| Resources » Aristotelian Resources » 7/05/2015 9:49 am |
- John West
- Replies: 30
-
As long as everyone's careful not to get too far away from the way these words are actually used -- even in professional philosophy -- today. Specific language is great in philosophy, but I wouldn't want my use of language to become so obscure that people coming here can't understand me. Besides, if E. J. Lowe wants to call himself a neo-Aristotelian, and Edward Feser calls him a neo-Aristotelian, and everyone calls him a neo-Aristotelian but he breaks harshly with the Platonic tradition in some places ...
I agree about Quine, though. I've long complained about the way "platonism" is used in philosophy of mathematics.
| Resources » Aristotelian Resources » 7/05/2015 9:12 am |
- John West
- Replies: 30
-
Both Broadie and Parsons's books are good, but don't expect a system anywhere near as powerful as the first-order predicate calculus unless you buy Parsons's work.
| Chit-Chat » Suggesstions for the forums and issues for moderation. » 7/04/2015 11:23 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 125
-
It would be good to have a Glossary thread, listing medieval and scholastic terminology. We throw around a lot of technical language (not to mention Latin) and it would, I think, help ease communication to have a thread where readers can check definitions at a glance.
| Resources » Aristotelian Resources » 7/04/2015 9:41 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 30
-
Aquinas
Feser, Edward. Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide.
Stump, Eleanore. Aquinas.
Ockham
Keele, Rondo. Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion.
| Resources » Aristotelian Resources » 7/04/2015 8:58 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 30
-
Michael Sullivan and Lee Faber's Scotus hub, The Smithy.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Common misconceptions about Scholasticism » 7/04/2015 3:41 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 12
-
Oh, I see. The period got included in the link. I wish I had noticed that.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Common misconceptions about Scholasticism » 7/04/2015 3:31 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 12
-
Scott wrote:iwpoe wrote:. . . *that* kind of empiricism would be compatible with a certain construal of their rendering of scholasticism[.]
I'm tempted to name Fr. Robert Sokolowski as at least a partial example. See e.g. here:
| Theoretical Philosophy » Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy » 7/03/2015 6:11 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 99
-
iwpoe wrote:
Are you and Daniel in agreement or disagreement on that point?
I don't think we're in disagreement. Assuming you're referring to Daniel's post here:
Daniel wrote:This is a very good point. The intrinsic possibility to exist, the 'mere' logical possibility to look at it in a more modern way, is separate from the notion of Potency as normally understood. After all how can a non-existent being stand in potency to anything?
The later Scholastics, in particular Scotus, were aware of this and referred to it by the term ‘Objective Potency’: this is one of the reasons why Scotus has been called the ancestor of modern modal theory.I think Daniel was just pointing out that Scotus used the term "objective potency" to mean logical possibility, and connote that "objective potency" is distinct in meaning from "potency" as potency is traditionally understood (and the sense in which we're using it here). In other words, the potency we're using here and the "potency" in "objective potency" have different meanings.
iwpoe wrote:And can you say more about the last point?
Well, the purely possible (ie. the possibility of a unicorn) is grounded in God, and God is absolutely simple, pure act. We can draw purely logical distinctions and speak in greater detail of the Divine Speculative Intellect, but I think that would take us far adrift the topic and needlessly complicate the matter at hand.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy » 7/03/2015 5:21 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 99
-
iwpoe wrote:
1. Are dodos/unicorns a potency that might be actualized?
No, unicorns aren't potencies. Unicorns are metaphysically possible (at least, for the sake of discussion).
iwpoe wrote:2. If so, would it be wrong to say they don't exist?
It's correct to say that unicorns don't exist.
iwpoe wrote:3. Also, secondarily, of what are they a potency?
Nothing. They don't exist, nor do they exist as potencies. For the classical theist, pure possibilities are grounded, not in potentiality, but in pure actuality.
| Chit-Chat » Suggesstions for the forums and issues for moderation. » 7/03/2015 1:12 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 125
-
A few comments on earlier ideas. (1) We might want to reconsider doing a full beginner's sub-forum for the "Philosophy" forum in a couple weeks, if a significant enough number of the posts there are those kinds of inquiries (though "beginner's forum" may sound a touch condescending). In spite of my earlier idea, I now doubt a single post-it thread will contain all the questions we will get. We can relabel that post-it FAQ, or something. (2) I would support Daniel's sub-forums for general philosophy and philosophy of religion. His guess about the philosophy forum taking the brunt of the load seems to be checking out.