Against final causality

[1AugustSon7]

A sceptic would say nature doesn’t produce natural products intentionally but necessarily

Necessity is actually a stronger form of intentionality; in fact, over-exagerating necessity results in the impossibility of chance happenings, deformities, irregularities, abnormalities, monstrosities, etc.

although it is far from obvious that nature must produce complex organisms

Agreed.

An interesting explanation which reflects the immense improbability that DNA - let alone the mind - has emerged fortuitously.

I don’t see any problems in believing in evolution so long as one acknowledges that God is the Lord of all history - including natural history - and that things developed according to and under His providence. I would also insist that there was an original couple - called Adam and Eve in scripture - from whom the whole human race is descended and that these first parents of ours disrupted their relationship with God with the consequence of the regime of death and sin taking hold over humanity.

Evolution, in my opinion, is just final causality on an epic scale. For the theist, however, the entire process is a grand ‘becoming’ or realization of nature and God’s plan for the universe.

Still, I would insist in the realm of reason that the very existence of determinate and definite things necessitates some kind of final causality in nature or ends or goals in natural processes in order to account for their generation or production. But if they will acknowledge the above two things I don’t see any problems as a Catholic Christian: it is not necessary to be an Aristotelian in order to be a Christian.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

tonyrey:

Why can’t you dream you’re perceiving a mountain?

You can, but in that case you would indeed be having such a perception.

1AugustSon7:

If we accept that there is something unique and determinate about things that makes them what they are and not something else, then the specificity of that thing entails its being realized as such (a kind of thing). Now both man and nature produce things: rocks and cats are natural products, and houses and chairs are artificial products. Now if a builder didn’t in some sense possess the distinct form or essence of a house, he could not produce or realize an actual house; and again, if there was nothing determinate about a house, then the builder could not possibly produce a house, because he would have nothing to specifically aim at in order to realize it. Hence he in some sense must contain the effect and be capable of making it an actuality.

• For physical things, there is not something “unique” and “determinate”.
• A builder does not possess the “distinct form or essence” of house. He has a belief that it would be good to have a shelter, and so he uses his creative mind to throw together a bunch of concepts (like those of bricks, cement, hollowness, etc) and form the concept of what he calls a “house”. Once he has formed the idea, he can intentionally produce it.
• But it is still possible that he could accidentally produce something (this couldn’t feasibly happen with a house, but for something simpler it could), in which case he wouldn’t need to have the concept.

 

[1AugustSon7]

For physical things, there is not something “unique” and “determinate”.

This is manifestly false.

You know the difference between a rock and a cat. Therefore there is something unique about each and something that determines that uniqueness.

Again, you know the difference between health and a house.

A builder does not possess the “distinct form or essence” of house.

Then how does he know how to produce it?

Again, a doctor better know what is required for health and doctors frequently restore health to people who suffer from similar or common ailments.

He has a belief that it would be good to have a shelter,

A shelter is still something unique and definite. He has to know what satisfies for something to be ‘a shelter’. He can grasp the essential characteristics of a shelter and thus find, recognize or produce one.

But it is still possible that he could accidentally produce something

Actually there are infinite number of possible or potential accidental products accompanying a house that a builder has built: e.g., that one man will find it beautiful and another in poor taste; that one will trip over some part of its construction and result in a broken bone, etc. All of these are accidental results or products of the builder’s house but were not, of course, his intention nor did he foresee these accidental products. Of course, the builder cannot possibly foresee all of these accidental products or results; again, we cannot accomplish an infinite number of procedures and, as a consequence, there must be something limited and definite in the construction of a house; otherwise, the builder would never cease producing or actually make a finished house. But builders do finish houses. Therefore there is something unique, determinate and limited about a house that makes its realization actually possible.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

1AugustSon7:

You know the difference between a rock and a cat. Therefore there is something unique about each and something that determines that uniqueness.

The main difference between a rock and a cat is that a cat is alive, ie. it has a soul, which is not a physical thing.

1AugustSon7:

Then how does he know how to produce it?

He has a belief that he ought to placve a certain brick in a certain spot, and a bunch of other beliefs liek it for other bricks, and another such belief for each shingle, etc.

1AugustSon7:

A shelter is still something unique and definite. He has to know what satisfies for something to be ‘a shelter’. He can grasp the essential characteristics of a shelter and thus find, recognize or produce one.

Define a shelter. I guarantee your definition will have blurred borders rather than definite ones.

1AugustSon7:

again, we cannot accomplish an infinite number of procedures and, as a consequence, there must be something limited and definite in the construction of a house; otherwise, the builder would never cease producing or actually make a finished house. But builders do finish houses. Therefore there is something unique, determinate and limited about a house that makes its realization actually possible.

First, limited doesn’t mean “definite”.
Second, if the builder decided to keep expanding the house forever, it would never be completed. It’s only complete because the builder decides it is.

 

[tonyrey]

You can, but in that case you would indeed be having such a perception.

To be precise, you would dream you are perceiving a mountain but it is not real.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

You wouldn’t be perceiving a real mountain, but you would be seeing an image of one.

 

[tonyrey]

You wouldn’t be perceiving a real mountain, but you would be seeing an image of one.

In other words you would think you’re having a perception of a mountain. When we’re dreaming we don’t stop thinking - which is another reason to believe in final causality. We are designed to be reasonable as well as emotional…

 

[1AugustSon7]

The main difference between a rock and a cat is that a cat is alive, ie. it has a soul, which is not a physical thing.

But you wouldn’t be able to recognize a cat’s being alive if it wasn’t thus made manifest physically.

Again, you know the difference between a rock and a snowflake, and neither of these have souls.

He has a belief that he ought to placve a certain brick in a certain spot, and a bunch of other beliefs liek it for other bricks, and another such belief for each shingle, etc.

Yes the builder knows what is necessary to produce the houses he builds. All of his actions are organized around a single essential idea of a house and conform to realizing it as an end or goal. The concept of house is thus limited and definite, otherwise he could never instantiate it as he would be building forever or wouldn’t know where even to start or begin.

Define a shelter. I guarantee your definition will have blurred borders rather than definite ones.

The philosophers went through a similar program for defining justice and what a man is. At first we are often surprised at our inability to articulate concepts we have; notwithstanding, we can still recognize courage or a courageous man, justice (or injustice) and a just man. We know what satisfies to be a shelter: if you were shipwrecked on some exotic island you would scour the place to find one and not be too concerned about whether or not you can give a philosophically precise definition for the shelter you have taken refuge in.

First, limited doesn’t mean “definite”.

In part it does:

def·i·nite déffənit ]

1.clear: precise and distinct
2.fixed: fixed, certain, and not to be altered
3.absolutely set on something: certain about something and unlikely to have a change of mind

What is unlimited, insofar as it is unlimited, is also indefinite. An unlimited line is partly definite (insofar as it is line) and party indefinite (as to the limits of its extension - and an unlimited line doesn’t have any such limit in contrast to a limited line). A limited line has a definite extension or length: we can define its length.

Second, if the builder decided to keep expanding the house forever, it would never be completed. It’s only complete because the builder decides it is.

But listen to yourself though: “if the builder decided to keep expanding the house forever…”
In your own words, you already recognize what satisfies to be a “house” in your mental experiment. That he keeps on adding additional rooms or apartments or features does not negate its being sufficiently a house.
I know a man, who has sadly since passed away, but he was ceaselessly rennovating his house. Sometimes it was more or less dramatic. His house was always partly under construction. Notwithstanding, it always remained a house, even if certain changes vitiated this because it made living there difficult.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

1AugustSon7:

But you wouldn’t be able to recognize a cat’s being alive if it wasn’t thus made manifest physically.

Again, you know the difference between a rock and a snowflake, and neither of these have souls.

If a big rock was carved in the shape of a cat and painted to look like one, I might think t was a cat.
True, there is a difference between a rock and a snowflake, but consider if I take 500 little pebbles, each having .1% of the volume of the rock, and 500 little pieces of snow, each having the same volume, and then mix them al together. Is the resulting blob of matter a rock or a snowflake?

1AugustSon7:

The concept of house is thus limited and definite, otherwise he could never instantiate it as he would be building forever or wouldn’t know where even to start or begin.

The concept of a house is, like all physical concepts, a gradual one. Is a teepee a house? Yes, it sort of is, but not quite the same way mine is a house. The two are both houses, but one is somehow “less” of a house. So let’s take the teepee and keep making it less and less of a house (by gradually dismantling it). At what single and fixed point does it become officially not a house?

1AugustSon7:

The philosophers went through a similar program for defining justice and what a man is. At first we are often surprised at our inability to articulate concepts we have; notwithstanding, we can still recognize courage or a courageous man, justice (or injustice) and a just man. We know what satisfies to be a shelter: if you were shipwrecked on some exotic island you would scour the place to find one and not be too concerned about whether or not you can give a philosophically precise definition for the shelter you have taken refuge in.

True, but this dodges my question. I asked you to define shelter, not prove that the definition isn’t important in our everyday lives.

1AugustSon7:

What is unlimited, insofar as it is unlimited, is also indefinite. An unlimited line is partly definite (insofar as it is line) and party indefinite (as to the limits of its extension - and an unlimited line doesn’t have any such limit in contrast to a limited line). A limited line has a definite extension or length: we can define its length.

We have this neat term “infinity” for defining unlimited things.

1AugustSon7:

But listen to yourself though: “if the builder decided to keep expanding the house forever…”
In your own words, you already recognize what satisfies to be a “house” in your mental experiment. That he keeps on adding additional rooms or apartments or features does not negate its being sufficiently a house.

But, in light of the teepee/modern house thing, it would seem that his house is becoming “more” of a house as he builds it. Just that it is already a house to some extent doesn’t make the definition of house rigid.