Hamblin and Peterson: Might as well be a couple of rocks.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

delete

[Guest]

I’ve seen these two whine on Facebook about how they only have 800 or so words and that they can’t publish some detailed account of someone’s philosophy or belief. Such whining is baseless, because that isn’t being asked of them. Is it so hard to express something interesting about Aristotle’s God in 800 words? Not really.

If one understands something well, one can state it succinctly. Verbosity is a product of ignorance.

What?

If you really knew what you were saying you could edit that down.

[_Kishkumen]

Can I just state for the record that I really can't believe how stupid this Peterson war has become?

It is insane. Of course, Peterson himself is extremely odd.

Appeals to emails from your friends giving you high fives hardly settles things. Especially when they behave childishly.

I see room for different perspectives on the issue, but I don't particularly care for newspaper essays on philosophy pitched at a general readership either.

Having said that, it is probably not worth getting upset over this newspaper article in which two religious apologists waste their breath explaining to Christians why they find their own God more appealing than Aristotle's.

It is bound to come off like a straw man argument, and it certainly does in this case.

Next week I hope they waste their good time explaining why Satan is scarier than Lord Xenu.

[_Kishkumen]

So, Stak, I don't know what to make of Graham's brief, incomplete, and insult-laden response to you. It seems like it did it's job of giving old Petey a flag to wave, but I for one am left unsatisfied.

What say you?

[_Res Ipsa]

I think the good doctor needs an intervention.

[_MrStakhanovite]

So, Stak, I don't know what to make of Graham's brief, incomplete, and insult-laden response to you.

We lack too many important contexts to fully appreciate the response I think. I’d have to see what exactly Dan said in his e-mail to Graham and the entire e-mail from Graham before I’d feel comfortable making an assessment.

On the whole, I didn’t think it was insulting. I also don’t think it even comes close to touching on the issue whether Aristotelian philosophy in incongruent to Classical Theism or if it is a responsible assessment to say that praying to Aristotle’s God is like “praying to a rock”.

So I published the criticisms on my blog and took them for what they were worth. I don’t exactly try to hide my personal disdain for Dan, so I’m pretty comfortable just dealing with what comes my way from those quarters. Since I pretty much call Dan’s character and abilities as a scholar into question quite openly, I consider this pretty mild.

On reflection, Dan doesn’t have many avenues here. I make my name and where I go to school readily available, my entire immediate family can be found on my public face book page and they are pretty aware (as are my Professors) about what I do online. There is simply nothing him or one of his creatures like Pahoran can do to bully me. They can’t “out” me to unsuspecting family members or Bishops.

Dan also can’t appeal to a book or an article, because I’m going to find it and read it, which means if he takes anything out of context, he is just opening up another can of worms.

So this is one avenue that isn’t likely to blow up in his face.

[_MrStakhanovite]

...and none of his cheerleaders are going to show up here on in my inbox.

[_Darth J]

I, for one, am not impressed by Patrick Mumford's prattle. An anonymous appeal to authority is more than adequate to refute Patrick Milford's claims. Granted, some people think that if you are bothering to publicly respond to whatever Patrick Mildred has to say, what you would do is actually respond to what he said and show why you were correct and his criticism is misplaced. Otherwise, it might give the impression that you're just going "Nuh-uh!" without being able to respond to Patrick Mordred's statements.

[_Sethbag]

Dan, I showed your response to my next-door neighbor, and he wasn't impressed. I consider the matter decided.

Moreover, Patrick Milfhead is a god. He even told me so. My neighbor agreed.

[_DrW]

Kishkumen,

Carl Griffin wrote this:

(3) We currently have (by my count) 27 books in our editorial pipeline. These are all titles that have been accepted for publication, and more proposed titles are pouring in. Two more manuscripts have come under review just this past week. I have a full page, front and back, of proposed titles that came out of a single lunch meeting with a group of scholars last week. However, our publishing resources are modest and we have a number of priorities to balance. In addition to our journals, newsletter and website, we have launched an initiative to republish our entire back catalog, both books and periodicals, in modern digital formats. This is requiring a heavy editorial investment. Even so, I expect we will publish at least 6-7 new books this year, though we only announce specifics on our titles at the time of publication.

Had his statement read something like the one below, which is shorter and conveys the same information, I would not have commented.

(3) We currently have (by my count) 27 books in our editorial pipeline and there appears to be no shortage of proposed new titles from qualified authors. However, our publishing resources are modest and we have a number of priorities to balance. In addition to our journals, newsletter and website, we have launched an initiative to republish our entire back catalog, both books and periodicals, in modern digital formats. This will require a heavy editorial investment. Even so, I expect we will publish at least 6-7 new books this year.