She's better and smarter than Heidegger

Anyone in this thread know anything about Edith Stein besides what she looks like and that MacIntyre likes her? Cause I don't.

Weak trolling, friendo.

What's this bro's deal? You can still be a logical positivist as long as you cut away the verificationist theory of meaning? That way we can accept that there might be a God that science can't touch, but, insofar as we do science, we can keep on pretending that everything is measurable and that which is not measurable is nothing. Sounds good, but doesn't it just re-entrench the fact/value distinction?

A friend elsewhere today was dropping incomprehensible memes about him. Odd that he shows up twice in one day. Though, you know, confirmation bias and all that, or whatever the name is.

ur a patrisher man than i have no idea who the fuck that dude is

Bas van Fraassen (I had to GIS it, too, don't worry). I think the idea is that you get have to both your anti-realism and your empiricism. You can acknowledge the validity of the scientific method while also admitting that it tells us only that things work, not what is ultimately true.

van Fraassen is an anti-realist and says that in science our theories should be developed empirically and guided empirically. Also our theories we develop do not mean that such things exist but are merely representations of our observations - to say they exist in reality is a metaphysical stance. Unobservables are therefore not subject to scientific inquiry as they can't be empirically developed into a logical scientific system and must be left to faith.

The point of posting him was that he is a giant in Philosophy of Science and an adult convert to the Catholic Church, as is MacIntyre

Have there been scientific theories that were not guided empirically? What sets him apart from, say, Ayer; von Fraassen rejects the idea that only empirical statements are meaningful?What does van Fraassen's stance get us that other stances don't? Who are his antagonists and what do they believe? Is this a response to Kuhn on the one hand and Ayer on the other; ie, van Fraassen becomes an anti-realist in order to carve out a niche for the scientific project? Sounds like what lit theory and philosophy have done, too, in their own fields, which is why I wonder about the fact/value distinction. Seems like it just makes talking about ultimate ends more difficult.

It's odd that as science becomes more powerful, we become more doubtful about its claims to represent reality. Any books of his I should read? I'm a total greenhorn in philosophy of science stuff, but I'm generally (half-)educated so what's the simplest intro for an educated audience?

As was Stein. Okay, I get it. Still, now I want to talk about van Fraassen. This is now the official philosophy of science thread.

>I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.

Doesn't this verse confirm the goodness of Abraham's children; ie. the Jews? Christ seems to be saying that the Jews who sought to kill him were not true Jews; that is, they were children of the father of lies, not the children of Abraham, regardless of what they thought. This verse seems to support the validity of conversion. Was that your intention?

(((Stein)))

Someone got here late; yeah, dude, duh, that's what we're arguing about. You want to re-read the thread again and then add something to one side of the debate or the other?

It is possible to construct a sufficiently complex and rigorous theory that makes correct empirical predictions without verifying that the basis of the theory exists. For example a Ptolemaic formulation of the solar system can accurately predict planetary motion but that does not mean celestial spheres exist as they are unobservable. So when we say we believe such and such theory we really mean to say we believe that such and such a theory is empirically valid but not that the theory and its entities exist if such entities are unobservable. String theorists currently develop theories that are not empirically verifiable, believing in string theory (supposing it makes accurate empirical predictions) means you believe it is empirically accurate and if strings are unobservable then we cannot say they exist. So again, in our Ptolemaic problem, if we assume it makes the same predictions as Newtonian physics, why suppose the existence of unobservable celestial spheres - the answer is we only believe in the empirical statements of the theory and not the statements on unobservables - or for that matter we do not take them to necessarily exist in so far as the theory holds up empirically, It's pretty intersting how much modern physics relies on metaphysical claims of unobservables. Almost all of physics is based on supposing that things exist in reality because our predictions are empirically accurate. You can find humour in that when you turn back to the Ptolemy example.

How gross a simplification of this is it to say: science doesn't tell us what's real, it just tells us what works? I'm not a STEM-fag, or even really an empiricist, but it's still a little dispiriting to think about how little it's possible to know.

shut it kike

Someone's mad his mom married some beta provider named Stephen Greenblatt after daddy left. You should be nicer to Steve, you know. He pays for your internet.

From what I understand (I'm not expert), van Fraassen says that things exist in so far as they are observable. We can at that your bookshelf exists because we can sense it. We cannot say for instance (and this may be grossly inaccurate because I don't know if we have observed such entires directly) gluons exist because our theory (QCD) contains gluon entities which produce certain particle jets as predicted by our theories. To say they exist is metaphysical - it's almost like saying your bookshelf is a shelf because there exists a form of a bookshelf which it contains the essence of which is a metaphysical and non-scientific claim.

Tell me about him. Never heard of him and am relatively soon going to start reading contemporary thomism that's not Feser or MacIntyre.

Best thread in a long time, just after I discovered Edith Stein. More motivated to read her now, as well as van Fraassen. But OP, why was Stein better than Heidegger?

t. Heidegger fanboy.

van Fraassen isn't a Thomist. He's just a big name in contemporary philosophy who also happens to be a theist (specifically a Christian theist) like Swineburn, Anscombe, MacIntyre, van Inwagen, Plantinga etc.

Wait, is this the nun who was like "Even if the Pope is the devil we should place our heads on his lap"?

I would find it hard to characterise any thomist from that list as someone who just happens to be- balancing philsophy and Catholicism has a lot of limitations on what a person can hold and still be one. Aside of that, there's also a very rich tradition all of them are deeply immersed in, be it liturgically or in other ways, so it's impossible to remove them from their Catholic background

She was sent to Auschwitz yes because she was a Jew, but in particular because the Catholic Church spoke out against the Nazi deportation of Jews from Holland -- which initially excluded all Jews who converted prior to 1941. Edith Stein converted to Catholicism in 1922, and thus was within the scope of the exclusion.

However, when the Dutch bishops publicly protested against the deportation on July 26, 1942, the Nazis responded with harsher measures, rounding up converts including Edith Stein who was then deported and murdered.

Thus she died because of her Jewish heritage, and because of Nazi retaliation against the Catholic bishops of Holland for their public protest against the deportation of Jews.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=806

I don't know who she is or anything she says but I hope you're right

Nice, user. I like you.

I didn't know that. Arendt in her Eichman book notes that the Nazis had a way of making their victims complicit in the Holocaust; the controversial example she uses is the Judenrate, who did the organizational work in the ghettoes for the Nazis. She notes that where Jewish organizations where simply not existent, fewer people died. Interesting to note that the Catholic church in the Netherlands didn't take the bait (it seems that the Protestants did), so more respect to the Church.

how do i even start with her?

I only read some of her aphorisms, which were nice, but outside of that couldn't find anything online. Her spirituality is too expensive to buy and her philosophy is obscure and untranslated into my language.

>What's this bro's deal?

He's a Catholic -- enough said.

Although, I do appreciate how he follows the empiricist position to its logical extreme. Smart guy.

Edith Stein, interesting. What are the best youtube videos on her?

I'm no expert, but I thought this was quite informative:
>youtube.com/watch?v=PR_7XPEnigI

I haven't watched this, but Robert Barron is usually good:
>youtube.com/watch?v=jyInEuYZM-c

I'm not sure. The above-noted videos would probably be helpful. Edith Stein is within the school of phenomenology, which is nicely sketched here, although Stein is only mentioned briefly:
>patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2013/12/02/jacques-derrida-theologian-conservative-top10-sufficient-reasons/

The second part of this blog post has some *very* interesting, brief write-ups of recent works of French Catholic philosophy in the phenomenological school. I think it can be safely said that the author of this blog, Artur Rosman, knows his stuff:
>patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2013/12/03/praying-french-god-phenomenology-catholic-philosophy/

I have not read it, but Alasdair MacIntyre's book on Stein might be helpful:
>amazon.com/Edith-Stein-Philosophical-Prologue-1913-1922/dp/074255953X

>If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

comes immediately before

Currently reading Garrigou-Lagrange. Turns out the first Vatican council had dogmas in mind specifically against phenomena based philosophy and in favor of philosophy of being. God, His Essence and His Nature is an incredible piece of work.

Thank you. I have heard good things about Garrigou-Lagrange but have not read him.

>Turns out the first Vatican council had dogmas in mind specifically against phenomena based philosophy and in favor of philosophy of being.

That's above my pay grade, but I would note this remark: ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=331110&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=