Tuesday, December 2, 2025

It's an open thread!

We’re due for an open thread.  Now is your chance to bring up matters that would otherwise be off-topic.  For example, sometimes readers want to respond to something I said on Twitter/X (and write up such a comment under a post here – where it doesn’t get past moderation if it’s not on topic).  But feel free to bring up whatever you like.  From Cantor’s continuum problem to Canter’s Deli, from Gertrude Stein to grapefruit wine, from Jack Kirby to Kier Kirby, everything is fair game for discussion.  Just keep it civil and classy, as always.  Previous open threads archived here.

Posted by at

118 comments:

  1. AnonymousDecember 2, 2025 at 7:31 PM

    Hi Dr.Feser!

    I'm not sure if you're aware of Christian Wagner. Recently he had one of his friends, Hasan on his channel, and they went over the Pope Francis death penalty controversy in detail. Their thesis is basically this:

    While the magisterial documents during Francis's pontificate (and even before that) contain many seriously problematic wording

    and erroneous empirical judgments that can be discarded after careful consideration, (Eg. what the actual state of the detention systems is in the world today) they also exhibit a legitimate doctrinal development (not just during Francis, but even during JP2) regarding the death penalty:

    Due to the relationship between the Law of the Gospel and Natural Law- with the former being a higher standard, that should be followed when possible - something can be BOTH "per se contrary to the Gospel" and NOT be intrinsically evil.

    Under Natural Law, the state has a legitimate right to use the death penalty in certain cases to serve justice and protect its citizens. The historical teaching of the Church defends this principle against heretics who claimed that the DP couldn't be done without mortal sin (eg. Innocent III ).

    The Law of the Gospel is a law that we as Christians, and Christian nations, are called to follow, that goes over the minimal requirement of NL, it calls for perfection.

    Under this law, we are called to prioritize mercy over strict justice.

    The newer teachings are focused on the latter principle (which is already present in older, historical documents, as they show).

    (They also try to apply it to contingent circumstances that they judge in a bad a way, but this part, while problematic, is not in itself part of the direct moral teaching.)

    The full explanation is in the second stream that I linked. It's very long, but he goes over basically every relevant, important document regarding the issue, and I believe his explanation to be sufficient. Of course this quick summary of mine is insufficient and doesn't deal with the possible objections.

    In the video of the first link, Wagner explains the basics of this in around 8 minutes. They also critique your stance on the question, around the 10-20 minute mark, suggesting that your reading of the documents glossed over many important details. (and they go over additional objections as well).

    I think it would be beneficial if you listened to this (the second link).

    I know it's long, but you engage with this topic relatively often, and your treatment of it is very influential on the Catholic blogosphere, and I'm quite sure that they offer some new thoughts about the issue that you missed.

    Best regards,

    A reader of yours

    ############

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVVPPDaFrw

    Quick explanation at the beginning, clarifications and objections later

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDpIqVVC1Gw

    Full video/stream that goes over most relevant documents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyDecember 4, 2025 at 8:30 PM

      Due to the relationship between the Law of the Gospel and Natural Law- with the former being a higher standard, that should be followed when possible - something can be BOTH "per se contrary to the Gospel" and NOT be intrinsically evil...
      Under this law, we are called to prioritize mercy over strict justice.

      As to the first: Romans 13:1-4 establishes that the DP is not contrary to the Gospel.

      As to the second: More properly, we are called to promote the good. We are not the masters and overseers of the Whole Plan of creation, so we don't see clearly how this act will result in that good 300 years later, the way God sees such things. We don't know The PLAN in that sense. We do, however, know some parts of The Plan: including that justice is part of The Plan: God tells us that evildoers will be punished and the good will be rewarded. So The Plan entails, in some cases something OTHER than simply God giving full mercy by not punishing (some of) what deserves to be punished - though He Could. St. Thomas says that the order of justice is the order of the universe, and St. Paul shows us that men are ordained by God as authorities in civil society to punish evildoers both for justice and so as to assist more men toward the good.

      While we cannot know all outcomes all the way out to the end of time, we CAN see, here and now, that not EVER punishing evil, but "showing mercy instead of justice", will lead rather to more evil and less good: such a path will not promote the good as a whole.

      Once it is given that it is our proper role to punish some evildoers in justice and not to show them such mercy as letting them off completely, after that it's a prudential judgment call about the particulars as to the best solutions. There's no principle that using the DP some of the time is outside of that prudential realm. If using it sometimes promotes the total good more, it should be used.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 10:11 AM

      Dr. Feser is definitely aware of Wagner. They've had a back and forth on X. Wagner has literally said that Feser doesn't know anything about Thomism.

      Wagner is an intelligent and informative guy, who I've learned a lot from. I don't know if it's social media brain or he's just prone to exaggeration and outbursts, but he says some quite imprudent things at times. He blocked me on X after I critiqued his call for Iran to bomb Tel Aviv (which Iran eventually did, indiscriminately).

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 3:06 AM

      "As to the first: Romans 13:1-4 establishes that the DP is not contrary to the Gospel."
      It does not do so in any way. Romans 13 doesn't even mention the Gospel. What it DOES establish is that the DP is not necessarily contrary to Natural Law and the authorities have a right to exercise it, which is the case and that is aknowledged.
      Please watch the actual video(s) if you want o comment on this, because it seems to me that you missed the whole point.
      "we CAN see, here and now, that not EVER punishing evil, but "showing mercy instead of justice", will lead rather to more evil and less good: such a path will not promote the good as a whole. "
      True. It is not always possible to exercise our higher call to mercy towards a particular individual, let's say. Not ever punishing evil is bad. But no one says otherwise, so?

      "There's no principle that using the DP some of the time is outside of that prudential realm. If using it sometimes promotes the total good more, it should be used."

      The DP _can_ be even against the Natural Law, and there are cases when using it is not just a failure to follow the higher law of the Gospel, but also a sin in and of itself, in a way that is more than a simply erroneous prudential judgment, such as negligible risk to the public good. This was also always Church teaching.
      There is no denying that the DP can be sometimes necessary, and that the government can be justified for applying it "to regress the disorder caused by the offence".
      Evidently it is also the case that we should strive to eliminate all circumstances where the DP can be deemed necessary, because that is what we're called to by the Law of the Gospel.
      This principle was expressed multiple times over Church history, by Pope Saint Nicholas the Great and Augustine for example, and it gained a more in-depth presentation during JPII.
      But again, there is no point in arguing about this without all the documents that are put together in the stream. It can be watched sped up 1.5x :)








      Delete
    4. TonyDecember 6, 2025 at 9:35 PM

      "As to the first: Romans 13:1-4 establishes that the DP is not contrary to the Gospel."

      It does not do so in any way. Romans 13 doesn't even mention the Gospel.

      ! Shock! It doesn't? Is it possible that it's between the lines?

      I decided to give the video's a try, listen to their position from the horse's mouth. From the top video @ 8:57, Hasan says: "A violation of human dignity is itself not always impermissible."

      !!!

      You have to give us something that makes it seem worthwhile to take this huge amount of time, 'cause at the outset it looks just awful. For example, this "not always impermissible" take on "violations of human dignity" makes COMPLETE HASH of defending Francis's change to #2267:

      "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”. It is impermissible PRECISELY BECAUSE it is such a violation. Francis's thesis would be reduced to "it's impermissible because a violation, even though sometimes such violations are permissible."

      I'm glad that Wagner converted to Catholicism, and glad that he studies scholastics, but he's just a few years into it. He might consider his newness to be grounds for some greater caution as to pontificating how to put this all together. There's tradition about converts being, well, humble and hesitant about spouting off.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 11:44 AM

      "! Shock! It doesn't? Is it possible that it's between the lines?"
      Oh yeah, and amazingly you're the one who uncovers that.


      "makes COMPLETE HASH of defending Francis's change to #2267"
      Yeah, as I said if you're not even gonna bother watching no point in arguing. This is very clearly explained in the videos and someone who watched them would never bring this up .
      The whole point is that what Francis is adressing relates to the Law of the Gospel, NOT the Natural Law, and under the former all violations of human dignity are bad, only some are sometimes necessary.
      Also DP has an _obvious_ finality to it.
      And again this teaching about the disctinction between the two laws and about the primacy of mercy has existed in the Church from very early times relating to the DP, that they clearly show from documents.

      " He might consider his newness to be grounds for some greater caution as to pontificating how to put this all together. There's tradition about converts being, well, humble and hesitant about spouting off. "
      I'm glad you are so quick to apply that judgment to others. Especially in judging what a video says that you have not even watched.
      Maybe try applying similar judgment to yourself, before you start "spouting off"?
      Sorry for the language here, but you haven't shown an actual willingness to engage with an of this, at least at the moment. Remember,
      "do not bear false witness!".
      (And you were watching the wrong video)

      Delete
    6. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 8:40 PM

      And also, misjudgment of contingent circumstances is a separate thing from the core teaching, however scandalous and wrong the former is.

      Delete
  2. MichaelDecember 2, 2025 at 7:49 PM

    Have any Thomists, so far, given an assessment of William Lane Craig's analysis of Divine Simplicity from his Systematic Philosophical Theology Volume IIA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 2, 2025 at 8:43 PM

      I am looking forward to the April 2026 publication of Craig's next volume in his Systematic Philosophical Theology, where his discusses arguments for the existence of God:
      https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Philosophical-Theology-William-Craig/dp/139430904X/ref=pd_bxgy_thbs_d_sccl_2/137-0562075-6543229?pd_rd_w=CnaNi&content-id=amzn1.sym.dcf559c6-d374-405e-a13e-133e852d81e1&pf_rd_p=dcf559c6-d374-405e-a13e-133e852d81e1&pf_rd_r=ME020A29WZ74VCXKQ9VZ&pd_rd_wg=HK1jb&pd_rd_r=4dd729d9-7c0b-4e2e-b370-f16b77765ebb&pd_rd_i=139430904X&psc=1

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 4, 2025 at 1:23 PM

      I don't think he will give novel arguments beyond those he already gave earlier: 1) Platinga's God=a property confusion, 2) supposedly deep agnosticism, makes of God something like Brahman or the Absolute, not the supossedly changing God of Scripture, 3) alleged modal collapse due to absolute necessity and pure actuality [Craig does not account for the fact most proponets have an extrinsic-contimgent-knowledge model], 4) really distinct aspects do the job, not quite removable parts, but nonetheless relations (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) each not the whole, but not really multiple ousias, supposedly unnecessary Thomistic absolute identity.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 4, 2025 at 8:23 PM

      The table of contents of Craig's forthcoming book can be read on that link. As to exactly what he will say, we will have to wait.

      Delete
    4. BillDecember 10, 2025 at 9:13 AM

      I haven't read the work you're referring to, but I've listened to his critiques online. He objects that DDS both unscriptural and that it entails modal collapse. Neither critique is persuasive, in my view.

      Delete
  3. SinawiDecember 2, 2025 at 8:37 PM

    Dr. Feser, thoughts on Avicenna at Sunday Mass with Aquinas (here: https://open.substack.com/pub/mashshai/p/sunday-mass-with-aquinas?r=4on5dv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousDecember 3, 2025 at 12:01 AM

    Mr. Edward, warm greetings.
    Could you guide me to works that address issues of aesthetics and art using the same rational method you follow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 4, 2025 at 2:16 PM

      You might try and have a look at Maritain's "Art and Scholasticism".
      T. A.

      Delete
    2. MichaelDecember 5, 2025 at 7:28 PM

      You might also want to look into these books by Etienne Gilson - "Arts of the Beautiful", and "Forms and Substances in the Arts".

      Alice Ramos's books might be worth reading as well. She's written 3 books on aesthetics:
      - Beauty and the Good: Recovering the Classical Tradition from Plato to Duns Scotus
      - Beauty, Art, and the Polis
      - Dynamic Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty from a Thomistic Perspective

      I don't know what the writing style is for these books, but judging from the content these seem to be worth reading.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousDecember 3, 2025 at 3:15 AM

    What do people believe are the most important work in Philosophy of Religion published in the last five years? At a cursory glance it appears most of the major figures have been rather quiet.

    (Though Leftow has published a massive tome on modality and Anselm, which judging by weight and price is printed on solid gold).

    ReplyDelete
  6. NLRDecember 3, 2025 at 5:30 AM

    On the topic of physicalism:

    The idea of physicalism is that physics gives us the big picture overview of reality. The concepts used in physics are the basic concepts to understand the world. But physics does not attribute mental properties to elementary particles. They have mass, velocity, charge, etc., but no mental properties at all. So, no combination of particles, however complex, can lead to mental properties.

    A physicalist who is not an eliminativist has to add in extra things in some way. One way is to suppose that particles already have mental properties which aren't acknowledged by our models. But then the idea that physical models give us the baseline concepts of the universe is not correct. They are missing something significant.

    Alternatively, a physicalist could assume that some later physics will be able to incorporate mental properties into our model of the universe. But it would still be the case that our current physical models do not capture the basis of reality.

    The point is that physicalists who try to account for mind end up sacrificing one of the key points in favor of physicalism: that our current physical models do not just model parts of the universe, but capture it at a fundamental level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intentionality AnonDecember 3, 2025 at 10:54 AM

      While I am also not a physicalist, you do have to be a bit careful about properties. There are properties that elementary particles don't have, but combinations of particles do - and this can be explained in wholly physical terms. Examples are solidity and liquidity. So you have to emphasize why mental properties are different.

      I would say that is because properties such as solidity and liquidity are ultimately defined in terms of exhibiting certain reactions to forces, and when defined this way, this can intelligibly be explained in terms of forces between elementary particles. However, mental properties cannot be defined this way. People have tried to define them in terms of behaviors, dispositions, causal relations, etc., but those don't actually capture the nature of mental states (try some indeterminacy arguments, for instance).

      A (non-eliminativist) physicalist could argue that maybe there is such a reduction, but humans are cognitively incapable of accepting it. But assuming that you're talking to humans, that's plain mystery-mongering. It's not actually an explanation at all, at least not a reductionist one (well, there have been some attempts to explain why such a cognitive bias would happen, but I don't think they work. And there's the issue that if they did, there's the risk of global skepticism about any of our beliefs whatsoever).

      There are a few physicalists who will actually admit that their belief in physicalism is based on faith. A lot of them, however, will bring up the "progress of science" inductive argument. Here's where what you said can really come in - throughout history, progress in science has included conceptual revolutions and successful theories radically unlike what came before. So how do we know that such a revolution isn't necessary to explain the mind? Unfortunately, I doubt we'll be able to convince hardcore physicalists, especially the sort who, in their "rationality," have already decided that any anti-physicalist argument must be wrong, and therefore refuse to listen to them. But now I can discuss this, at least.

      Delete
    2. TonyDecember 3, 2025 at 8:53 PM

      But assuming that you're talking to humans, that's plain mystery-mongering.

      Very well said!

      Thank you for your appropriately skeptical caution on accepting such proposals.

      Delete
    3. NLRDecember 5, 2025 at 12:33 PM

      "A (non-eliminativist) physicalist could argue that maybe there is such a reduction, but humans are cognitively incapable of accepting it. ... [but this is] not actually an explanation at all"

      Exactly. From all appearances, some sort of physics that encorporates mind would have to be radically different from what we know of as physics.

      Intentionality Anon, you make a good point with your statement about solidity and liquidity being properties of aggregates of particles that are not properties of single particles. And this touches on something important, what is the privileged level of reality or is there one at all?

      For instance, our initial interaction with solids and liquids is due to their macroscopic properties, which can then be modelled by interactions of particles. But from what I have read, even water cannot really be reduced to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen.

      Which is why chemistry is its own science and why chemical concepts are not just convenient approximations of concepts in particle physics. We can abstract particular behavior and model it on its own, but even though many reductionist physicalists will contend that a sufficiently complex physics model will contain all of chemistry that has not happened yet.

      In fact, the most real level of reality is our day to day experience. That is where physicists live too, even though some of them might try to claim otherwise. Everything in physics started there and then branched outward and even particle accelerator results are verified by what the researchers see at the macroscopic level.

      And since mind exists there, why not believe that it is as real as everything else in that world?

      Delete
  7. Raffaele AquiloneDecember 3, 2025 at 5:49 AM

    Hi Dr Feser, hi all.

    Materialism has received a lot of treatment both in the blog and in Feser's books, but the other day I was wondering about the looser notion of "supervenience physicalism". How does that relate to A-T metaphysics? Would you say that it is somehow compatible with a neo-Aristotelian account of the world, or not?

    I've added "Immortal Souls" to my collection and I'm still in the first part of the book, but so far the exposition and the linearity of the main argomentation (the self, the intellect, the will, etc...) has been awesome and very enjoyable to read. I suspect that "intentionality" may be the kind of feature that clashes not just against materialism, but even against the looser notion of "supervenience physicalism"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intentionality AnonDecember 3, 2025 at 11:33 AM

      I believe Dr. Feser has specifically said that A-T is incompatible with supervenience physicalism, such as in his "The illusion of plausibility" post - though I'm not exactly sure whether I have the same definition of "supervenience" in mind as he did. The definition of "supervenience" I'm thinking about is that there can't be a difference in X without a difference in Y. For instance, if the mental supervenes on the physical, there can't be a mental difference without a physical difference.

      Now, I believe Thomism is committed to the existence of non-physical thinkers (such as God and angels), and then supervenience would obviously be false. I'm not sure whether Aristotelianism by itself is committed to this, though. Aristotelianism does say that while the human intellect is immaterial, it requires material processes to actually function (under ordinary circumstances). Nevertheless, I think it might allow that the same material processes could support different mental processes (for instance, Dr. Feser has been discussing indeterminacy arguments that make this sort of point), which would still violate supervenience.

      I wouldn't call myself an A-T believer (though I am intellectually interested in the view), but I'm also not a physicalist. I think mental-physical supervenience is compatible with non-physicalist views, as long as the supervenience is due to psychophysical laws that could have been different (for instance, David Chalmers has this sort of view). I believe physicalism requires a stronger sort of supervenience, such as an actual identity between mental and physical properties, or some other metaphysically or logically necessary connection.

      And yes, I think A-T believers argue that intentionality is incompatible with physicalism of any sort, because physicalism is committed to a mechanistic view of the physical world in which there is no intrinsic teleology (and A-T rejects the idea that intentionality is reducible to the non-intentional). Here's an article that I linked to in the last open thread that makes a case - from a non A-T perspective - that physicalism and intentionality are incompatible: https://www.newdualism.org/papers-Jul2020/Johns-ActaAnalytica2020_WhyPhysicalismSeemsToBeAndIsIn.pdf
      And here's another new article I found that makes a different, non A-T case that if you accept certain plausible axioms, thoughts cannot be wholly grounded in non-thoughts: https://andrewmbailey.com/HowToBuild.pdf

      Delete
    2. Raffaele AquiloneDecember 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM

      Thanks a lot Intentionality Anon! I'll read the blog post from 2009 as well as your articles, and I'll meditate on them.

      Delete
  8. NormDecember 3, 2025 at 9:47 AM

    I thought I'll repost what I had posted earlier in regards to some post liberal tensions I see:

    I don't know how to put this, but please don't interpret it as me being combative, I write with all charity.

    I do think that there has to be some reckoning on the post liberal side as to what exactly is the position that ya'll take on certain issues, a dialogue between post liberals who tend to see things differently.

    Like for example, Dr Chad Pecknold's feed is always filled with apologetics or approval for Trumpian policies. Sohrab Ahmari tends to sway too much to the left, especially on issues like abortion, he seems to be a proponent of the view that we have to fix all material conditions before voicing opposition to abortion and hence we have to compromise. I have pointed it out before.

    https://x.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1810123836207055233?t=cKaagGw3mHglHg2JoXwDgQ&s=1

    You valiantly opposed JD on this , but don't you think public intellectuals like Sohrab need to be corrected on it as well ? After all they are shaping the public consciousness.

    You, my dear Professor, have always been consistent on all these issues but I just don't see how post liberalism can encompass all this. Surely the position that abortion is a more fundamental issue and shouldn't be tied to economics ought to be a standard position, yet you seem to be accomodating to Sohrab. Wouldn't some fraternal correction be in order. The same for Dr Pecknold and Trumpism. With all due respect for the merits of these men.

    I still think some gentle and public correction is in order.

    You are a really respected voice Prof, so they don't target you, it would be really detrimental for them. But Dr CC Pecknold tends to target anyone who opposes Trump and who isn't you. Like today, he retweeted Matt Walsh on the Bishop's immigration video, in that video despite the fact the first thing the Bishop's brought up was the pastoral care of prisoners especially in regards to the sacraments which is definitely in line with Catholic teaching and preventing it is against catholic teaching. Even apart from the broader metaphysical political argument, it's a basic work of mercy to, care for the prisoner.
    Even many of who you would consider "Right-Liberals" would argue for the access to those sacraments, even if not on the grounds of the primacy of the supernatural (since most would cite religious freedom).

    As you probably know by now, I do take issue with one position of Catholic integralism, that is it's advocacy of putting limits and restrictions on other religions to spread their faith, simply because I think that Catholics ought to be allowed to spread their faith in other countries. And I think it's a much more complicated then saying, "We can because it's the Truth but they can't". I have had fruitful dialogues with Tony at this blog about it.

    Nevertheless, I still find your writings on post liberalism really insightful and look forward to them.

    I don't know if you'll give my thoughts the time of the day but I do hope in some way, that you do address these tensions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Father Jeffrey LanganDecember 3, 2025 at 2:20 PM

    Had a discussion recently with some young men influenced by “evolutionary white Christian nationalism.” I’m poking through Immortal Souls trying to find a good chapter to discuss with them, one that might acknowledge a philosophical position on their side so as to better explain the reality. My take away from our discussion: they rely on thinkers who would argue that whiteness is somehow an aspect of the body that is deeply connected to the substantial form. How to meet them where they are? Again, I’m poking through Immortal Souls as a starting point, but would you have any suggestions on how to start/meet them where they are?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 4, 2025 at 9:22 AM

      Prof wrote a book on Racism , All one in Christ, although I am not sure if he delves into the metaphysical aspects.

      But I think a basic scholastic position would be to say that things like having this or that skin color, are not essential to being a human being, being an animal with intellect and will (a rational animal) is what defines a human being and thus is owed all the rights that flow from being a human being as per classical natural law, which states that by, studying human nature we can derive those principles by which humans ought to conduct themselves with respect to God and other human beings.

      Delete
    2. TonyDecember 4, 2025 at 5:30 PM

      My take away from our discussion: they rely on thinkers who would argue that whiteness is somehow an aspect of the body that is deeply connected to the substantial form. How to meet them where they are?

      Well, it's true that some people are just too stuck on their irrational beliefs to entertain alternate ideas. But assuming these are not, and might be convinced to consider opposing ideas:

      It may be not perfectly clear exactly what "the peoples" looked like in 1,800 BC or in 100 AD, (though we do have some information captured in sculpture etc), but it is at least arguable that Jesus was not Caucasian, since he was a Hebrew of the Middle East. Similarly, Abraham was apparently a Mesopotamian, and would also not be classed as Caucasian. And likewise, (if you want to take Genesis 1 and 2 with some literalness), Adam and Eve were located in the Middle East and apparently became the progenitors of those peoples, so "original" humanity was probably more like current day Middle Easterners than like Caucasians.

      From St. Paul ("there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"), it appears that to be male or female has the same (non)-impact on whether you are "human" as do being Jewish or Greek, i.e. none: St. Paul's main thesis is that all are equally called to be adopted sons of God. But the underlying premise of his point is that neither national, cultural, nor free status, change your status as human. All humans are called by Christ, so all humans are alike in species: all are descended from Adam and Eve, all are born in sin, all need redemption, and all are called to salvation through Christ. Being white or brown or black or yellow-skinned is not determinative of these facts.

      "Substantial form" is the form that determines our nature, and our species, which is "human". The distinguishing characteristic of humans is their rational nature. Whiteness or other color (or associated traits) can vary within the "human" species because color does not determine a feature that separates man's rationality into different fundamental groups: color isn't of such a nature as to modify "rational" in any sense.

      Arguably, these young men are (over) reacting to the (overly) exaggerated rejection of culture in modern liberalism as being a reasonable basis for peoples to remain separate peoples. Since culture is (admittedly) not a substantial difference, it CAN vary; but that does not mean culture has no impact on distinct peoples. A better approach is to distinguish between minor differences between peoples which they can readily modify by choice more or less at will, and more deep-seated cultural differences which tie into thousands of customs and can be changed only with great difficulty - and (often) should not be changed except at great need from terrible and vast evils.

      Delete
    3. NLRDecember 5, 2025 at 6:02 AM

      "It may be not perfectly clear exactly what "the peoples" looked like in 1,800 BC or in 100 AD"

      Tony, I know this isn't your main point, but look up the Fayum mummy portraits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits). Of course these are painted in a particular style, but nonetheless they were intended to look like the people depicted. And they show that people from the Mediterranean centuries ago looked pretty much the same as they do now.

      So it is not a stretch to imagine that people from everywhere else looked pretty much the same, while recognizing that large population migrations or mixings would modify that.

      Delete
    4. TonyDecember 5, 2025 at 12:00 PM

      Thanks, yes, that's the sort of evidence I was thinking of. We don't have photographs from then, but we do have art that helps out.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 11:17 AM

      There seems to be an orthodoxy that many people want to be true, that there are no significant genetic differences across racial or ethnic categories. That may not turn out to be the case, perhaps human biodiversity theories will turn out to be true. I think people like Joseph Henrich have made strong arguments showing how social environments can bring about different genes linked to traits like rising IQ. Not every culture is equal, and some cultures produce better outcomes than others. I wouldn’t bet the farm on human biodiversity being false.
      I don’t believe any such finding would justify racism, though. There is no hierarchy among human rational souls. A genius does not have a different soul from someone with less intellectual ability. The soul is the substantial form of the body. Every human being is a rational animal and has a rational soul. Every human soul has the same essential powers because every human soul is the same kind of thing. Differences in IQ, character, or ability do not imply different kinds or levels of souls. They reflect acquired habits, the condition of the body, or environmental influences. The essence remains equal.

      Delete
  10. CaptainCHDecember 3, 2025 at 6:54 PM

    I know it’s been quite a while since you’ve wrote on CS Lewis’s distinction between ‘Eros’ and ‘Venus’ in regards to sexuality/romance, but I have a question concerning a point you make towards the end of the article which is your characterization of the erotic as representing a natural (and uniquely human) orientation that is then replaced by the supernatural communion with God possessed by the blessed in Heaven. If this is true, then what exactly would the situation be for those who are placed in the Limbo of the Infants, which is (supposedly) a place of perfect natural happiness?

    This is the article in question: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/metaphysics-of-romantic-love.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM

      There is debate among Catholic theologians if Limbo really exists.

      Delete
    2. TonyDecember 4, 2025 at 7:47 PM

      There is debate among Catholic theologians if Limbo really exists.

      True. It is widely debated.

      I find much of that debate runs quite poorly. Some people misrepresent the status of the debate, claiming that the Church has rejected the idea, where (at least as I understand it) the Church hasn't rejected it so much as said that it's legitimate to debate whether it exists: she has not spoken definitively.

      I suspect that to an extent the motivation behind beheading the theory of limbo is that once that has been eradicated, they can go after Purgatory. But the latter is dogma, so they can't.

      One of the premises used to attack limbo is that God "wouldn't" leave a soul forever in a state that is neither heaven or hell. That might be true, but we can't know that from natural reason alone, we would need revelation to tell us, and it is far from clear that we do. Their state in limbo is better off than if they were given a "final choice" and they chose wrongly and went to hell, so why would the latter be a more attractive "solution"?

      And another unpromising basis for attacking limbo is the balthasarian-type of thinking that God's plan is for everyone to be saved and go to heaven. Like with the other: we cannot possibly know this without revelation, and given how many saints, Fathers, Doctors, and popes didn't think this was revealed to us, it seems implausible at best.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousDecember 3, 2025 at 7:44 PM

    Dr. Feser is most likely not going to answer any of your questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 4, 2025 at 7:39 AM

      I have personally come to accept that fact. But I still post on things sometimes because I figure if it becomes interesting enough, maybe it might prompt a post from him about it in the future. And that would be great :). So it's just hope.

      Although it still stings a bit when some obnoxious tweet gets a response especially after taking the time to formulate a thoughtful comment on the blog.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 4, 2025 at 12:57 PM

      I think Ed finds it quicker and easier to fire off a tweet. And it gets seen by a lot of people.

      Delete
    3. NormDecember 4, 2025 at 5:05 PM

      I agree Anon, it's quicker and easier.

      Delete
    4. Edward FeserDecember 4, 2025 at 9:20 PM

      Hi Norm, yes, the fact is that it's just vastly easier to read and respond to a tweet than to a long combox comment. But I'll try to respond to some of the comments here as time permits.

      Delete
    5. NormDecember 4, 2025 at 11:10 PM

      Hi Prof

      That's kind of you. No pressure.

      Appreciate your work and commentary as always.

      Wishing you and your family a blessed Advent.

      Cheers

      Delete
  12. NormDecember 4, 2025 at 7:36 AM

    Sometime back Professor also shared an article of Dr Philip Pilkington that basically seems to make the statement that the USA will have to start making friendly overtures to China on trade in order to gain investment from China.

    I found this particularly fascinating from Prof. I always felt that he would be inclined to make the argument that Americans might have to bear some pain but this would be for a greater cause. And Prof already is against the consumerism of USA so I thought he might be inclined to see it as a medicine against that.

    So that was interesting. Personally I still feel China has to be countered but I wonder what Prof thinks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyDecember 4, 2025 at 7:58 PM

      Political and economic realities might force us to be nice to China. But right now China is having their own problems, and there's plenty of betting they won't get out of them without some major re-alignment, (like possibly ditching communism). In any case, it seems implausible that materialist China's closer investment in the US will help the US become less materialist.

      Based on historical examples, America has become degenerate enough that God is likely to use some kind of massive suffering to turn us away from our evils: plagues and wars are past examples. It is not unlikely that it will take a form in which the natural consequences of our ungodliness themselves come back to bite us - and political / economic suffering can well be one type of that.

      But even if good, thoughtful, godly men agree that something like this is likely, that's not a reason to embrace the political and economic destruction of our society as if it is KNOWN to be the only possible way out of our social evils. Jonah's example in Ninevah shows there's other possible solutions, if God wills it.

      Delete
    2. NormDecember 4, 2025 at 11:06 PM

      Hi Tony

      All the blessings of advent to you.

      Great to hear from you. Hope all is well!

      "What you say makes a lot of sense especially this,

      "But even if good, thoughtful, godly men agree that something like this is likely, that's not a reason to embrace the political and economic destruction of our society as if it is KNOWN to be the only possible way out of our social evils. Jonah's example in Ninevah shows there's other possible solutions, if God wills it."

      We can only pray.

      It stings a bit to make friendly overtures to China when it comes to manufacturing etc.

      But Prof is much smarter and thoughtful then me.

      Delete
  13. Andreas SmithDecember 4, 2025 at 4:52 PM

    It would be nice to see Dr Feser give an account of his working methods as a philosopher, for instance, how he connects his reading, thinking and writing, and in what way he is influenced by extra-philosophical sources such as literature, art and music.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousDecember 4, 2025 at 7:16 PM

    Is an article justifying the killings ( let’s not assume murder) of these people in Caribbean waters forthcoming? Let’s even assume they were drug running - of which there is no proof- and agree it’s a capital crime; further, it doesn’t matter their reasons ( willing, unwilling, poor, rich, etc) and finally, agree that this is indeed a war and they were combatants trafficking deadly weapons. What can I expect from the ‘Just War’ piece defending this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 4:37 AM

      Feser publicly and avowedly supported the Iraq War, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him trot out some vacuous, ghoulish defense of even the most naked American Imperialism.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 4:38 AM

      Maybe I'll be surprised though. I'd like to discover that my opinion of Dr. Feser is too low and that he has more principles than that.

      Delete
    3. GregDecember 5, 2025 at 6:27 AM

      Why do you think he would defend it? He's been posting critically of the killings on X.

      Delete
    4. Edward FeserDecember 5, 2025 at 10:49 AM

      At Twitter/X, I've been critical of what the administration has been doing vis-a-vis Venezuela, and I have criticized other administration policies on matters of war and international relations (e.g. bombing Iran, bellicose rhetoric vis-a-vis Greenland, Canada and Gaza). I've also made it clear that I now think the Iraq war was a mistake. So, Anon doesn't know what he is talking about.

      Anyway, I will likely write something up soon on the Venezuela situation.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 11:33 AM

      Well, I'm glad to hear that I was wrong about that. I'm not on Xitter, so I almost never see it, and I wouldn't go on Catholic Twitter if you paid me a million dollars. Perhaps I've simply been too jaded by die-hard MAGA types who would sooner eat their own tongues than admit that Donald Trump could do wrong.

      That said, I notice that you said Iraq was a "mistake" and not "immoral". That's language that I'd consider very mild indeed given the situation.

      Delete
    6. TonyDecember 5, 2025 at 1:16 PM

      Some points that natural law would say about it:

      1. The US attacks resulted in “extrajudicial killings”. Such killings are typically considered immoral, but there are (at least) 2 categories that are exceptions: (a) warfare; and (b) police action under imminent and grave threat. Ostensibly, Trump claims these were justified by (a).

      2. There are international rules about warfare. However, the treaties are human positve law, and not congruent to natural law. Most of them attempt to enflesh general natural law standards, and after that create limits so as to, in general, reduce the horror of war as practiced by nations. War by agencies who are not nations and not bound by any of the treaties are problematic, and warfare against such agents – at least to the extent of natural law in itself – may not look quite like war “should” look with signatory nation-states. There are still moral limits, but they will come out with different results.

      3. While there is a valid POV in thinking of non-state military actors (like ISIS) as somewhere “in between” ordinary civilians (in a dispute with law enforcement) and armies fighting against each other, there is also a valid sense in which terrorist orgs are on the FAR end of the continuum, i.e. past disputant armies. The armies of nation-states, because they are under orders to a legitimate higher authority, have a different moral status in the fighting than the terrorist: the ordinary private soldier is obeying an authority he is obliged to obey, so any injustice in his country going to war is not HIS OWN sin, it is the civil authority’s moral fault. But this does not hold for the individual terrorist. Similarly, the terrorist fighter’s actions will not be circumscribed by limits that all nations have agreed will bind their soldiers.

      As an example, international law has rules about taking the surrender of enemy soldiers who are in uniform and under orders, and mostly these rules align well with natural law, though not perfectly. But the principles underlying surrender are difficult to apply when engaged in warfare against agents who either don’t even understand surrender as a moral category, or who feel morally free to lie in yelling “I surrender” and use it only as a ruse to inflict more harm (especially if they also believe they will be rewarded in the next life for such action). In earlier times, taking pirates prisoner was made difficult by the fact that pirates could be (under effective law) subject to summary execution: their “I surrender” could be tantamount to “we’ll just hang you now”, and in that context giving a surrender might not be honest, and so accepting a surrender was more dangerous, which (under natural law), justifies a different calculus on accepting it).

      5. There is justice in pointing out that in general, interdicting drug trafficking has been a law enforcement activity, which should run under different rules than warfare. The Trump Administration appears to be pushing a thesis that whatever the status of your neighborhood drug dealer, THESE people are terrorists. I am skeptical of the claim, but I recognize that at least in principle there could be a foundation for lifting the US response out of law enforcement and into military action. If the drug cartel leaders either formally intend the destruction of the US as to its capacity to act against them, or have explicitly aligned themselves in practice with other terrorists who consider the US as a formal enemy, then such conditions would in principle justify re-characterizing them as terrorists. I don't know whether Trump realistically claims such conditions.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 1:43 PM

      That said, I admit that I was wrong in my assumptions.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 1:44 PM

      Apologies for making those assumptions.

      Delete
    9. Mattia LuraschiDecember 6, 2025 at 3:46 AM

      Dr. Feser if I may did your change of heart regarding the Iraq War further sour your opinion of Cristopher Hitchens?

      Mattia Luraschi

      Delete
    10. EXEDecember 8, 2025 at 9:03 AM

      To Tony:

      I don't see the logic you're following re: the point about "terrorism". Why is a soldier working for the American government exempt from personal responsibility for his actions, but a terrorist is not? Almost all terrorist groups have organization, leadership, and hierarchy. Why is the terrorist not allowed to say that HE was simply following orders? Is it because he is presumed to believe in the organization's cause? But then any American soldier who agrees with his government and believes in the war he's fighting is subject to the same condemnation.

      Secondly, you seem to have a caricature in your mind of what "terrorist" means - presumably "insane jihadist suicide bomber", given that you allude to the idea that a terrorist "doesn't even understand the concept of surrender" and "will gladly fake a surrender and believes he will be rewarded in Heaven". This isn't really even accurate applied to Jihadists - thousands of ISIS fighters surrendered in Syria. But simply taking this caricature of one specific form of terrorist and applying that to terrorists in general is ludicrous. Do you think this describes the IRA? Tito's Partisans? John Brown? The idea that terrorists "never surrender" is, frankly, bullshit based on racist stereotypes.

      Delete
    11. TonyDecember 9, 2025 at 12:42 AM

      @ EXE: Thanks for your comments, I will try to respond as well as I grasp your points.

      Why is a soldier working for the American government exempt from personal responsibility for his actions, but a terrorist is not?

      Everyone is responsible for his actions, both the soldier and the terrorist. The distinction made is this: in a nation, the citizens have positive and definitive obligations to the society, its laws, and its government. If they have been born into that nation, they didn't choose it, and yet they are obliged to it - to obey the laws and to protect the society; if they have become naturalized citizens, upon completion of that process they become obliged to obey the government and protect the society. Under natural law, nations have the right and duty to make war against unjust aggressors; upon lawful determinations by their rulers, the people generally are obliged to obey the laws which require them to act (and fight, if so ordered) on behalf of the nation. As such, their obligation to obey ostensibly lawful orders to fight relieves them of direct and principal responsibility for making the determining judgments about the justice of the war. Instead they are responsible for obeying the laws.

      Terrorists, on the other hand, by joining such an entity, are not generally members of a nation or a state: That's why they are called "non-state actors". Hence they cannot compel obedience in the way a state does, and they cannot be morally obliged to . Hence the person who joins never becomes obliged to obey the leadership, and thus "orders" from leadership are really suggestions they can follow or not as they decide are fitting, (sure, there are consequences to not following, but so are there for not following the chess society's rules), so it comes down to their own prudential decision whether X action is best, not the leader's.

      Secondly, you seem to have a caricature in your mind of what "terrorist" means - presumably "insane jihadist suicide bomber", given that you allude to the idea that a terrorist "doesn't even understand the concept of surrender" ...

      I didn't intend the idea that it is specifically terrorists that haven't a concept of surrender, my comment was general in scope, alluding to any time you might have conditions in which "I surrender" would not be equally understood on both sides - often was NOT always understood as meaning "I will now comply with standard "prisoner" behavior, and be granted human rights". In ancient days, surrender usually meant slavery, and slavery could include extremes of inhumane treatment Or, Japanese samurai or warriors, for whom surrender was an unthinkable affront to the emperor and their ancestors, death was far preferable, so in war they neither offered nor accepted surrender. And in WWII, some Japanese soldiers pretended to "surrender" and then engaged in improper behavior for POWs (i.e. attacking when they could do some damage): their cultural standards didn't align with western standards of what surrender means. Natural law prescribes different handling for belligerents who all agree on what "surrender" means, vs belligerents whose ideas on it have little to no overlap.

      Delete
    12. EXEDecember 9, 2025 at 12:32 PM

      Tony:
      First off, you conflate between "nation" and "state", which are absolutely not the same thing.

      Secondly, I don't accept your framework privileging "The Nation", whatever that is, as having unique rights above and beyond other forms of organization. I do not accept that a soldier is obliged, or permitted, to turn off their brain and simply accept that shooting this child is what's been ordered by the lawful authorities and therefore not his responsibility. Anyone who's paid any mind to the history of the world should know that the vast majority of wars are fought for stupid and selfish reasons, and you'd have to be naive and historically illiterate to not see that. The presumption should ALWAYS be against the legitimacy of any given war, because we have bountiful evidence from history that nearly every war is fought for bad reasons.

      Thirdly, nations don't have the unqualified right to demand loyalty from their members. Plenty of people (especially minorities) get treated exceptionally badly by their governments and "communities" as a whole. Should Blacks living under Jim Crow have felt loyalty to America?

      Fourthly, your little moral schema is set up in a way that privileges the powerful and harms the oppressed. The big nation state has the unique moral right to use force, so it's allowed to act with violence, but the people it keeps under its bootheel are not afforded this right - they simply have to sit and suffer. Presumably they are only allowed to pray and "offer it up" while their oppressors get away with murder, often literally. For them, the gears of justice turn slowly if at all, and they never receive a punishment truly commensurate with their wrongdoing. Maybe that seems OK to you sitting up in your little ivory tower, but to the people on the ground, your logic is spectacularly unpersuasive. You cannot negotiate with an oppressor, and it is foolish to hope that they will simply see the error of their ways and change their minds, especially if doing so would materially cost them. Should the Irish have simply done nothing when 13 of us were murdered during a peaceful protest by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday? Should the Palestenians do nothing when the Israelis come unprovoked and drop bombs on them, kill their children, steal their houses and try to exterminate them? If your answer to either of these is anything but "no", then you and your sanctimonious "Natural Law" can go stuff yourselves. Those of us who live in the real world will not be bound by your useless dead letters.

      Delete
    13. TonyDecember 14, 2025 at 12:38 PM

      @ EXE's comments:

      I admit that someone might confuse my use of "nation" and "state", but my central point was valid regardless, and consistent with my comment about a person's obligations "to the society, its laws, and its government". The difference between "nation" and "state" does not undermine this in the least.

      I don't accept your framework privileging "The Nation", whatever that is, as having unique rights above and beyond other forms of organization.

      Nor I, taking the nation in its primal sense: a people related by birth. But when you add in what I added in - a society, laws, and government,, and consider the highest sovereign government of that society, this is a social entity to which you owe duties, and (as the Letter to Titus says: "Remind them that they have a duty of submissive loyalty to governments and to those in authority, of readiness to undertake any kind of honourable service"), to which you owe submissive loyalty. That EXE rejects this as having a different status as "other organization" like your local Kiwanis Club or your college Fraternity is his affair; insofar as he offers no argument, it is not of use here.

      I do not accept that a soldier is obliged, or permitted, to turn off their brain and simply accept that shooting this child is what's been ordered by the lawful authorities and therefore not his responsibility.

      I didn't say you get to "turn off your brain", I explicitly said "everyone is responsible for his actions". EXE is erecting straw men out of nonsense.

      Thirdly, nations don't have the unqualified right to demand loyalty from their members.

      Right. Qualified loyalty: qualified by OTHER duties, e.g. your duties to God.

      Should Blacks living under Jim Crow have felt loyalty to America?

      Most blacks did exactly that, believing (rightly, as it turned out) that America could eradicate states' Jim Crow laws and remain America.

      you and your sanctimonious "Natural Law" can go stuff yourselves. Those of us who live in the real world will not be bound by your useless dead letters.

      I never remotely suggested that the nation state has the sole right to use force, or that no people ever has a right to fight against a foreign oppressor, or any of his other silly insinuations. I see that his comments are not an objection to whether natural law says what I suggested it says, but just a rejection of there being binding moral standards (of any sort) if they don't result in everyone being happy. Well, all that leads to is people believing there are NO moral standards at all, and eventually this guarantees that everyone except the strongest, richest, and most powerful will be miserable.

      Delete
    14. EXEDecember 16, 2025 at 6:38 AM

      I don't know why you're talking about me as if I'm not here. You see that "his" objections are such and such? My rejection of your assertions is "his" affair? Why not "your"? You didn't just transcribe an argument made by another person in response to me, did you?

      Look, we could go at this forever, but I think we both realize that would be pointless. Who's ever been convinced by an Internet debate? I concede that I was incorrect about your beliefs about the culpability of soldiers, but I still ultimately disagree with your position, and I'll explain why. Debate might ultimately not convince you, but I may as well end off my interactions here by giving a positive vision alongside my critique.

      I believe that human beings are born with inherent dignity, that they deserve equal rights, the right to happiness, and to pursue their ultimate flourishing. I believe that most (though not all) forms of hierarchy are illegitimate, being designed primarily to perpetuate the power of one person or group over others. I believe that the Nation, as you describe it, is an imagined community, just as artificial as the Communist International - even in a small country, you do not have a meaningful shared life-world or life-experience with the overwhelming majority of the people within it. How can you claim to meaningfully share a life with people that you never meet and are unaware of the existence of? You are attempting to transfer the love and loyalty one ought to feel for a good family to this fictional entity. I reject the kind of "family of families" concept of the rise of nations proposed by the likes of Feser and Yoram Hazony on the grounds that it is ahistorical, not in accordance with the best anthropological and historical studies that we have access to. You can't just recite the Table of Nations from the Book of Genesis and consider that a convincing argument. It's for this reason that I reject the idea that a soldier can avoid questioning the basic morality of a war that his nation and/or state requires of him, because I don't view it as having the kind of automatic, parent-like authority that you do. Even if I did, the example of history, which proves that the vast majority of wars have been fought by bad people for bad reasons, would surely render that presumption absurd. In fact, I notice that people of your political temperament tend to be highly dismissive of history as a whole, as if it simply didn't matter and could never provide evidence against your ideas. You'd think that if you were really convinced that, say, nations usually used their right to declare war soberly, or that certain kinds of morality are natural and universal, you'd want to actually check the historical record to see if it aligns with what you'd expect if you were right. Strange.

      Delete
  15. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 5:48 PM

    Do you have an opinions an al-Ghazali as a philosopher? Is there anything in his works that a modern reader or a christian would find insightful?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 8:34 AM

      Likely, Feser hates al-Ghazali's occasionalism. Furthemore, Feser will definitely criticize al-Ghazali's strange conclusion that divine attributes can be really distinct and not the essence and yet not really parts. Feser would push: If they are really distinct, they are reall not the whole. So, there are multiple divine realities, Gods, in God, and simplicity is false. Vice versa, if God really has no parts and you want to be anti-realist, as al-Ghazali also wants, all of God will be one, after all, and there will be no relative simplicty. Also, al-Ghazali claims many attributes of God do not follow from natural theology. Feser would disagree here, too. All in all, Feser would simply just repeat what Averroes already said in his book "The Incoherence of the Incoherence." So, Feser would align with Averroes that al-Ghazali's views utterly, utterly fail (like those of William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins, Graham Oppy, etc. who want alternative models of "the Ultimate Layer of Reality.")

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 7:10 PM

      I would mostly agree with that assessment. For my money, al-Ghazali is the greatest Islamic philosopher and theologian of the Middle Ages (though Avicenna is a close contender). There are some aspects of his thought that Thomists can appreciate. For one thing, he was a virtue ethicist and natural law theorist, who, I have heard, even influenced St. Thomas himself. His major ethical treatise is the Mizan al-amal, though he expounds upon those views in his Revival of the Religious Sciences. To my knowledge, the Mizan has not been translated, but there is a useful summary of his ethical thought in a book titled “The Ethics of al-Ghazali: a composite ethics in Islam.” For another thing, al-Ghazali was more of an Aristotelian, or rather, Avicennian, than he is given credit for.
      Contrary to popular caricature, al-Ghazali’s project was not primarily destructive. In the incoherence, al-Ghazali was, as it were, throwing whatever he could at the wall, and seeing what would stick. It was primarily polemical and did not necessarily reflect his own philosophical views. Indeed, before his crisis, he authored a book meant to explicate “the true doctrine,” called Moderation in Belief, in which he sought to demonstrate (in the Aristotelian sense) the existence of God and his attributes—though he does critique Avicenna’s derivation of the attributes. Which is what the comment above may be referring to when it reads, “al-Ghazali claims many attributes of God do not follow from natural theology” —arguments for the faith, Islamic, the possibility of miracles, the afterlife, and other related articles of faith. It is not totally convincing, but I was nevertheless impressed by the piece. It’s a good work of philosophy/religion. It should also be said that whatever he was, he was not a nominalist (he seems to fall somewhere between conceptualism and moderate realism), as a good look at the Moderation and the Revival will show. He also accepted the Aristotelian sciences and metaphysics, as also evidenced by the Revival (personally, I would recommend Frank Griffel’s “al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology if you are interested in learning more). He also subscribed to analogy (see ”Maimonides, Aquinas, and Ghazali on Naming God,” in the book “The Return to Scripture in Judaism and Christianity). So, is there much to appreciate that the Thomist, or fellow traveler (as I am), can appreciate? Absolutely. Here, however, are the points of division.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 7:10 PM

      Al-Ghazali was an occasionalist. God is the sole efficient cause, and indeed the only active power in reality (everything else, like atoms and composite objects, has only the potency to be affected, with their accidents and powers imposed by divine decree). That’s a significant point of difference. Another is that al-Ghazali does not subscribe to divine simplicity, though, to be sure, he wouldn’t have subscribed to whatever the hell William Lane Craig and other “Divine personalists” are. Al-Ghazali is much closer to the classical theist camp, despite Craig’s appropriation of him. He thought that God’s attributes are neither identical to God nor separate from him. Rather, they subsist eternally in his essence. I don’t think Feser would push that there are Gods in God. The attribute of power, for example, is like the quality red, inasmuch as it never exists by itself, but only in something. Power can exist only in God. Ghazali also offers some proofs for the view that the attributes are eternal and cannot be separated from God. That’s not to say that he is correct, but I am sympathetic. Perhaps it is the analytic philosopher in me, but I do worry that the Aristotelian conception of “parts” is much too liberal, and I am less than satisfied with Avicenna and Aquinas’ derivation of the attributes. But I digress (To lay my cards fully on the table, I am a Neo-Aristotelian). It also happens that Ghazali is a substance dualist, while St. Thomas subscribes to hylomorphic Dualism. Finally, al-Ghazali and St. Thomas differ on the Kalam. Ghazali thought it was great, and Thomas thought it sucked. In the end, I think Thomas is right, though not for the right reason, and Ghazali was ultimately wrong, though his argument does follow through if you grant him the Aristotelian definitions of potential and actual infinite, and magnitude. There are more differences, but those are some of the major ones, at any rate.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 7:26 PM

      Almost forgot: another major difference between Al-Ghazali and St. Thomas, which most Thomists are will likely not appreciate is that he is a volunterist --- eerily similar to Duns Scotus, now that I think about it --- while Thomas takes the intellectualist position.

      Delete
  16. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 6:17 PM

    Is your account of potential and actual infinity the same as Aristotle and Aquinas? Is their view problematic? Finally, what would Aquinas say to the reply, to his objection to the Kalam, that even if the past no longer exists, the number of events that have existed (I do not mean "the number of events that exist"), is growing, and is infinite? I am not convinced of the notion that an actually infinite past impossible, and certainly not convinced of Craig's hand-waving (It doesn't seem intuitively absurd to me!). But I was wondering if classical, and more specifically, Thomistic metaphysics has fresh insights on the debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 3:50 AM

      Saint Bonaventure is the scholastic one wants for classical metaphysical approaches to the Kalam Argument (which was after all formulated within classical metaphysics).

      For a more modern take on infinities and causal chains influenced by classical metaphysics I would recommend Alexander Pruss’ Causal Finitism. In fact there is a free section on the Kalam Argument available here:

      http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/kalaam.pdf

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 7, 2025 at 9:22 PM

      Hey, Anon! Most classical discussions of the Kalam are more or less wrote. You won't find many fresh insights. There is one argument, though, that did make me think, and perhaps there is something to it. It's from the Moderation, and I will quote it in length:
      It might be said: "The second principle remains, namely, your statement that whatever is not devoid of occurrents is an occurrent; what is its proof?" We say: "It is because if the world were anteriorly eternal yet not devoid of occurrents, then there would be occurrents that have no beginning, from which it would necessarily follow that the revolutions of the celestial spheres are infinite in number; and that is absurd, because it leads to an absurdity, and what leads to absurdity is absurd.
      We show that three absurdities necessarily follow from it. First, if this were the case, then what is infinite would have passed, would have been followed by void, and would have concluded. There is no difference between saying that it has passed, that it has concluded, and that it has ended. Hence, it would be necessary to say that the infinite has ended. The notion that the infinite ends or that it concludes or passes is a glaring absurdity.
      The idea here seems to be that the infinite, by definition, is never completed. If it is ever completed, then it is, by definition, finite. But by actual, we mean something like "fully realized," or "completely instantiated." It is all there. So, when we say that an actually infinite number of celestial rotations have been completed, we seem to be committing ourselves to two inconsistent propositions: 
      The progression of rotations is without end
      The progression of terms has been completed
      Al-Ghazali is more or less using Aristotle's definition of the actual infinite as "that of which, taken in quantity, there is always something beyond" (Physics III), against him. If the actual infinite is impossible, then, to remain consistent, Aristotle should also reject an actually infinite past. It should be said in Ghazali's defence that it won't do much good to object that the past no longer exists, for he is no more committed to the actual existence of the past than Aristotle. The mere fact that an infinite number of celestial revolutions have occurred is sufficient. If we index the present moment of time to 0, and let -1 be the most recent celestial revolution, -2, the revolution preceding it, etc, then we will have an infinitely descending chain of celestial revolutions, or the reverse ordinal ω*.
      Now, for the number of rotations to have been infinite, they must descend into the past with no end. But, in order to be in the past, the collection must also have been completed. So, the infinite is endless and complete at the same time.
      It should also be said that this is not a traversal argument. Al-Ghazali is not saying: An actually infinite collection cannot be traversed. The past is infinite. Therefore, the past cannot be traversed. Rather, he is pointing out, or so he believes, a logical contradiction: what is endless cannot also have an end. It is also worth noting that his argument does not necessarily require rejecting the existence of all actually infinite collections, only an actually infinite past. I am not convinced of this one myself, but I'll leave it to you to make up your own opinion.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 7, 2025 at 10:59 PM

      I mean, there is an intuitive element to his argument, and I think it would be good to articulate it for you. If we imagine a line, which, I tell you, "can be extended to infinity," there are two ways we can understand this statement: we can take it to mean that it will extend however long we extend it, and this is the potential infinite. Or we could take it to mean that the line can be stretched until it reaches an actually infinite size, which seems to be incoherent. For, we can always extend it further.

      An actually infinite number of celestial revolutions would seem to apply to the second understanding and not the first. Hence, intuitively, it seems right to say that an actually infinite number of celestial revolutions is also incoherent.

      Delete
  17. AnonymousDecember 5, 2025 at 10:55 PM

    Why so many anonymous comments?

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM

    Could you provide us with an.update on the progress you are making with your latest book project professor, and let us know the intended publication date ( very approximately of course! )?. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousDecember 6, 2025 at 6:45 PM

    Prof. Feser, what is your stance on Confederate monuments?

    ReplyDelete
  20. TonyDecember 8, 2025 at 9:11 AM

    What is a fascist?

    I mean this to be addressed in the theoretical, definitional sense. I know that there are a gazillion charges that Trump is a fascist. Or (for those either pretending or actually trying to be fair), "tending toward fascism"): setting those aside, and looking outside of CURRENT personalities, what is fascism?

    An interesting element of this would be whether, looking backwards in history, would various world leaders of the past (before the 20th century) qualify? Augustus Caesar? William the Conqueror? Edward III? Peter the Great? George III? Napoleon? Bismarck?

    If so, why did the term only arise in the 20th century? What conditions made it necessary to create the new term?

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousDecember 8, 2025 at 9:32 AM

    Today is the feast of the Immaculate Conception. You're a staunch Catholic. Aren't you going to tweet about Mary's feast day?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserDecember 8, 2025 at 2:07 PM

      You post a lot of frantic comments (most of which don't get through moderation because they're off topic) about what I have or haven't tweeted about. You need to get offline and find a hobby.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 8, 2025 at 7:42 PM

      Well, Ed, you posted my comment about Mary. But why didn't you tweet about it yourself? You've tweeted about Just War Doctrine more than once. And you may remember I had to off topic tell you to do it.

      Delete
    3. Edward FeserDecember 9, 2025 at 8:45 AM

      Since when is there a general duty to tweet about a holy day of obligation (or about anything at all, for that matter)?

      And I didn't tweet about just war doctrine because you "told me to do it." Are you nuts?

      Delete
    4. Oktavian ZamoyskiDecember 9, 2025 at 11:30 AM

      Usually, we talk about certain people hearing a voice in their heads that orders them to do various naught things. In this case, I think we've found a voice in search of someone to order around! Apparently, it seems to be convinced that it is the voice in your head, Ed.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 12:32 PM

      Yeah, Ed, it's your blog and you can tweet about anything you want. But since you are an orthodox and devout Catholic, and since you did tweet and thank Trump for invoking the help of Mary Queen of Peace (even though Trump is not a religious person) it seemed appropriate to me that you should acknowledge the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. As for the Just War Doctrine, Trump had been striking those supposed drug boats for the longest time and you said nothing about. I did make a number of off-topic comments about it violating the Just War Doctrine and you finally acknowledged that it did it. So, I accomplished what I wanted. I have made a number of off-topic comments (and will continue to do so) because I know you read them.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 2:57 PM

      Ps I’m not the same person talking about the Immaculate Conception.

      Delete
  22. AnonymousDecember 8, 2025 at 9:43 AM

    The White House acknowledged the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, but that's only an attempt to court conservative Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  23. NormDecember 8, 2025 at 6:55 PM


    Prof today wrote and very rightly so that,

    "Christians mustn't let themselves be lulled into acquiescence by what D. P. Moynihan called “boob bait for the bubbas” – rhetoric and symbolic gestures that mask the flouting of fundamental moral principles (e.g. on abortion, IVF and just war doctrine)"

    https://x.com/FeserEdward/status/1998202648227680713?t=hCnCC6gc4k4FQ6TI6wPvYQ&s=19

    Peter Laffin very rightly commented,

    "Reactions to the WH Immaculate Conception post today were demoralizing. They know exactly how to pacify the Catholic Right's thought leaders."

    https://x.com/petermlaffin/status/1998211352364769371?t=ZoSzrjau-v9wlXSBwR-q6w&s=1

    And as an example,

    Here is,
    Dr C.C Pecknold

    https://x.com/ccpecknold/status/1998042258503835654?t=JCirf6pBSoqKbZ2qBHioYQ&s=19

    Promoting the administrations bait.

    Prof wrote the other day,

    "The legacy of these fools and yahoos will be to bring discredit upon otherwise good causes."

    I fail to see how that does not apply to the post liberal ilk when Prof seems to be the only sane voice on that side. Whatever good initiative they have will be drowned out by the leadership's affinity for Trump.

    Perhaps Prof is trying to call them out but I think it's time for a well thought out article, systematically dismantling the fallacies of these leaders, gently as a friend.

    Alongside Dr Feser, there are a lot of great writers who are more experienced and thoughtful in their writings as well as willing to call out the administration using sound principles.

    For example, consider this article by the eminent classical natural law theorist Dr J Budziszewski

    https://www.undergroundthomist.org/blog?page=1

    One of the few writers alongside Prof to consistently speak out for the unborn. He writes:

    "The FDA’s decision is a betrayal. Most abortions are now carried out by means of abortion pills. Since they are sold across state lines, to say that the overturning of Roe “returned the issue to the states” is grossly misleading. And yes, the agency could have done otherwise. As the article you mention points out, the FDA began a new safety review of the drug in September. It could have delayed its decision until the review was complete, but it didn’t.

    This is deeply disturbing. A new analysis of insurance data finds that more than one in ten of the women who take the abortion pill experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another “serious adverse event.” The only reason regulators tolerate such a high level of danger to the mother is that the ability to kill her baby cheaply and conveniently trumps all considerations.

    In the meantime, the administration promotes in vitro fertilization, which produces large numbers of unwanted embryonic children and then destroys all but those few which are implanted."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 10, 2025 at 7:36 PM

      I say this with all respect for Dr Pecknold as a theologian and philosopher.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. EXEDecember 14, 2025 at 4:02 PM

      The problem Ed has is that, no matter how much he wishes otherwise, there simply IS no "thinking man's MAGA". The "Bubbas", the "fools and yahoos" are not perverting the movement - they ARE the movement. Every time postliberalism, national conservatism (or whatever other name you want to give it) leaves the Ivory Tower, it has infallibly produced precisely the kind of racist, bigoted, antisemitic, irrational, conspiracy-brained people that you so vehemently abhor. Plus, no matter how much you might dislike them, your grand postliberal project to redefine "America" itself could never be accomplished without channeling the entirety of the vast energy that powers American bigotry. Like it or not, your project is NOT respectable. People like Nick Fuentes are the true face of your movement, not you.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 18, 2025 at 9:14 AM

      Demonstrably, most liberals, and certainly the vast majority of woke liberals, are also included in "racist, bigoted, antisemitic, irrational, conspiracy-brained people". Just look at the woke campus demonstrations targeting Jews as a class. You won't get a political movement that has votes in large enough numbers to matter without including the hoi polloi, which means a lot of people who have not managed to think through the issues independently and carefully.

      Delete
  24. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 7:28 AM

    Dear Mr. Feser. You recently tweeted:

    "People need to cut it out with this stupid bit of sophistry. That the drug problem is “terrifying” in some broad sense does not entail that just any old person involved in the drug trade is a “terrorist” in the legal sense. Use language precisely and stop parroting the party line."

    But it should be pointed out, I believe, that drug lords do commit terrorism. One needs not to look any further than Mexico to see how drug cartels use violence, torture and death to create fear as a means to keep the general populace at their heels. To be fair, Mexico is probably one of the worst cases as far as this go, but drug cartels in other countries don't shy away from these techniques at all. And, again to be fair, this is not terrorism committed against the USA. But as a South-American, I can't help but welcome this kind of intervention from the US.

    All of this said, that is still not reason enough to kill people in a boat without checking who they are is not only morally wrong, but needlessly antagonistic.

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 9:28 AM

    Will write more or metaphysics, moral theory, and philosophy of and religion in future? I Appreciate the pieces you have written on politics. Your write-ups are sensible, and for that matter, among the few political commentators that hasn't lost his mind. But I do miss your other articles. Won't you write more about causal powers, dualism, the metaphysics of logic, and arguments for the existence of God? Any plans for more articles like those?

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousDecember 9, 2025 at 9:30 AM

    Does the work Phillipa Foot hold any water? I recently read her book, "Natural Goodness," and it seems pretty convincing. But you are trained philosopher, not me. So, I was wondering if you thought there were any damning critiques of the work. Or, do you rather think it solid?

    ReplyDelete
  27. EXEDecember 9, 2025 at 12:58 PM

    While I'm here - hey Doc, you got any opinions on the genocide being carried out by Israel in Gaza?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Untalented SeekerDecember 9, 2025 at 3:30 PM

    Hope everyone is having a good December so far!

    I'm curious to hear both from Professor Feser and other AT here in here what would be the standard response to Neoplatonic arguments for the existence of multiple Gods?

    I know Proclus and his concept of Henads is particularly famous in this regard, and that recent scholars such as Edward Butler are sort of rediscovering this line of thinking.

    I ask this, because it seems like the Proclean theory that having an absolutely simple God doesn't preclude the existence of other said Gods to be a rather critical point for Christian proponents of divine simplicity, if it ends up being true

    ReplyDelete
  29. NormDecember 10, 2025 at 2:54 AM

    Prof's geo poltics needs an entire book by itself I think.

    A through application of Just War Theory.

    I find it interesting that at this point in American politics, Prof would be one of the few people arguing against escalation of the war but at the same time Prof would also want to avoid jeopardizing the European US alliance.

    Many other people fall either in the category of preserving the alliance but also escalating the war or stopping the war but also doing away with the alliance.

    Again, this is another case where I don't at all prefer the snobbish European elite but in long term interest it's better for the alliance to endure.

    The Pope remarked about preserving the alliance as well.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AnonymousDecember 10, 2025 at 1:45 PM

    The time of the Feser is over, the time of the orc is here

    ReplyDelete
  31. AnonymousDecember 10, 2025 at 2:33 PM

    Hello Dr. Feser,

    Would you be willing to discuss more about (or perhaps recommend other resources that discuss) the topics of men's and women's roles in the church and in society at law? How do we as natural law proponents respond both to the claims of feminism and Aristotle and Aquinas making claims to the effect that women are less rational then men are? If men and women are equally rational, then are they equally competent to teach on Christian doctrine?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Vini TadeoDecember 11, 2025 at 4:10 AM

    I know it's a little too soon to be saying that, but before this comment section gets even longer, I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas!

    I hope y'all could get united with your families on the most special day of the year. I pray that God may be with you all, and that, someday, we all be united together in His Heart.

    I would also like to thank all the wonderful people that I've met through this blog. People who care about each other, pray for others, and so on. I may not know you guys personally, but God knows you all, and I pray that someday we all share the happiness with Him.

    And, finally, Ed, you are one of my favorite people. I hope that you always stay healthy, sharp, and keep seeking Truth in the way you always have. You are an example of a philosopher and a Catholic -- and I think a model, not only for me, but also for a lot of people on these matters. You are a gift to this world. God bless you and your family, man!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 11, 2025 at 9:25 AM

      Have a blessed Advent, Vini Tadeo!

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 11, 2025 at 11:27 AM

      I continue to pray for you, Vini. Pray for me too.

      Delete
    3. Vini TadeoDecember 13, 2025 at 11:44 PM

      @Anon

      When I was writing about praying for others, you were the first person I thought of! And yesterday, while praying the rosary - during the first mystery - I remembered you again and prayed for you! You will always be in my prayers, and I will never forget your kindness, advice, and encouragement since that comment section.

      I hope you and your family have a very happy time on Christmas. May God always be with you!

      Also, it's okay if I could know your name? Just the first name will be fine! I would love to know your name and say it during my prayers.

      @Norm

      Thank you, man. For you and your family, too!

      I would like to say how much I appreciate the positivity and tone of your comments on the blog comment section (not only on this post, but all the other ones as well). You’re also always very appreciative and make a point of recognizing Ed’s work. You’re my kind of people — keep it up.

      Delete
    4. NormDecember 15, 2025 at 10:33 AM

      Hi Vini

      Yes, I am grateful for Prof's work. That's why even if I have some critique of Prof's positions, I always make sure to acknowledge the role he has played in my life.

      Delete
  33. NormDecember 11, 2025 at 5:53 AM

    I often find myself at odds with Prof Feser sometimes but I take it we can disagree and still love each other as Catholics, and as Brother's in Christ.

    This particular disagreement has to do with young men.

    I'd like to share a thought for all single young men, who strive towards virtue but have perhaps been unfortunate when it comes to finding a suitable wife, that your life has meaning ,Jesus Loves You and as Pope St John Paul II once said, Do Not Be Afraid.

    Pope Benedict XVI also once said, that every one of us is a thought willed by God and at the end of the day this life is only a journey where we prepare ourselves for the highest good that is the Beatific Vision.

    I know that sometimes it's hard to keep that in mind especially when people tend to isolate you for your faith, when people tend to castigate you for frivolous things like living with your parents when there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Of course one should seek meaningful labour. But one can have a job , a salary and still live with their parents, in fact take care of them. One might also be searching for a job but unable to because of a precarious job market and hence living with their parents.There's nothing wrong with that but we must not lose hope in life, even when there is no one to offer a kind word , we should bear these sufferings patiently as penance for our sins.

    "Emmanuel", (God is With Us).
    That's the good news we are preparing ourselves for this Advent.

    I would encourage my single brothers and sisters, to embrace that Truth, to come out of ourselves and let the Joy of Christ shine through us despite our sorrows, despite our pains, despite our misfortunes. Strive to do good, to be good. To shun lust,To shun greed.
    And to strive towards virtue even when nothing seems to be going your way, even when you are alone and unable to find someone.

    I shall leave you all, with this quote by St Augustine,

    You have made us for yourself Oh Lord, And Our Hearts are Restless until they Rest in You.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NLRDecember 12, 2025 at 7:02 AM

      Good comment.

      Ultimately, people just have to do the best they can in the circumstances there are in. There are a lot of crazy things in the world now.

      Also, in many places community is much weaker than it used to be. Whatever is available is a good thing. In the past, people died at younger ages more often and many people were not able to marry for other reasons as well.

      There are so many attempts to convince young men and women to do dumb, frivolous, or harmful things, that honestly, married or unmarried, if people do good things, that is worthwhile.

      Delete
    2. NormDecember 14, 2025 at 9:37 PM

      Interesting thoughts NLR,

      Have a blessed Advent.

      Delete
  34. AnonymousDecember 11, 2025 at 11:25 AM

    Neither the church nor scripture says that all men and women should or will be married. I know a quite a number of them. What is your disagreement with Ed about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 11, 2025 at 5:12 PM

      There's a tendency to lump all single men in some particular category of "lazy or incompetent". To talk about "living with one's parents" in a generalised way. Basically to paint particular situations with broad brush strokes when the situation on the ground may not be that way. Not all single men are single because it's their fault or because they are hooked to some vice or incompetent, sometimes they just unfortunate. There's no inherent problem in living with one's parents either for reasons I mentioned above. Prof promoted a study by Brad Wilcox who asked girls in his classrooms about men which seems to make the mistake of these sweeping generalisations. I think there's a greater chance that if polled most of those women would say their pro choice. The data is more solid when it comes to pointing out the sex divide when it comes to politics.

      Delete
  35. AnonymousDecember 11, 2025 at 8:03 PM

    Norm, People remain single for a variety of reasons. I know a devout retired Catholic high school principal who dated a number of women but never married. He passed away two years ago. One of my college classmates is still single at 55 because he works in the entertainment industry and likes to sleep around with women. My grandmother has a daughter who lives with her and has never dated. She's a wealthy real estate investor. I'm single too but that's a long story.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 12, 2025 at 12:14 AM

      Hi Anon, ofcourse people may remain single for a variety of reasons but I was responding specifically to some claims shared by Dr Feser, that seems to paint all young single men with the same broad brush stroke.

      I hope all is well :)

      Delete
  36. AnonymousDecember 12, 2025 at 3:20 PM

    I don't recall Dr Feser making a comment like that. If I had seen it, I would have questioned him about his broad brush.
    I am well. Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 13, 2025 at 2:01 AM

      Hi Anon

      https://x.com/BradWilcoxIFS/status/1998822840460533875?t=DbibPpjx1GNJdECcXXF6Zg&s=19

      Doesn't this seen to be too generalized.

      There's probably a more sizable chunk of dudes for being "too religious" ironically for things that can be known from Natural Law like being against abortion and gay marriage.

      Delete
    2. NormDecember 13, 2025 at 10:46 AM

      Rejected*

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 14, 2025 at 5:38 PM

      Norm,
      Brad Wilcox is a nut.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_R._Wilcox

      Delete
  37. AnonymousDecember 14, 2025 at 1:27 PM

    How about a big set of links? Love to what you're reading or what interests you - haven't had links in a while, thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  38. AnonymousDecember 16, 2025 at 11:27 AM

    Where is 'Son of Yakov' these days? How come he doesn't post here anymore?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 16, 2025 at 11:57 PM

      He was too grouchy to keep being a bitter grouch on the internet.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 17, 2025 at 7:15 PM

      And DNW seems to have vanished.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 18, 2025 at 10:33 AM

      Let's hope that DNW stays vanished.

      Delete
  39. NormDecember 18, 2025 at 6:17 AM

    https://x.com/i/status/2001645722228158741

    To be honest I think that if you embrace some distinctive American cultural qualities, if you abide by Natural Law and you go through USA legally. Then you are an American. It doesn't matter how long ago you came. Or if you cannot track your ancestry to 400 years ago.

    I wonder if you have any thoughts on this Prof :)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)