Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 1/01/2018 5:53 pm |
After re-reading your posts, it seems that you are only focused on the First Way and that it lacks an exhaustive argument for a sustaining cause. Is that correct? Or is your argument that Aquinas gives no reason for proposing a sustaining cause at all?
If your complaint is merely that the First Way does not argue exhaustively for a sustaining cause then I may agree that it is not exhaustive. But as we have been discussing, natural motion that is occurring in the present moment is being caused by another, according to Aquinas with that "other" identified as the generator of the form, God. God as the sustaining cause of the object is implied although at this particular point he does not elaborate. It would be hard to imagine how he could argue for an Unmoved Mover if natural things essentially moved themselves and did not need an Unmoved Mover once they existed.
But he does provide reasons in other places and specifically addresses the question if things need to be kept in being by God here:
ST. First Part. Q104
[i]I answer that, Both reason and faith bind us to say that creatures are kept in being by God. To make this clear, we must consider that a thing is preserved by another in two ways. First, indirectly, and accidentally; thus a person is said to preserve anything by removing the cause of its corruption, as a man may be said to preserve a child, whom he guards from falling into the fire. In this way God preserves some things, but not all, for there are some things of such a nature that nothing can corrupt them, so that it is not necessary to keep them from corruption. Secondly, a thing is said to preserve another 'per se' and directly, namely, when what is preserved depends on the preserver in such a way that it cannot exist without it. In this manner all creatures need to be preserved by God. For the being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment co
Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 1/01/2018 11:29 am |
@ficino,
ficino wrote:
bmiller wrote:
OK, so you're saying you don't know of anyone who actually argues for EI. I kind of thought that was the case.
In my experience, remarks like the above, when accumulated, lead to the acrimony that so often develops in online threads.
In the above-cited article, Feser gives a long list of people who maintain EI. I'd say it goes back at least to the ancient atomists.
I'm sorry that sounded harsh, but I'm interested in what you hold EI to be and the reasons that you support EI over DCC. I may be a little impatient since you have been arguing either that A&A did not hold DCC or that they have no reason for holding that position but have not told us what the alternative should be and why.
I've provided my reasons for supporting DCC and quotes from Aquinas for reference, but unless you share the specifics of what you believe EI entails and why, neither of us can search A&A's works to see if your concerns are addressed.
Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but I assumed you posted them here to stake out a position in this discussion and defend them.
Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 12/31/2017 11:40 pm |
@ficino,
Happy 2018.
OK, so you're saying you don't know of anyone who actually argues for EI. I kind of thought that was the case.
Somehow, someway, some people just assume it's the default position without argument.
Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 12/31/2017 9:36 pm |
@ficino,
Happy New Year.
ficino wrote:
As to SCG I.13: since it’s part of an argument from for God’s existence, it would beg the question to introduce premises that presume the God of Thomism. Thomas can’t legitimately beg the premise that “the generating cause [i]s the ultimate source of natural motion in the present,” because at this stage of the argument, nothing about an ultimate source of natural motion in the present has been established, and it has not been established that the generating cause is identical with the cause of the simple bodies’ motion in the present.
This assumes he is arguing against your position of EI. In fact, he is merely providing the reason that things cannot be said to ultimately be moving themselves. If inanimate things moved themselves then they could stop and start. They cannot, hence there must be another principle at work in natural motion. This is an argument Aristotle uses in Physics I believe, but don't ask me where right now.
ficino wrote:
We can only say it gave them a form in the past. From “everything that is moved is moved by another” it does not follow that this “other” is identical with the generating cause.
Both Aristotle and Aquinas conclude natural movement is due to the form of the object. Simple bodies are drawn to the center, while animals move due to the soul as well as being drawn to the center. If you want to argue that A&A thought things moved themselves after being generated then please provide some quotes.
ficino wrote:
Sophroniscus was the generating cause of Socrates, but Sophroniscus is not moving every motion undertaken by Socrates after birth. Thomas needs to demonstrate that the same cause that generated a group of simple bodies, or heavy or light things, is the cause that is moving them after they are generated. But we get no argument for the latter inference.
But Sophroniscus was not the only "generating cause" of Socrates and certain
…Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/29/2017 2:08 pm |
@Strawdusty,
StardustyPsyche wrote:
@SteveK #455
Things that you failed to address:
- Cite one example of an existing mass that is not itself changing in some respect over time.
- The changeless mass that I am not convinced exists doesn't cause any change and doesn't do anything. It is therefore irrelevant to any of 5 Ways. What's your point?
- So now you're saying it DOES change. All mass/energy has 'structure' (i.e. form), therefore all mass/energy is NOT unchanging with respect to its existence. You want to have it both ways, but you cannot.
I agree with SteveK that your response didn't address his 3 points.
You didn't cite any mass that is unchanging.
Since the First Way addresses things that change, how is asserting that *something* doesn't change remain relevant to the argument?
Your assertion that some things change in a certain respect and not in another does not mean they don't change at all. If change is occurring in *any* respect that change requires an explanation.
Others have pointed these things out to you before, but you robotically repeat them.
Specifically:
StardustyPsyche wrote:
Mass/energy is conserved (an experimentally measured and confirmed scientific fact).
Energy is not conserved. You agreed with Sean Carroll's article. Since energy is convertible to mass and energy is not conserved, then neither is not conserved. Put another way, when photons lose energy, they likewise lose mass equivalency and nothing is conserved. Why do you keep insisting on a discredited Newtoninan idea?
StardustyPsyche wrote:
That means mass/energy stays the same in the respect of its existence.
That means mass/energy does not change in the respect of its existence.
Therefore no changer at all is necessary to account for existential inertia.
Mass and energy are 2 different things and are constantly changing. You merely *assert* that there is *something* that stays the same but yo
…Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 12/29/2017 12:11 am |
Hi ficino,
Happy New Year (almost).
ficino wrote:
Your intro can be reworded, "If it sustains them in their form/matter combo, it causes their motion [through n intermediaries]." But doesn’t this assume what needs to be proved, i.e. that there is a sustaining cause? Your antecedent seems to beg the interlocutor to deny Existential Inertia, a denial that I’ve been contesting.
I quoted Aquinas and his reason asserting that the generating cause as the ultimate source of natural motion in the present. "everything that is moved is moved by another." is in reference to motion in the present sense, isn't it? So it is apparent here that Aquinas considers the generating cause (the cause of the form of the thing) to be operating in the "now" and is the answer to the question of what is presently moving the thing. This is simply the Thomist position. It does not beg any question but offers an explanation of why things remain in existence at all for any length of time. It is the middle position between Parmenides and Heraclitus. Why should things just persist anyway?
ficino wrote:
...things are only in motion as long as the generating cause is active” seems pretty clearly an error on A-T principles. We can go into this point more if you’d like.
I don't think this is controversial. After all you have argued that only existing things can be in motion, so if the generating cause ceases to keep a thing in existence, per Aquinas, it follows that it is not moving. Of course for Aquinas, the generating cause is God.
ficino wrote:
Here you are not directly discussing EI vs. DDC (Doctrine of Divine Conservation). May I ask, though, whether you identify generation and conservation in existence as the same operation?
When Aristotle discusses violent motion of an existing material object, he elaborates that the motion has a beginning, a middle and and end. So an agent causes an object to move from a state of rest...propagating th
…Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/24/2017 11:46 pm |
Merry Christmas Strawdusty.
Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/24/2017 10:46 pm |
@Calhoun,
Strawdusty has never admitted to having taken even a high school physics class. In fact, you can easily tell he hasn't. So, he's merely trying to divert you by insults.
Keep going. You've exposed that he still doesn't understand the Carroll post.
Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 12/24/2017 10:04 pm |
Timocrates wrote:
So you are arguing that for Aquinas a particle put in motion by another would move because of:
1. Its natural form
2. Its generator (its efficient cause)
3. The cause(s) responsible for creating the circumstance (if required) that made its motion possible (removed impediments)
And finally
4. The efficient cause of its motion (ie the particle that imparted its kinetic energy to the moveable particle)?
Not quite. Material objects in motion are in motion either naturally or violently.
There could be some definitional issues with the term particle, so let me use the work material object instead.
A material object put in motion by another would be in motion violently.
But a material object would naturally move toward other material objects (gravity) unless it was prevented from moving by others. Since all material objects are are affected by gravity, they all have a tendency to move toward each other, and ultimately the center. So for instance, a ball would fall to the floor if you let go of it, or all material objects are attracted toward the Big Crunch....unless prevented.
It is the nature (form) of the object to behave like this. The nature of the object is due to the generator and the generator must not cease to be active since, according to Aquinas, motion in the present must ultimately be due to the Unmoved Mover.
Timocrates wrote:
Interestingly kinetic energy seems to be the formal cause and power in the agent that it imparts, which is not only the agent imparting a formal likeness of itself but a specific (formal) identity.
I've seen a quote from Aquinas where he says something similar.
Merry Christmas Timocrates!
And also, to my dismay I forgot to with Merry Christmas to ficino.
So Merry Christmas ficino!
Theoretical Philosophy » Are generation and corruption "motions" in A-T? » 12/24/2017 9:42 pm |
ficino wrote:
@bmiller,
Do you know where Lang wrote that Ari included gen/corr among motions when the topic called for it?
No. I don't have any quote related to that particular definition.
I meant that I agreed with Lang's method of reading each of Aristotle's writing as addressing a particular topic. The definitions that he used in that particular topic were related to that topic only and it would be a mistake to try to force uniform definitions across all of his writings. That is why we see generation and corruption listed sometimes as motion and sometimes not.
ficino wrote:
I never got deeply into the problem of Aristotelian chronology, but as far as I've seen, it is often thought that his logical works were on the early side. So when he includes gen/corr among motions in Categories and Topics, it seems reasonable to me to think those passages predate his considered argumentation about the species of kinesis. And as far as I can tell, Aquinas did not comment on the Topics, and it's known that he did not comment on the Categories. So we can't check his take on Ari in those works. Anyway, I'm not ready to reject all chronological hypotheses when trying to interpret Aristotle, but there's no way to get into this question in depth here.
I haven't thought much about the chronological order of his works either, but Lang seems to think that the entire corpus could have been revised over the course of Aristotle's life as he encountered objections and responded to them. This seems very reasonable to me.
Also, perhaps he was a bit more loose with his definitions that moderns would like him to be and possibly read back modern definitions into his works. I often see this when modern scientists insist he was wrong when he used terms like force and power which have very strict definitions in physics today. Not so much in his time.
ficino wrote:
But I also agree with Jeremy, that Aquinas considers all real change as change from poten
…