NDPR just out on *Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Contemporary Science* edited by Wm. Simpson, Rbt. Koons and N. Teh. The reviewer, Steven French of Leeds, says this of neo-Aristotelian approaches to the metaphysics of science:  

"Neo-Aristotelian' approaches to the metaphysics of science have enjoyed a significant resurgence in recent years. What counts as such, however, may not always be clear. Here the editors helpfully list some relevant 'criteria of demarcation', which I'll give in reverse order (pp. 1-2): first the rejection of Platonism, in the sense of non-immanent entities such as universals or mathematical objects; second, a sparse theory of real essences or natural kinds; third, a pluralist account that includes both simple and composite entities; and fourth, a structured view that designates some of these entities as fundamental and the rest as derivative. Now I'll pause there because I suspect many readers will be nodding their heads and muttering 'Sounds fine to me so far . . . ". But then comes the kicker: a commitment to a metaphysics of potentiality, typically manifested in the form of a causal powers ontology. This is where many of us balk, not least because of naturalistic concerns over whether such a metaphysics can find a place in the context of modern physics.
Throughout this volume, however, however, it is the related notion of 'hylomorphism' that is the real focus of attention. Classically, this was understood as the doctrine that substances should be conceived of as formedmatter, but it is how this notion of 'form' is understood in the modern context that provides the central issue of interest here, not least because its explication reveals useful connections and comparisons with alternative accounts involving mechanisms, processes and structures."

Edward Feser has an essay in this volume, "Actuality, Potentiality and Relativity's Block Universe."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/neo-aristotelian-perspectives-on-contemporary-science/

Last edited by ficino (4/24/2018 4:58 am)