tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post3839933076851300223..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Aristotle Never Conceived of "Same-Sex Marriage" -- for Good ReasonA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-79559196985666900372012-10-17T22:50:10.427-07:002012-10-17T22:50:10.427-07:00Paul Brannan, thank you for your input here. For m...Paul Brannan, thank you for your input here. For me, the problem with your hypothetical is that while it might look like an apple on the outside, it would not <i>taste</i> like an apple. (And we are assuming that the substitution of genes to create citric acid in the place of the genes that created malic acid would not affect the viability of the apple species.)<br /><br />I submit that Aristotle would never have admitted an object that looked on the outside to be an apple, but which tasted like a lemon, as a true apple -- precisely because his schema (and nature itself) has never hypothesized or allowed for such an object.<br /><br />Your proposal to admit other acids than malic to the essential definition of an apple denies the apple's very essence (which is expressed in the choice of the Latin word "malum" to define what we call an "apple"). For all that I know, some varieties of apple may well contain quantities of citric or other acids, but (if so) they are far in the minority (compositionally speaking), and their defining characteristic (as any winemaker will tell you) is their malic acid.<br /><br />In the same way, you could choose _any_ chemical element of an apple and make it predominate -- but it would no longer be an apple. You could probably create, genetically, apples that were iridescently pink and that tasted just like real ones -- in which case we would be forced to expand the essential concept of an apple from one that is predominately flavored by malic acid, to one that is basically that <i>plus</i> has the traditional apple colors.<br /><br />But the ability to accomplish such variations in the laboratory is not what Aristotle was emphasizing in his schema -- which rested on natural processes and natural results from those givens in <i>this</i> world that we physically occupy. <br /><br />So while I fully agree that, linguistically and culturally, a civilization may well "agree" to define a citric apple as an "apple," that "agreement" would not satisfy Aristotle's logical schema -- and indeed, would make it a perpetually mutable one, at the whim of the current age.<br /><br />The ultimate problem with your contention, as I see it, is that it would cede final authority to man over God's creation. That is <i>the</i> supreme anthropomorphic fallacy -- that what man can create in his laboratories, or argue in his journals, is the equal (or even the superior) of what God Himself has created or revealed.<br /><br />So I cannot go where you would like to go -- it would involve the very denial of my faith.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-87237770690105206632012-10-17T18:47:34.824-07:002012-10-17T18:47:34.824-07:00I agree that same-sex "marriage" is nons...I agree that same-sex "marriage" is nonsensical. However, I don't agree that an apple and malic acid is a good analogy. Suppose that next month a creative scientist genetically modifies an apple to produce citric acid instead of malic acid, yet continues to have the same basic structure as an apple. We then have something which is crunchy like an apple yet is sour like a lemon.<br /><br />You may reasonably argue that this thing is not an apple, because it does not have the essential qualities of an apple. It is something entirely new. Yet it is something which is more similar to an apple than to any other thing; it nearly fits into the category of apple, but not quite. It might even be genetically compatible with an apple. If that's the case, you would have a hard time convincing an average joe or a botanist that this is not an apple.<br /><br />This is the world we live in. What you and I see as relativism (because it defines categories in a manner which is relative to the popular view at any given time) is not always seen as relativism by the rest of the world. To them, their categories feel concrete, even if they are fluid over time, because they are grounded in just enough absolutism to not completely fall apart.<br />Paul Brannanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01608027891457305677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-12106391331638251772012-09-22T13:01:27.872-07:002012-09-22T13:01:27.872-07:00I guess comparing apples to oranges is a thing of ...I guess comparing apples to oranges is a thing of the past now that the true difference in known!Milton Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06751775714568357428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-77997939823060842412012-09-22T09:10:18.553-07:002012-09-22T09:10:18.553-07:00fine article. Perhaps you could forward to Bishop ...fine article. Perhaps you could forward to Bishop Waldo to relay to the study dialogue for Upper SC diocese. It might be of some use there, I would hope.Sejseveerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11179653699659062566noreply@blogger.com