/lit/ - Literature

Cringe and trash

Read this short blogpost, linked here one time unironically by some braindead thomist, to learn what a retard Feser is. You don't even need to know the book he's responding to.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/one-long-circular-argument/

>>18242611
t. consciousness denying hylic

>>18242558

Feser is a crank who doesn't understand Plato.

>>18242624
Dennett doesn't deny the existence of consciousness. I'd say you were filtered, but you probably never bothered to read him.

>>18242631
>Dennett
>Computer metaphor brainlet
>Deflatonary notion of the self brainlet
Go and suck a dick

>>18242669
I expected nothing more from you.

>>18242558
>Revenge
Cringe. Won't read.

>>18242625
Oh yeah, Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century doesn't understand Plato, but you, an anonymous who shitposts on 4chan all day does. Oh, the absurdity, you people lack so much self-awareness lmao

>>18243609
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century

>>18243609
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century

>>18243609
>Feser, one of the ten greatest philosophers of this century
>Oh, the absurdity, you people lack so much self-awareness lmao

>>18243619
>>18243638
>>18243649
LMAO
Seethe, fucking seethe bunch of fucking retards.

>>18243654
>LMAO
>Seethe, fucking seethe bunch of fucking retards.
sure looks like a post written by someone who is amused :^)

>>18242611
damn what a fucking retard, he doesn't even adress the nature of counsciousness, he denies evolution based on the language Dannett uses

>>18242669
Ironically, Dennett's entire point is that the brain isn't a computer and that dualists treat it like it is one.

>>18243609
I'm reading >>18242611 and no, it's pretty clear that Feser is a gay retard.

>>18243717
No, he doesn't, you imbecile. Don't talk about stuff you have no fucking idea about just because you read an internet blog, you absolute fucking orangutan.

>>18242558
Yeah the early empirical scientists all hated Aristotle because no reason.

>>18243724
No, I'm reading the article, anon's statement is correct. Feser is a dumb-dumb. You shouldn't have an opinion on a piece before reading it.

>>18243724
>For example, like other materialists, Dennett models the mind on the idea of the computer. But computers are the products of human designers. Hence it makes no sense to try to explain the mind in terms of computers, since the existence of a computer itself presupposes the existence of a designing mind. Dennett’s way of dealing with this problem is to say that the human minds or “computers” that design computers in the ordinary sense are themselves designed in turn by evolution. But again, evolution doesn’t literally “design” anything, so this is no answer to the problem at all. It only seems to be an answer if we fail to distinguish the literal and metaphorical senses of the word “design.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUhq4Pt_rSA

>>18243745
Yeah I find this part baffling. Did Feser even read the fucking book? Dennett's entire fucking point is that the mind ISN'T a computer and DOESN'T WORK LIKE A COMPUTER. Dennett isn't some kind of intellectual titan and is literally autistic, but you'd have to be a complete fucking retard to read anything by Dennett and not get this. This is the entire reason he's one of the Four Horseman of the Fedora.

>>18243745
Antz was so much better than A Bug's Life

>>18243801
wtf no way you're being serious

>>18243745
>Dennett models the mind on the idea of the computer. But computers are the products of human designers. Hence it makes no sense to try to explain the mind in terms of computers, since the existence of a computer itself presupposes the existence of a designing mind.
You don't need to invoke Dennett's actual ideas, this passage is self-contained retardation. I can't believe this simple confusion in terms was written by a professional philosopher.

For me, it's Etienne Gilson.

>>18243851
Next, Feser will point out that brains don't have microprocessors.