Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?



9/23/2018 8:01 pm  #1


The argument from motion and the Pure Act

I do not think that it is enough to demonstrate that essentially-ordered series terminate in an unmoved mover for the argument to go through because an unmoved mover could have passive potencies that are actualized at a later time or never actualized. It seems that the proponent would have to prove that the unmoved mover also is purely actual without passive potencies. Feser would defend this by appealing to an essentially-ordered series where it is the entire existence of the object being actualized. I still do not see why the unmoved mover could not be something whose existence is not actualized but also has passive potencies. So what arguments are there to show that the unmoved mover has no passive potency?

 

9/23/2018 11:08 pm  #2


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Well if such a being has potencies, its not a pure act then. Its actual action itself is one of its potency which has ended up being actualized. Since we've ruled out infinity of such beings , we get pure act with no potency.

 

9/24/2018 1:08 am  #3


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Noble_monkey wrote:

I do not think that it is enough to demonstrate that essentially-ordered series terminate in an unmoved mover for the argument to go through because an unmoved mover could have passive potencies that are actualized at a later time or never actualized. It seems that the proponent would have to prove that the unmoved mover also is purely actual without passive potencies. Feser would defend this by appealing to an essentially-ordered series where it is the entire existence of the object being actualized. I still do not see why the unmoved mover could not be something whose existence is not actualized but also has passive potencies. So what arguments are there to show that the unmoved mover has no passive potency?

If it is actual in some way and potential in another, you need to explain why it is specifically actual in that way instead of being actual in its potential way.

 

9/24/2018 8:29 pm  #4


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Calhoun wrote:

Well if such a being has potencies, its not a pure act then. Its actual action itself is one of its potency which has ended up being actualized. Since we've ruled out infinity of such beings , we get pure act with no potency.

Yes, that's precisely what I am asking. Why can't the actual action itself be not a potency and so does not need to be actualized but the same unmoved mover has other potencies that are "latent" so to speak and are not actualized or needed when he is acting as the unmoved mover. And then maybe those latent potencies are actualized later or even never actualized.

     Thread Starter
 

9/24/2018 8:30 pm  #5


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

RomanJoe wrote:

Noble_monkey wrote:

I do not think that it is enough to demonstrate that essentially-ordered series terminate in an unmoved mover for the argument to go through because an unmoved mover could have passive potencies that are actualized at a later time or never actualized. It seems that the proponent would have to prove that the unmoved mover also is purely actual without passive potencies. Feser would defend this by appealing to an essentially-ordered series where it is the entire existence of the object being actualized. I still do not see why the unmoved mover could not be something whose existence is not actualized but also has passive potencies. So what arguments are there to show that the unmoved mover has no passive potency?

If it is actual in some way and potential in another, you need to explain why it is specifically actual in that way instead of being actual in its potential way.

Why do I need to explain this? I don't accept the PSR.
 

     Thread Starter
 

9/24/2018 8:54 pm  #6


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Noble_monkey wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

Noble_monkey wrote:

I do not think that it is enough to demonstrate that essentially-ordered series terminate in an unmoved mover for the argument to go through because an unmoved mover could have passive potencies that are actualized at a later time or never actualized. It seems that the proponent would have to prove that the unmoved mover also is purely actual without passive potencies. Feser would defend this by appealing to an essentially-ordered series where it is the entire existence of the object being actualized. I still do not see why the unmoved mover could not be something whose existence is not actualized but also has passive potencies. So what arguments are there to show that the unmoved mover has no passive potency?

If it is actual in some way and potential in another, you need to explain why it is specifically actual in that way instead of being actual in its potential way.

Why do I need to explain this? I don't accept the PSR.
 

Then you don't need a First Cause.

 

9/24/2018 10:12 pm  #7


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Noble_monkey wrote:

Calhoun wrote:

Well if such a being has potencies, its not a pure act then. Its actual action itself is one of its potency which has ended up being actualized. Since we've ruled out infinity of such beings , we get pure act with no potency.

Yes, that's precisely what I am asking. Why can't the actual action itself be not a potency and so does not need to be actualized but the same unmoved mover has other potencies that are "latent" so to speak and are not actualized or needed when he is acting as the unmoved mover. And then maybe those latent potencies are actualized later or even never actualized.

Well that us just what a potency means, if its just one of the action actualized at this particular time then it would require actualizer, If you reject this whole causal principle then that is completely different issue from the question you're asking right now.
 

 

9/24/2018 10:58 pm  #8


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Calhoun wrote:

Noble_monkey wrote:

Calhoun wrote:

Well if such a being has potencies, its not a pure act then. Its actual action itself is one of its potency which has ended up being actualized. Since we've ruled out infinity of such beings , we get pure act with no potency.

Yes, that's precisely what I am asking. Why can't the actual action itself be not a potency and so does not need to be actualized but the same unmoved mover has other potencies that are "latent" so to speak and are not actualized or needed when he is acting as the unmoved mover. And then maybe those latent potencies are actualized later or even never actualized.

Well that us just what a potency means, if its just one of the action actualized at this particular time then it would require actualizer, If you reject this whole causal principle then that is completely different issue from the question you're asking right now.
 

Perhaps it would be helpful to speak of this in terms of composition where anything that  is a composite of act and potency needs something external to it to explain its specific composition. That is, why is it potentially x and actually y? But again, if you reject the POC or PSR then there's no reason for you to follow these arguments to their conclusions because you don't subscribe to the metaphysical principles they are built on.

 

9/25/2018 9:05 am  #9


Re: The argument from motion and the Pure Act

Noble_monkey wrote:

I do not think that it is enough to demonstrate that essentially-ordered series terminate in an unmoved mover for the argument to go through because an unmoved mover could have passive potencies that are actualized at a later time or never actualized. It seems that the proponent would have to prove that the unmoved mover also is purely actual without passive potencies. Feser would defend this by appealing to an essentially-ordered series where it is the entire existence of the object being actualized. I still do not see why the unmoved mover could not be something whose existence is not actualized but also has passive potencies. So what arguments are there to show that the unmoved mover has no passive potency?

For the first I refer to standard arguments for divine timelessness. For the second: a potency is a power to do something - a potency reports a modal property, related to possibilities. A potency that can never be actualized is like a possibility that cannot be realized - a contradiction in terms as long as one accepts standard systems of modal reasoning.

Last edited by DanielCC (9/25/2018 9:06 am)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum