I've now read Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God from cover to cover, but I'm not sure that genuinely qualifies as really reading the book. As I noted back in Ramadhan, I was pushed to my very obvious mental limits at more than one point in attempting to grasp the details of the various arguments on offer and indulged in a fair bit of lazy coasting after doing pretty well on the first chapter. I can't see I've got much choice but to go back to the text, probably over an extended period of time, in a deliberately slow and, well, deliberate reading.
I suppose this is true of all genuine reading of philosophical works? If the brain is not entirely in gear you're not really doing, or, rather, encountering, philosophising.
Mind you, as with Prof Feser's other stuff, I found his critique of scientism compellingly clear and convincing. I suppose when you 'get' something it seems obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment