Aristotle Physics and Metaphysics

  • Thread starter Thread starter StJoseph8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StJoseph8

Guest
I would like an explanation or further information on why we can say that while Aristotle’s physics was wrong, his metaphysics was correct. Thank you.
 
All because it has the word physics in it, doesn’t mean its related. They are two completely unrelated concepts!
 
The study of physics searches for the truth of the material realm of existence. The study of metaphysics searches for the truth of the immaterial realm of existence. If something does not exist materially nor immaterially it is not real (does not correspond to reality). Anyone feel free to add or correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Crusaderbear said:
All because it has the word physics in it, doesn’t mean its related. They are two completely unrelated concepts!
Click to expand...
Now yes but what about then? Kind of like astrology and astronomy. They were pretty much like it or not the same thing years ago. The new found philosophy of science originally of the devil now pretty much denies astrology which if you understand it has sometimes a 98% accuracy. And astronomy has a whole other take on things. I know a lil about that too. 😃
 
johnnyt3000 said:
The study of physics searches for the truth of the material realm of existence. The study of metaphysics searches for the truth of the immaterial realm of existence. If something does not exist materially nor immaterially it is not real (does not correspond to reality). Anyone feel free to add or correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
Science is all about what you can see with the five senses.
 
johnnyt3000 said:
The study of physics searches for the truth of the material realm of existence. The study of metaphysics searches for the truth of the immaterial realm of existence. If something does not exist materially nor immaterially it is not real (does not correspond to reality). Anyone feel free to add or correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
👍 Sounds right on the money too me.
 
StJoseph8 said:
I would like an explanation or further information on why we can say that while Aristotle’s physics was wrong, his metaphysics was correct. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Metaphysics deals with being as being. It deals with the general fact that there are beings that change, and that beings have natures. Metaphysics deals with the ultimate causes of things.

Science deals with the particularity of natures, and their particular causes. Thats why scientists speak of things like atoms and quarks. It deals with a different and very particular aspect of being and causality. Metaphysics does not deal with these aspects. It does not try to prove there is such a thing as water or present theories about what water is made out of. It just admits that there is water. It may even use the science of the times as an example, but the example does not constitute the actual agenda of metaphysics, it is not trying to prove that water is made out of cheese for example.
 
Thanks for the responses. I re-read what Edward Feser said about it in his book Aquinas and that helped out too. 👍
 
billcu1 said:
Now yes but what about then? Kind of like astrology and astronomy. They were pretty much like it or not the same thing years ago. The new found philosophy of science originally of the devil now pretty much denies astrology which if you understand it has sometimes a 98% accuracy. And astronomy has a whole other take on things. I know a lil about that too. 😃
Click to expand...
Even a stopped clock is 100% accurate some of the time. If the astrology reading for Aquarians says you are going to get hit by a truck today, then I guarantee that for 1/12 of the people who do get hit by a truck it is better than 98% accurate.
 
StJoseph8 said:
I would like an explanation or further information on why we can say that while Aristotle’s physics was wrong, his metaphysics was correct. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Physics you can check it. Metaphysics who knows?
 
I think Bahman hit the nail on the head. If you formulate a system of physics, that system can be tested against the observable universe and may be proved to be incorrect. I don’t think there is a way to test a system of metaphysics in a similar fashion. This does not mean that the metaphysics is considered correct (by default). It simply remains unproven and probably unprovable.
 
Nixbits said:
I think Bahman hit the nail on the head. If you formulate a system of physics, that system can be tested against the observable universe and may be proved to be incorrect. I don’t think there is a way to test a system of metaphysics in a similar fashion. This does not mean that the metaphysics is considered correct (by default). It simply remains unproven and probably unprovable.
Click to expand...
It is scientifically unprovable because it is not a scientific theory, and a scientific theory could always change with new evidence. But the assumption here is that metaphysics is invalid as a system of true knowledge because it does not operate according to the standards of science, which is a fallacy to a begin with. By what standard have you made that judgment?

We are therefore discussing the epistemology of metaphysics. The Metaphysics of Aquinas and Aristotle operates on what we know in general (for example things are changing) accompanied with the law of non-contradiction (potential cannot actualize itself).
 
40.png
IWantGod:
But the assumption here is that metaphysics is invalid as a system of true knowledge because it does not operate according to the standards of science, which is a fallacy to a begin with. By what standard have you made that judgment?
Click to expand...
I have not made that judgement. I did not mention science when talking about proving the validity of a system of metaphysics.
 
Nixbits said:
I have not made that judgement. I did not mention science when talking about proving the validity of a system of metaphysics.
Click to expand...
I’m simply responding to your response to Bahman here…
Nixbits said:
I think Bahman hit the nail on the head. If you formulate a system of physics, that system can be tested against the observable universe and may be proved to be incorrect. I don’t think there is a way to test a system of metaphysics in a similar fashion. This does not mean that the metaphysics is considered correct (by default). It simply remains unproven and probably unprovable.
Click to expand...
Bahman said “who knows”, in reference to metaphysics. The implication being that metaphysics is not really a system of real knowledge and that science is superior. But their respective epidemiologies deal with different aspects of being and that is what i was arguing. Metaphysics is a real system of knowledge, it just isn’t an adequate tool to use in regards to the particularities of being to which science is applied. So yes you cannot use metaphysics to present theories about the constituents of atoms, but no one who understands the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas ever suggested that it can.
 
Bradski said:
Even a stopped clock is 100% accurate some of the time. If the astrology reading for Aquarians says you are going to get hit by a truck today, then I guarantee that for 1/12 of the people who do get hit by a truck it is better than 98% accurate.
Click to expand...
What is an Aquarian? Are you talking about a “sun sign”. I am a Sag. there and a libra on the asc. and I have every other sign in my zodiac as does everyone else. I can see you know nothing about astrology (IDK about astronomy) 🙂 You can PM me if you’d like. but IDK if this is OT or not and the thread is about metaphysics.

God Bless
 
IWantGod said:
It is scientifically unprovable because it is not a scientific theory, and a scientific theory could always change with new evidence. But the assumption here is that metaphysics is invalid as a system of true knowledge because it does not operate according to the standards of science, which is a fallacy to a begin with. By what standard have you made that judgment?

We are therefore discussing the epistemology of metaphysics. The Metaphysics of Aquinas and Aristotle operates on what we know in general (for example things are changing) accompanied with the law of non-contradiction (potential cannot actualize itself).
Click to expand...
You might consider too here that Aristotle and Plato his teacher varied concerning there own metaphysical beliefs. The church tends to favor Aristotle I think because Aquinas did.
 
billcu1 said:
You might consider too here that Aristotle and Plato his teacher varied concerning there own metaphysical beliefs. The church tends to favor Aristotle I think because Aquinas did.
Click to expand...
I think the Church Favors Aristotle because Aquinas successfully showed that it is not necessarily in conflict with Catholic theology and presented a God that is consistent with the God of the Catholic faith in respect of attributes. While Aquinas is canonized however his philosophy is not.
 
IWantGod said:
I think the Church Favors Aristotle because Aquinas successfully showed that it is not necessarily in conflict with Catholic theology and presented a God that is consistent with the God of the Catholic faith in respect of attributes. While Aquinas is canonized however his philosophy is not.
Click to expand...
Yes. Right. Thomism is optional, like Mariology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top