Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Final causality question

**Posted by AKG** 12/05/2015 7:53 pm

I just read Dr. Feser's article, teleology a shoppers guide. Near the end of the article he states that in order for final causes to be intelligible they must exist in an intellect before they appear in the natural world as otherwise their would be the case of a nonexistence cause producing an effect. He states: "Nor can it exist in some human or other intellect within the natural order, at least not without a vicious regress. Humans obviously are not the ones directing acorns and other natural objects (including human beings themselves) to their natural ends; and if we supposed that some other nonhuman but still natural intellects were doing so, this would just raise the question of what directs those intellects (since they too would be natural objects with final causes of their own) to their ends". With regards to this I'm a bit confused as under A-T isn't the intellect immaterial and thus not part of the natural order, which would not make it fall under natural objects that need to have final causes imparted by them by an outside source? Couldn't an intellect direct itself towards its own final cause due to having the ability to make conscious choices and think?

**Posted by DanielCC** 12/06/2015 5:17 am

AKG wrote:
. With regards to this I'm a bit confused as under A-T isn't the intellect immaterial and thus not part of the natural order, which would not make it fall under natural objects that need to have final causes imparted by them by an outside source?

Being immaterial does not mean falling outside the natural order though.

AKG wrote:
Couldn't an intellect direct itself towards its own final cause due to having the ability to make conscious choices and think?

It can indeed. That doesn't mean though that there isn't something which is rationally the highest object of contemplation

**Posted by AKG** 12/06/2015 8:24 am

Could you please elaborate more on why being immaterial does not necessarily mean falling outside of the natural order and why even though an intellect can direct itself towards its own final cause there would still have to be something that is the rationally highest object of contemplation.

**Posted by DanielCC** 12/06/2015 8:47 am

Certainly!

As to the first question: why should being outside space-time be equivalent to being 'non-natural'? At best this is an anachronistic characterisation of nature put forward by some modern naturalists. In terms of Classical philosophy even God falls within nature (obviously hence Natural Theology), the term 'supernatural' being reserved for specifics aspects of revealed theology.

As to the second: It is the intellect's nature to be open to the nature of other beings. If there is a being which has perfection as of its nature then it follows fairly directly that said being will be the highest object of contemplation (the only query one could raise here is whether the ultimate goal of noetics might be the trans-categorical contemplation of all beings).

**Posted by AKG** 12/06/2015 8:58 am

Thanks, this clears things up a bit more, bit with regards to the 5th way if an intellect can direct itself towards a final cause then in Dr. Fesers example of: "if we supposed that some other nonhuman but still natural intellects were doing so" in regards to directing the final causes of non-conscious beings such as acorns couldnt we stop at these intellects in order to explain final causes since they being intellects can direct themselves even if they were natural objects with final causes and could possibly do so for other things without intellect and we would need not to go outside of the natural world in order to arrive at a divine intellect as an explanation as we could use these intellects for the reasons stated above. If these intellects although natural could direct themselves and other things then why according to Dr. Feser would they need a divine intellect directing them as he states"his would just raise the question of what directs those intellects (since they too would be natural objects with final causes of their own) to their ends"

**Posted by DanielCC** 12/06/2015 9:09 am

Ah I see - Ed is for some reason using the term non-natural intellect to refer to a necessary intellect.

Merely being cognised by an intellect does not suffice to grant the cognised object a teleological goal. In the case of the Divine Intellect it only makes sense because it's taken in conjunction with God's creative and maintaining activity.

The only way non-Necessery being intellects could direct the growth of the acorn is if they literally were the acorn I.e. Panpsycism. Feser admits this is an objection one could give to Aristotelean and Scholastic views though it would be a high price to pay.

**Posted by AKG** 12/06/2015 1:24 pm

Does having a material body indicate that an intellect is limited which is why panpsychism due to having intellect as part of the material world does not constitute as the intellect in the 5th way?