«Natural Law & Sexual Ethics» @ Princeton, by Prof. Ed Feser
#31
Feser is extremly helpful. Today we talked during our lecture in moral theology about sexual ethics and especially the  role of homosexuality. Yesterday I read Feser's text in "Last superstition" about natural law as a preparation for the discussion. I think i won the battle, arguing that the final cause of sexuality is reproduction. A fellow student said I failed to understand the spirit of Jesus and called me biologist. The professor became also angry.  :LOL:  He really said that the idea of natural law could not be valid because nature intended man to have a beard, so it would wrong to have no beard.
The only problem is that the professor (a supporter of the kantian idea of autonom ethics) will test me next monday about moral theology.
Reply
#32
:( Feser or no Feser, German intelligentsia seems to have been rather hostile to Catholic theology for a long, long time. Even as far back as about 1910 they kicked up such a fuss (with some kind of blackmail, I suspect) that they were "dispensed" from the Anti Modernist Oath.

An awful lot of notorious Modernists have come from the Rhine countries.

Your journey will be a tough one, Guingamp.
Reply
#33
(07-08-2015, 06:46 AM)Guingamp Wrote: Feser is extremly helpful. Today we talked during our lecture in moral theology about sexual ethics and especially the  role of homosexuality. Yesterday I read Feser's text in "Last superstition" about natural law as a preparation for the discussion. I think i won the battle, arguing that the final cause of sexuality is reproduction. A fellow student said I failed to understand the spirit of Jesus and called me biologist. The professor became also angry.  :LOL:  He really said that the idea of natural law could not be valid because nature intended man to have a beard, so it would wrong to have no beard.
The only problem is that the professor (a supporter of the kantian idea of autonom ethics) will test me next monday about moral theology.

Sigh. The professor is an idiot. How does shaving one's beard affect the rightful use of man's faculties in anyway whatsoever? A beard is, at most, adornment. It amazes me how many sophists we have in academic philosophy departments.
Reply
#34
The arguments were also that it would be impossible to see the final cause of sexuality. The existence and perceptibility of final causes would be open to question. I asked if the final cause of the eyes would really be uncertain. The professor answered that for example the final cause of the mouth would be speaking but that means that a trappist monk would be a sinner because he does not use his mouth to speak.  :eyeroll:
It is not easy to argue against suchs arguments.

The situation in germany is sad. The most conservative professor I know is an adherent of de Lubac, Ratzinger or Newman (I wouldnot say that Ratzinger or Newman are bad theologians but they are not conservative ). There are no thomists and often near to no knowledge about scholastic philosophy and theology. Thomas is only read in a modernist misinterpretation. A domenican for example told me that according to Aquinas we could not know the existence of god without the lumen fidei. Even something like the principle of noncontradiction would not be absolutely certain.
Metaphysics "after Kant" is considered as impossible.
Reply
#35
(07-09-2015, 01:13 AM)Guingamp Wrote: The arguments were also that it would be impossible to see the final cause of sexuality. The existence and perceptibility of final causes would be open to question. I asked if the final cause of the eyes would really be uncertain. The professor answered that for example the final cause of the mouth would be speaking but that means that a trappist monk would be a sinner because he does not use his mouth to speak.  :eyeroll:
It is not easy to argue against suchs arguments.

Actually, Feser does an excellent job of answering these questions in his article entitled, In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)