This chapter examines traditionalists’ arguments why Dungeons Dragons (DD) is good for us first, and then discusses the cases where it could be bad for us. The irony for Christian critics of DD, such as Schnoebelen, is that the philosophical and theological arguments of Christian traditionalists, such as Thomas Aquinas and J.R.R. Tolkien, provide some of the strongest arguments in favor of DD role‐playing. However, to be fair, these same arguments can be used to argue that a particular DD game, (...) under certain circumstances, can be bad. “Postmodernists” refers loosely to a group of philosophers and thinkers who question, if not outright reject, the core tenets of the traditionalists. If the traditionalists have the correct metaphysics about the real world, then it follows that DD is good, but that care must be taken to make sure the game does not become morally objectionable. (shrink)

There is a serious flaw in The Terminator which pretty much ruins the storyline. The problem is about Kyle Reese, who must enter the time-displacement equipment in the future, sometime after the Terminator had already entered it. We call this the “Bad Timing Problem”.

Over the past 50 years, Jorge J.E. Gracia has been a seminal figure in Latin American philosophy, philosophy of race and ethnicity, metaphysics and ontology, medieval philosophy, and the theory of interpretation. This book commemorates Gracia’s legacy with a critical investigation of his deep and wide-ranging impact.

This book provides a series of challenges to Jorge J. E. Gracia’s views on metaphysics and categories made by realist philosophers in the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions. Inclusion of Gracia’s responses to his critics makes this book a useful companion to Gracia’s _Metaphysics and its Task: The Search for the Categorial Foundation of Knowledge_.

Chapter 1 begins with the paradox of the origin of speech. He asks: “Does the tight mutual embrace of call and response, through which what responds calls and what calls responds, imply a vicious circle, or does it reveal that there is no difference between affirming speech to spring from being called and affirming that every first utterance is really a response[?]”. In defending the latter position he draws on the Platonic and Neoplatonic tradition of understanding beauty as a call. (...) The second part of chapter 1 focuses on St. Paul’s utterance in Romans 4:17 that God “calls into being what is not.”. (shrink)