Comments on: So much to read, so much to do, and not enough time… http://philliphigley.com/2009/05/12/so-much-to-read-so-much-to-do-and-not-enough-time/ Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:04:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Geoff http://philliphigley.com/2009/05/12/so-much-to-read-so-much-to-do-and-not-enough-time/comment-page-1/#comment-665 Geoff Fri, 15 May 2009 17:21:03 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1211#comment-665 True, he shouldn't be pigeon-holed... I do like to generalize! :-) But, in any case, I am really curious to read that book... I like Plantinga a lot, and my guess is he's saying something quite nuanced, I just didn't know what his presuppositions were here. Unfortunately, I have to read quite a few other books before I can get to WCB! As for Stiver's class, there's a chance I may be TA'ing that! We'll see... I think it's actually the same as what we took. Have a good weekend! True, he shouldn’t be pigeon-holed… I do like to generalize! :-) But, in any case, I am really curious to read that book… I like Plantinga a lot, and my guess is he’s saying something quite nuanced, I just didn’t know what his presuppositions were here. Unfortunately, I have to read quite a few other books before I can get to WCB! As for Stiver’s class, there’s a chance I may be TA’ing that! We’ll see… I think it’s actually the same as what we took.

Have a good weekend!

]]> By: phil http://philliphigley.com/2009/05/12/so-much-to-read-so-much-to-do-and-not-enough-time/comment-page-1/#comment-664 phil Thu, 14 May 2009 14:53:01 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1211#comment-664 Ummm, you're probably going to have to give Plantinga the benefit of the doubt on this one, Geoff. I'm still reading his points so it would likely take me longer to respond to your question relative to my ability to flush it out in a short blog post. However, that said, I'm going to keep your point in mind in my further readings. I think, though, what Plantinga's saying in what I've quoted is that the Kant monkeys have presuppositionally excluded "God talk" by the very syllogistic nature of their arguments. And they've given no justification for doing so. That's his point. Regarding Plantinga, keep in mind (as you know) that he's one of the most respected epistemologists in recent history--and that includes religious epistemology as well as general philosophical epistemology. On your jest of Plantinga being an analytic philosopher, he is typically regarded as one. However, I think this designation might be too easy of a classification for such a complex thinker. Plantinga has made inroads into virtually all camps of philosophy. Remember Stiver's lecture that included Plantinga? hehe. BTW: will you be auditing Stiver's other philosophical theology class. That might be fun. Ummm, you’re probably going to have to give Plantinga the benefit of the doubt on this one, Geoff. I’m still reading his points so it would likely take me longer to respond to your question relative to my ability to flush it out in a short blog post. However, that said, I’m going to keep your point in mind in my further readings. I think, though, what Plantinga’s saying in what I’ve quoted is that the Kant monkeys have presuppositionally excluded “God talk” by the very syllogistic nature of their arguments. And they’ve given no justification for doing so. That’s his point.

Regarding Plantinga, keep in mind (as you know) that he’s one of the most respected epistemologists in recent history–and that includes religious epistemology as well as general philosophical epistemology.

On your jest of Plantinga being an analytic philosopher, he is typically regarded as one. However, I think this designation might be too easy of a classification for such a complex thinker. Plantinga has made inroads into virtually all camps of philosophy. Remember Stiver’s lecture that included Plantinga? hehe.

BTW: will you be auditing Stiver’s other philosophical theology class. That might be fun.

]]> By: Geoff http://philliphigley.com/2009/05/12/so-much-to-read-so-much-to-do-and-not-enough-time/comment-page-1/#comment-597 Geoff Tue, 12 May 2009 18:47:41 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1211#comment-597 whoops... the question should say: "DOES thinking have to assume developing a coherent philosophical concept...?" whoops… the question should say: “DOES thinking have to assume developing a coherent philosophical concept…?”

]]> By: Geoff http://philliphigley.com/2009/05/12/so-much-to-read-so-much-to-do-and-not-enough-time/comment-page-1/#comment-596 Geoff Tue, 12 May 2009 18:46:07 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1211#comment-596 This sounds interesting... I wonder if Plantinga is making a mistake though, setting up belief as subject to thought. Maybe he defines his terms in the book (which I haven't read) but is it really necessary to assume that we can't believe until we think about something? And even if that were true (which I'm willing to concede), doesn't thinking have to assume developing a coherent philosophical concept about something? Is that what P is trying to say? That seems a bit presumptuous -- but, of course, Plantinga is an analytic philosopher! ;-) This sounds interesting… I wonder if Plantinga is making a mistake though, setting up belief as subject to thought. Maybe he defines his terms in the book (which I haven’t read) but is it really necessary to assume that we can’t believe until we think about something? And even if that were true (which I’m willing to concede), doesn’t thinking have to assume developing a coherent philosophical concept about something? Is that what P is trying to say? That seems a bit presumptuous — but, of course, Plantinga is an analytic philosopher! ;-)

]]>