No, I don't think that works. I'd have to look at Gerson more closely on that argument, but my initial reaction is to say that even essential properties are not identical with the object that possesses them. For, both gold and copper are essentially conductive material, but conductivity does not belong to either metals in a relationship of identity, since neither metal is the other insofar as each is conductive.

Which paper is this? Sometimes Gerson is more concerned to show why I think he ends up where he does and he forgets to make enough distinctions so that you might also end up in the same place as the thinker.

Last edited by iwpoe (3/20/2016 7:22 pm)

Ed gives his own summary of (Gerson's) Plotinus' Argument for the One here. As it stands it's close to a standard argument for Divine Simplicity (which John very kindly summarizes here). I believe Scotus' also gave a presentation of it as a proof for God.

 

AKG wrote:

Does Dr. Gerson himself adhere to Platonism as described by Plato or some form of Neoplatonism?

I can't tell with him. I think he does but doesn't foreground it. In none of his lectures have I ever heard him say anything like "this is how Platonists argue but of course that's totally wrong."

If I can ever establish a steady communication with him, I'll ask.

AKG wrote:

@iwpoe,
Thanks. I might also be able to establish communication with him in a few months as I might attend the University of Toronto where he teaches(not on the same campus but still) when I graduate highschool.
(are there any more lectures of his online because I really enjoyed watching his lecture on what is Platonism).

Here's a whole course:

https://archive.org/details/07AristotlesCriticismOfPlatosFormsLecture04February3TheArgumentFromTheSciencesIiPt.1

Also:

Philosophy Series Lecture: "Platonism versus Naturalism."

"The Democracy Fallacy" Dr. Lloyd P. Gerson

Public Property? | Lloyd P. Gerson

If you can establish a connection with him, that would be ideal. I need some information from him about paradigmatic and instrumental causes, and he's not the best with emails.

Hmm, that seems to be contrary to the meaning of "a position", unless I'm misunderstanding you: X being over here rather than over there implies a distinction of here from there and X from both.

I mean, let's say that, for whatever reason, we're on a 2d Cartesian grid and God can only ever be, for whatever reason, located at (3,15), it would not follow that (3,15) is essential to God in the sense that it is indistinct from him, since insofar as it's a coordinate it's in a relation to other coordinates qua coordinate. Or something like that. It seems to me that you've given away its distinction from God once you've admitted that it's a position like others.