpreted.

If you think there are words with unambiguous meaning, that apply when "facing oneself" please give me a few examples. I am confident I can show how these words can be viewed in many different lights.

I have no patience for such know-nothingism.

It seems your conclusion is based on your feelings. Do you feeling comforted in the idea that there are universal objective normative values?

But such know-nothingism is a recipe for civilizational collapse.

In America we constantly disagree on our normative values. We have a social contract (Constitution) about some values, but even those are debated. To suggest there is only one "right" knowledge "of normative forces" doesn't allow any room for disagreement or minority opinions. To me, that is a greater recipe for disaster.

You are once again transgressing is ⇏ ought: facing yourself takes place in the domain of is.

You clearly did not read my analogy...sigh

So is Tarot Card reading in the IS domain by helping us "face ourselves"?

Or is tarot card reading not a reliable method, and its results (facing ourselves) also subjective?

If the Bible is simply a mirror, then someone will reach the opposite conclusion of yours on wealth, and use the same Bible (perhaps different verses) as their justification. They would claim you are not facing yourself and willing to change.

On this reasoning, the fact that there are pseudoscientists means that there is no reliable epistemology for doing science.

GHF: I recommend appealing to their emotions. Its more effective than appealing to facts.

LB: You have hereby insulted them and me—unless you apply the same tactics to yourself and those you highly respect?

GHF: I do apply it universally (though not in every single instance). Appealing to emotions rather than facts to persuade someone is shown to be more effective.

Have you employed that strategy with me? Has it worked? Do you think I've employed it with you?

I know quite a bit about astrology, actually. But the reason I used it as a counter-example is not because of my expertise, but because its claims are similar to your own, but the practice provides a contradictory conclusion.

Then please draw out more similarities to demonstrate that there are no appreciable differences which matter. Let's get down and dirty and really press your comparison to see if it is as good as you say it is. You'll have to help me a lot here, because as I said, I know almost nothing about astrology. But beware: if I find critical differences which you suppressed, ignored, or did not know about, it will discredit not only your use of astrology as allegedly similar in the key respects, but your general strategy of reducing things to absurdity. If you want to put all your eggs in this basket, let's do it. But I refuse to play Whac-A-Mole, so choose wisely. Learning enough about astrology to figure out whether you're representing it properly will take considerable time on my part.

You infer causation by reading the Bible and certain benefits (facing ourselves), just like an astrologist infers causation.

At this level of generality, Lord Kelvin inferred from past successes of classical physics that it would surmount present anomalies (luminiferous aether & ultraviolet catastrophe). Was he warranted in this trust of future success of classical physics? This relates rather directly to the following discussion:

GHF: What would count as evidence against your god?

LB: For one, a halting of further examples or sufficient falsification of extant examples I enumerate here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipplingphilosopher/the_christian_right_is_helping_drive_liberals_away_from_religion/#comment-4639516223 . That would essentially constitute falsification of the following passage:

[most recent comment—includes discussion of Lord Kelvin]

LB: What is there to explain about "facing truths about ourselves" being a synchronizing of subjectivity and objectivity?

GHF: Explain what that means. There are many ways to explain an idea. Perhaps discuss it further. Perhaps use examples of when it applies or when it doesn't apply.

Have you seriously not encountered real-life or fictional accounts where a person had a false idea of himself/​herself—e.g. how [s]he would act in some extreme situation—and was somehow brought to face this falsehood? A small introduction can be found at the Literary Devices article Tragic Flaw.

If X is an objective IS (about oneself), and your method reliably leads to X (whether we accept X is a different question), then X is the reliable result.

Erm, any method "properly followed" will yield the same thing on repeated executions. Not everyone engages in "proper following", hence pseudoscientists. But this doesn't thereby make the scientific method (pretending for a second that there's a single, well-defined method—there isn't) unreliable. Philosophers in the 20th century came to understand just how complicated "proper following" is. It's hard enough to be an excellent scientist, where one can fail to challenge all sorts of falsehoods one believes about oneself. We should respect that "facing truths about ourselves" will be much harder to do properly, than discovering the mass of the electron.

All words have connotation! All words can be interpreted in MANY ways. Words are subjetive tools!

If what you said were true and relevant, it would be impossible for scientists to operationalize terms. The slop in words can be frustrating, but without it we would be locked into one way of looking at reality.

GHF: I am supposing that we need objective evidence (science) to show what is in our subconscious. Otherwise it is simply a story we are telling ourselves. Or a story someone is telling us (which could lead to great or terrible things).

LB: Science won't tell us about normative forces, so you'd have to widen the term 'objective evidence' in order to do what you say. Otherwise all you get is value-free knowledge and that simply is not enough when it comes to facing yourself. Aside from that, I agree with what you say. We humans love to flatter ourselves while the consequences of our actions generally tell a more accurate story. Empirical evidence is a very important aspect of facing ourselves.

GHF: Neither will "facing ourselves" tell us about "normative forces", since there isn't sufficient reason to believe that what is normative is individual, universal, or absolute.

I have no patience for such know-nothingism. If you want to render normative forces permanently obscure, I will not join you. Yes, one necessarily must enter the realm of hermeneutical ambiguity, between "tightwad" and "thirfty". The difference between those two lies at the level of normative force—what is driving you to act in a frugal way? In our age of suspicion, we allow far too much rewriting of others' stated intentions; accept that there's no middle ground and I can understand a know-nothingism about discerning normative force. But such know-nothingism is a recipe for civilizational collapse.

LB: 'facing yourself' ≠ 'self help advice'

GHF: The analogy still applies. Substitute "X benefit" for "self help". Regardless of what you the benefit is, the benefit is not objective, nor does your method reliably lead to anything (even when that advice is followed).

You are once again transgressing is ⇏ ought: facing yourself takes place in the domain of is. What you do with that knowledge is up to you, just like science leads us to nuclear power and nuclear bombs, while not telling us which to do.

In other words: even if the Bible helps us face ourselves, the result isn't automagically guaranteed to change us.

If the Bible is simply a mirror, then someone will reach the opposite conclusion of yours on wealth, and use the same Bible (perhaps different verses) as their justification. They would claim you are not facing yourself and willing to change.

GHF: I recommend appealing to their emotions. Its more effective than appealing to facts.

LB: You have hereby insulted them and me—unless you apply the same tactics to yourself and those you highly respect?

I do apply it universally (though not in every single instance). Appealing to emotions rather than facts to persuade someone is shown to be more effective. Especially when the "facts" are debatable.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Assuming you are not an expert on astrology, why try to work out concepts there, instead of where at least one of us is an expert?

I know quite a bit about astrology, actually. But the reason I used it as a counter-example is not because of my expertise, but because its claims are similar to your own, but the practice provides a contradictory conclusion.

LB: ...they may match the phenomena, while (IMO) getting the causation quite wrong.

LB: You ignored that in your response.

Actually, I hoped to come back to that point! You infer causation by reading the Bible and certain benefits (facing ourselves), just like an astrologist infers causation.

What is there to explain about "facing truths about ourselves" being a synchronizing of subjectivity and objectivity?

Explain what that means. There are many ways to explain an idea. Perhaps discuss it further. Perhaps use examples of when it applies or when it doesn't apply.

GHF: You claimed that "facing ourselves" (admitting what is true about our self) is in the IS domain. If something IS, then that "truth about our self" (X) cannot be two mutually exclusive truths. Therefore, X would be objective.

LB: But how does this connect to "reliable results"?

If X is an objective IS (about oneself), and your method reliably leads to X (whether we accept X is a different question), then X is the reliable result. (Of course I argue X is neither objective, nor is does your method reliably lead to X, but those are separate arguments).

GHF: That's part of the problem with the idea that a particular objective method (facing our self) leads to truth (about oneself)!!!

LB: Nope, you can just not use words with connotation (or intentionally omit the connotation) when facing yourself.

All words have connotation! All words can be interpreted in MANY ways. Words are subjetive tools!

If I claim that X is objectively true about you, and you will only realize it if you read the Book of Mormon, then even if you believe X is true, you could understand it in a different way than I meant it. Words are an imperfect way of conferring ideas.

Science won't tell us about normative forces...

Neither will "facing ourselves" tell us about "normative forces", since there isn't sufficient reason to believe that what is normative is individual, universal, or absolute.

You're confusing complexity and the need for judgment/​discernment, with subjectivity.

And you are confusing something that is subjective, with something that is simply complex.

'facing yourself' ≠ 'self help advice'

The analogy still applies. Substitute "X benefit" for "self help". Regardless of what you the benefit is, the benefit is not objective, nor does your method reliably lead to anything (even when that advice is followed).