Review: Aristotle's Revenge (Feser)

Feser, Edward. Aristotle's Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science.




I always greatly anticipate a new Feser release, and this book does not disappoint. It covers different ground than Feser has written about in the past, though still within an Aristotelian-Thomist framework. Where metaphysics inquires into the general nature of reality—what must be given the case given the empirical facts we see—philosophy of nature reflects more specifically on the nature of physical reality. Under the umbrella of philosophy of nature are such subjects as the nature of life, the characteristics of matter, and the definition of space and time.

All of these subjects are covered by Feser (specifically in chapters 4, 5, and 6), and covered well. In particular, chapter 4—the longest of the book—gives detailed attention to the subjects of motion, space, and time. Being something of a nerd myself, I was not surprised that the section on time travel (in which Feser is an unbeliever) to be the most enjoyable.

Moving backward in the book, Chapter 1 covers the most familiar ground. Anyone who has read extensively in Feser’s works will be familiar with his metaphysical arguments and critiques of the mechanical philosophy; in fact, if one has already read Scholastic Metaphysics, one could easily skip this chapter (though I always find it useful to revisit the topics as some of them pay well extended attention.) Chapter 2, on the other hand, is almost totally new for Feser as far as I can tell. In it he tries to get at just what “science” is, and even deeper than that, what must be true about human cognition and experience for the scientific method to be feasible at all. This leads him to engage not just with philosophers of science, but with phenomenologists such as Merleau-Ponty.

Overall, this was an extremely interesting book. Considering the complex material of its subject, is is very readable (even chapter 4, the hardest by a good bit.) Chapters 2 and 4 were by far the most interesting, in my opinion. Chapter 4 could almost be read alone, there is so much material packed into it. It’s not the best introduction to Feser’s work (I think Five Proofs of the Existence of God is the first place anyone should start) but if one is a Feser fan like me or interested in the topics of philosophy and science, this is an excellent source to engage with.

I was provided a copy of this book by the author in exchange for an honest review.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Rule of Men: The Basic Flaw in CREC Polity

It is a popular pastime among certain Reformed sectors and, on the other hand, “deconstructing” Christians to criticize the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and Douglas Wilson in particular. As a long time reader of Wilson, and attender of a flagship CREC church for some time, I have my own criticisms of Wilson and the CREC. But, as an attorney, there is a central flaw not with Wilson or with Crec pastors generally, but with the CREC’s political structure. This problem, furthermore, has gone largely unrecognized, because it arises out of the basic governing documents of the denomination which, if you aren’t a lawyer or enthusiastic about ecclesiastical politics, are not exactly stimulating to read. That central problem—and I believe it is the problem behind a lot of the more obvious issues in the CREC—is that the denomination is fundamentally characterized by the rule of men and not the rule of law. In secular governments and most ecclesiastical governments, the governme...
Read more

Signs You are in a Church You should Leave

In the last few months, I have been thinking a lot about what the Bible requires for "official" accusations, whether in a church or in a secular court. I have posted on this recently. That has led to a related question: how can you tell if you're in an ecclesiastical environment where such Biblical requirements may not be respected?  (This assumes you have no significant ability to reform the situation—for example, you are not an elder, or have no significant positive influence over the elders, or, more cynically, have no significant monetary influence over what goes on in the church). The internet has many articles on this. I want to focus on two signs that are easy to spot for the average person. These are not so much particular actions, but rather long-term trends you should be able to spot if you attend a church long enough. 1. The first is an environment of secrecy. One major sign of secrecy is a reluctance or refusal to answer questions about certain topics, or to j...
Read more

The Law of Evidence in Seven Verses

Over approximately the past decade and a half, the idea of churches exercising more significant discipline over their members has gained traction among certain groups of Evangelicals. The most mainstream example is Jonathan Leeman, formerly of 9Marks, who has probably done the most to revitalize the topic in print in the last decade and a half. But church discipline has always been exercised in one form or another, particularly by small churches with well-defined and rigid boundaries. The locus classicus for church discipline is, of course, Matthew 18, which lays out a three step process for how church discipline ought be carried out. But Matthew 18, even if it is where we begin, cannot be where we end. For it is perfectly possible to “follow Matthew 18” while railroading an innocent party to a completely unjust result. Where can we go to discover what makes the process of church discipline a just one, worthy of acceptation? Another requirement that is often cited, but that is ...
Read more