Moving to philosophy.

truthseeker wrote:

Greetings. I have an interest in Feser's philosophical writings, but I don't understand his arguments well enough to evalutate them. I hope that I can get some clarification on these forums.

I think you've come to the right place. But as iwpoe says, it will be helpful to know what work(s) of Feser's you've already read or tried to read.
 

Thanks for the responses. I posted my topic in 'Introductions' because I have multiple questions, and I was going to ask them in seperate topics with this topic as an introduction to them. I could keep my questions in this thread though.

I read parts of Last Superstition, Aquinas and Introduction to Scholastic Metaphysics over the last three years. I mainly focused on the argument for God's existence from act and potency, which I couldn't follow. So I'll ask my questions in the order that they arise in Feser's development of the argument. 

Let's start with act and potency. I understand these concepts as equivalent to actuality and possibility. So 'the ball is blue in actu' is equivalent to 'the ball is blue,' and 'the ball is blue in potentia' is equivalent to 'it is possibly the case that the ball is blue' (with 'possibly' being used in the metaphysical sense rather than, say, the epistemic sense). Furthermore, 'the man is in actu' is equivalent to 'the man exists,' and 'the man is in potentia' is equivalent to 'it is possibly the case that the man exists.' Am I making any error?

I actually myself have a hard time distinguishing between potency and possibility. It is possible that I might, with some wonderious level of technology, transmute a ball of lead into a ball of gold by way of knocking off a few atoms. Is that a potency of the ball or not?