WHAT ARE THE KEY TERMS IN THE CORE ARGUMENT IN PFA?

In Part 2 of this series, I argued that the core argument in PFA (“Defending the Perverted Faculties Argument” by Timothy Hsiao) is the following categorical syllogism:

4. All sexual activity that is not open to the creation of new life is immoral.

A. All homosexual activity is sexual activity that is not open to the creation of new life.

THEREFORE:

7A. All homosexual activity is immoral.

This categorical syllogism is logically VALID, so in order to rationally evaluate this argument, we need to determine whether premise (4) is true or false, and we need to determine whether premise (A) is true or false.  If both (4) and (A) are true, then this is a SOUND argument.  But if either (4) or (A) are false, then this is an UNSOUND argument.  Also, if either (4) or (A) are dubious, or if we cannot determine whether they are true, then the argument should be rejected.

There are three terms in this argument.  In order to evaluate this argument, we must be clear about the meaning of these three terms:

“sexual activity that is not open to the creation of life”

“immoral”

“homosexual activity”

The first of these terms involves the combination of two categories, so there are actually four key terms that we need to have a clear understanding of in order to rationally evaluate the core argument in PFA:

“sexual activity”

“activity that is not open to the creation of life”

“immoral”

“homosexual activity”

If any one of these four key terms is UNCLEAR, then we cannot rationally evaluate the core argument in PFA.

Although not absolutely required, it is in general best to begin an analysis of an argument (once an argument has been identified) by identifying and clarifying the CONCLUSION of the argument.  If you do not understand the CONCLUSION of an argument, then you will never understand the argument.  Showing that the CONCLUSION is true (or probable) is the whole POINT of an argument.  So, if you don’t understand the meaning of the CONCLUSION, then you don’t understand the POINT of the argument.  If you don’t understand the POINT of an argument, then you don’t understand the argument.

Here is the CONCLUSION of the core argument in PFA:

7A. All homosexual activity is immoral.

Having identified the core argument in PFA, and having identified the CONCLUSION of that argument, the first and most important step of analysis is to UNDERSTAND the meaning of this statement that has been identified as the CONCLUSION of the core argument.

WHAT DOES “HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY” MEAN?

What does Timothy Hsiao mean by “homosexual activity”?  I did a search in the PDF of this article by Hsiao for the word “homosexual”.  There are only six occurrences of this word in the body of the article (ignoring the title of the article).  In three of those instances the word “homosexual” modifies another word that is not directly related to the idea of an “activity” (see p.755 of PFA):

These sentences talk about a “homosexual couple” and “homosexual relationships” and “homosexual couples”.  These sentences clearly do not attempt to DEFINE or to CLARIFY the meaning of the expression “homosexual activity”.  Furthermore, they FAIL to shed any significant light on the meaning of the phrase “homosexual activity”.

In only two instances of the word “homosexual” do we find the relevant phrase “homosexual activity”.  One of those instances is the statement of the CONCLUSION of the core argument in PFA:Obviously, simply making use of the phrase “homosexual activity” doesn’t provide us with any DEFINITION or CLARIFICATION about what this phrase means.  There is only one other use of the relevant phrase “homosexual activity” in the body of the article, and it occurs in the very first sentence (p. 751):

Once again, Hsiao is simply using the phrase “homosexual activity” here.  He is not attempting to DEFINE or CLARIFY the meaning of this phrase.  Furthermore, what he says here does not shed any significant light on what this phrase means.

There is only one remaining instance of the word “homosexual” in the body of PFA (on p.754):

Here Hsiao talks about “homosexual conduct” not about “homosexual activity”.  Perhaps he intends the phrase “homosexual conduct” to be a synonym for the phrase “homosexual activity”.  He does not, however, tell us that the phrase “homosexual conduct” has the same meaning as the phrase “homosexual activity”.  More importantly, he is NOT attempting to DEFINE or CLARIFY the meaning of the phrase “homosexual conduct” here; he is merely using this phrase.  Finally, even if we assume that “homosexual conduct” is supposed to have the same meaning as “homosexual activity”, this passage FAILS to provide any significant light on the meaning of the phrase “homosexual conduct”, and thus it FAILS to provide any significant light on the meaning of the phrase “homosexual activity”.

In summary,  Hsiao FAILS to DEFINE or to CLARIFY the meaning of the single most important phrase in his argument in PFA, specifically the key term in the CONCLUSION of the core argument in PFA.  This is an indication to me, that Hsiao literally does not know what he is talking about.  If Hsiao understands what the phrase “homosexual activity” means, then it would be fairly easy for him to DEFINE or to CLARIFY what the phrase “homosexual activity” means.  But he never even ATTEMPTS to CLARIFY or DEFINE what this means, even though this is the single most important phrase in the core argument that he is presenting, and thus the single most important phrase in the PFA article.  If Hsiao knows what this phrase means, then why the hell doesn’t he bother to let the rest of us know what the conclusion of his core argument means?

WHAT DOES “IMMORAL” MEAN?

The second key term in the CONCLUSION of the core argument in PFA is “immoral”.  I have done a search for the word “immoral” in the PDF of the PFA article, in order to see if Hsiao makes any attempt to DEFINE or to CLARIFY this key term.  The word “immoral” appears seven times in the body of the PFA article.  But Hsiao never defines the term “immoral”, and he does not attempt to clarify the meaning of this key term.

The first instance of the word “immoral” is on page 751 of PFA:

This is merely a use of the term, and provides no definition or clarification of what it means.

The second instance of the word “immoral” appears on page 754 of PFA:This is just an instance of using the word, not a definition or clarification of it.

There are two more instances of the word “immoral” on page 754:

Again, Hsiao fails to provide a definition or clarification of this word in this passage.

There are two more instances of the word “immoral” on page 755:

In these instances of “immoral” there is no attempt to define or to clarify the meaning of this term.

The seventh and final instance of the word “immoral” occurs on page 756 of PFA:As with the other six instances, there is no attempt here to define or to clarify the meaning of the word “immoral”.

CONCLUSION

What does Timothy Hsiao mean by “homosexual activity”?  What does Hsiao mean by saying that an activity is “immoral”?  Because these are the most important terms in the core argument in PFA, it is essential that Hsiao DEFINE what these central terms mean.  Neither of these terms is clear on its own.  Neither of these terms have a meaning that is obvious or self-evident.

But Hsiao makes no attempt to DEFINE or clarify the meaning of these two key terms.  Thus, the core argument  in PFA immediately FAILS, before we even get started.  This argument is Dead On Arrival.  Because of this fundamental FAILURE to clarify these two key terms, this argument, as presented by Hsiao in PFA, is a STEAMING PILE OF DOG CRAP.  The two most important terms, both of which are vague and unclear on their own, are left UNDEFINED and UNCLARIFIED by Hsiao.

We literally don’t know what Hsiao is arguing for, so we cannot understand this argument.  Because this argument is UNCLEAR, it cannot be rationally evaluated.  It is really, not an argument at all; it is some words that have been thrown together that appear like an argument without actually being an argument.  The problem is not that this is a WEAK or ILLOGICAL argument, nor that the premises are FALSE or DUBIOUS.  There is no argument here at all, just a stinking word salad that has no actual significance.  This “argument” is pure undistilled BULLSHIT.  The core “argument” in PFA is a pseudo argument, a faux argument. It is intellectual garbage.

Furthermore, because the terms “homosexual activity” and “immoral” appear in the two main premises of the core argument in PFA, the whole argument is infected with UNCLARITY.  Because we don’t know what Hsiao means by the phrase “homosexual activity”, we also don’t know the meaning of premise (A):

A. All homosexual activity is sexual activity that is not open to the creation of new life.

Because we don’t know what Hsiao means by the term ‘immoral”, we also don’t know the meaning of premise (4):

4. All sexual activity that is not open to the creation of new life is immoral.

So, because Hsiao FAILS to define or clarify the key phrase “homosexual activity” and the key word “immoral”, we don’t understand the conclusion of his argument, and we don’t understand the meaning of either of the two premises of his core argument.  In other words, the core argument in PFA consists of three sentences, and we don’t understand any of those three sentences because Hsiao has FAILED to define or clarify the meanings of the two most important terms that are used in this argument.

I’m not going to go into more details about this UNBELIEVABLY CRAPPY article by Hsiao, but it should be noted that he also FAILS to define or clarify the meanings of the two other key terms in his core argument:

“sexual activity”

“activity that is not open to the creation of life”

So, Hsiao FAILS to define or clarify ANY of the four key terms that constitute his core argument in PFA.

This suggests to me that Hsiao is just as much a SHITHEAD as the Thomist philosophers Peter Kreeft and Norman Geisler.  This suggests to me that Hsiao could not reason his way out of a wet paper bag.

I have examined many arguments by Peter Kreeft, who is a Christian philosopher and a Thomist.  I have examined many arguments by Norman Geisler, who is also a Christian philosopher who admires Aquinas and was strongly influenced by the philosophy of Aquinas.  I can say with confidence that nearly all of the arguments I have examined by Kreeft and by Geisler are STEAMING PILES OF DOG CRAP.  Kreeft and Geisler are sloppy, lazy, illogical, and unclear thinkers who are practically incapable of presenting a clear and logical argument.  And the most basic problem with the arguments of Kreeft and Geisler is that they are almost always UNCLEAR.  They fail to provide definitions or clarifications of key terms, and use words in sloppy and unclear ways.  As a result, their arguments are uniformly WORTHLESS CRAP.

I’m NOT saying that ALL Thomists have SHIT for brains (e.g. I think Ed Feser is clearly a logical thinker, compared with Kreeft and Geisler).  However, given my experience with the horrible CRAPPY arguments of Kreeft and Geisler, I’m not inclined to give Hsiao the “benefit of the doubt”.  My experience with well-known Thomist philosophers indicates that they are NOT the sharpest tools in the shed.  The fact that Hsiao FAILS to define or clarify the two most important terms in the core argument of his article, is exactly the sort of SHIT-HEAD thinking that Kreeft and Geisler constantly spew out in argument after argument.  Is there some kind of “Thomist Coolaid” these guys are all drinking that turns their brains into mush?

I would love to CRUSH any argument that Hsiao puts forward defending traditional Christian sexual morality concerning homosexuality.  But first Hsiao needs to learn how to think clearly and logically, and he needs to learn how to construct AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT as opposed to this piece of SHIT in PFA that he pretends to be an argument.