Aristotle Physics and Metaphysics

  • Thread starter Thread starter StJoseph8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
I’m intrigued by the very last statement in italics.
Does it imply that There is no being which is pure potential/potentiality?
 
Michael19682 said:
I’m intrigued by the very last statement in italics.
Does it imply that There is no being which is pure potential/potentiality?
Click to expand...
There is no “actual-being” that is potential. But there are beings that are actualizing their potential.
 
IWantGod said:
There is no “actual-being” that is potential. But there are beings that are actualizing their potential.
Click to expand...
A play on words. What is the potential being actualized?
If a person is perfectly in prayer, he is all potential, because perfect prayer may result in anything.
If he who is in perfect prayer should ask to remain in perfect prayer eternally, he is pure potential because any effect at all may result at any time according to his prayer while he himself remains unchanged or perfect.
 
Michael19682 said:
A play on words. What is the potential being actualized?
If a person is perfectly in prayer, he is all potential, because perfect prayer may result in anything.
Click to expand...
He or she is changing, then they are moving from potency to act, they are actualizing their potential.
Michael19682 said:
If he who is in perfect prayer should ask to remain in perfect prayer eternally, he is pure potential because any effect at all may result at any time according to his prayer while he himself remains unchanged or perfect.
Click to expand...
If he or she is not changing then no potential is being actualized in their being; there is no potency. Its irrelevant if the effect of the prayer is in time.
 
Tomdstone said:
Good question. When was the last time anyone saw a potentially existing contingent being? Everything I see is actually existing.
Click to expand...
No one has ever seen a “potential-being” because potential is not actually existing, it is the act toward which something is becoming, things are in a continuous act of becoming, potency is becoming actual. It is evident that potential is being actualized because things are changing.
 
Tomdstone said:
Good question. When was the last time anyone saw a potentially existing contingent being? Everything I see is actually existing.
Click to expand...
You would really have to get into Thomism and Aristotle’s philosophic definitions. To understand terminology.
 
Aristotle`s metaphysics is based on Plato’s. Parmenides thought that change was impossible because it would require something coming into existence from nothing. Heraclitus on the other hand, argued that there is nothing but change, there is nothing that is constant. Both were brilliant philosophers. However, Plato’s genius was that he was able to reconcile these two views. He thought we lived in 2 worlds, the lower world and the higher world. Or, the world of particular things, and the world of the forms (or universals). In the world of particular things, things can change, but in the world of forms nothing changes. Plato believed that the forms of things, like universals actually exist in their own realm so to speak. Thus, he believed things like numbers actually exist. He believed for instance perfect justice existed, perfect love, the perfect circle all these things existed as not just abstractions, but really existed in the forms. But, not in particular things. For nothing could be the perfect circle for instance. As all particular circles are not perfect. And the perfect circle can have no line thickness. Since the dots that make the line are at varying radii from the center.

Aristotle was more of a realist. He did not see all universals as actually existing, but as abstractions, existing in the things themselves, and in the mind of the person thinking about them. Aristotle taught that everything is composed of form and matter. And that God was perfect form, pure actuality, with no potentiality, and thus immutable.

Aquinas took Aristotle and came up with his 5 ways or proofs for God’s existence.

Plato belived that we can acquire knowledge not just empirically (through the senses) but that we are all born with certain knowledge that can become known to us. Knowledge from the realm of the forms, where he believes we all come from. Knowledge that we forgot when we became born. Whereas, Aristotle and Aquinas were more empiricists, believing all knowledge comes to us through the senses. What is interesting is that Aquinas actually got criticized for putting so much weight on Aristotle’s theories at a time when most Christian philosophers were Platonists.
 
IWantGod said:
He or she is changing, then they are moving from potency to act, they are actualizing their potential.

If he or she is not changing then no potential is being actualized in their being; there is no potency. Its irrelevant if the effect of the prayer is in time.
Click to expand...
I think some of the mystics would disagree.
Pure stillness at least seems possible.
Heaven itself, after all, is rest.
Perhaps that is why some of the mystics are hard to follow?
 
Michael19682 said:
I think some of the mystics would disagree.
Pure stillness at least seems possible.
Heaven itself, after all, is rest.
Perhaps that is why some of the mystics are hard to follow?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I have a Thomistic conception of God. I don’t know what heaven is like.
 
fisherman_carl said:
Aristotle`s metaphysics is based on Plato’s. Parmenides thought that change was impossible because it would require something coming into existence from nothing. Heraclitus on the other hand, argued that there is nothing but change, there is nothing that is constant. Both were brilliant philosophers. However, Plato’s genius was that he was able to reconcile these two views. He thought we lived in 2 worlds, the lower world and the higher world. Or, the world of particular things, and the world of the forms (or universals). In the world of particular things, things can change, but in the world of forms nothing changes. Plato believed that the forms of things, like universals actually exist in their own realm so to speak. Thus, he believed things like numbers actually exist. He believed for instance perfect justice existed, perfect love, the perfect circle all these things existed as not just abstractions, but really existed in the forms. But, not in particular things. For nothing could be the perfect circle for instance. As all particular circles are not perfect. And the perfect circle can have no line thickness. Since the dots that make the line are at varying radii from the center.

Aristotle was more of a realist. He did not see all universals as actually existing, but as abstractions, existing in the things themselves, and in the mind of the person thinking about them. Aristotle taught that everything is composed of form and matter. And that God was perfect form, pure actuality, with no potentiality, and thus immutable.

Aquinas took Aristotle and came up with his 5 ways or proofs for God’s existence.

Plato belived that we can acquire knowledge not just empirically (through the senses) but that we are all born with certain knowledge that can become known to us. Knowledge from the realm of the forms, where he believes we all come from. Knowledge that we forgot when we became born. Whereas, Aristotle and Aquinas were more empiricists, believing all knowledge comes to us through the senses. What is interesting is that Aquinas actually got criticized for putting so much weight on Aristotle’s theories at a time when most Christian philosophers were Platonists.
Click to expand...
Something coming into existence from “nothing” isn’t a problem. Or shouldn’t be. Because even in “nothing” there is “something” What is common to nothing and something? “Thingness”. The Eastern philosophers understood this long ago.
 
IWantGod said:
I don’t know. I have a Thomistic conception of God. I don’t know what heaven is like.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to change the topic in a sense anyway, but “Pureland Buddhism” would help you much with that understanding. “I go to prepare a place” the Lord said. Heaven is basically a “pureland” a better place to grow and live in understanding better than here. 😉
 
billcu1 said:
Something coming into existence from “nothing” isn’t a problem. Or shouldn’t be. Because even in “nothing” there is “something” What is common to nothing and something? “Thingness”. The Eastern philosophers understood this long ago.
Click to expand...
This equivocates on the meaning of nothing as it applies to God’s creation. The nothing from which God created is not a thing.
 
IWantGod said:
I’m simply responding to your response to Bahman here…

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.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Science is “superior” that’s a common misconception. It can’t even understand Omega 3 fatty acids. So it can’t be so. The ignorance of materialism.
 
Aristotle would call “science” a systematic way of finding knowledge through reasoning from first principles.

Metaphysics is science. Certain things about the nature of being are evident (such as the PNC), and we can begin with those and see where we end up.

Aristotle would call “physics” the study of the material world as such, so it would tackle questions like “what is space,” “how can motion happen,” etc.

Physics is not finding out “how stuff works.”

We need to go to the actual texts if we’re to discuss them… There can be criticisms of the Physics and the Metaphysics, but by and large they are pure gold.

Perhaps the OP meant Aristotle’s “cosmology”?

Also, “thing” is not a genus, no matter what Wheel of Fortune tells you. Nor is “existence” (or “thingness”) a quality, as the Scotists thought. The two go hand in hand. Even if it were, it would still fail to apply to “nothing” as such.
 
davidv said:
How is this consistent with what you posted in post #33? Did you not state that nothing had “thingness”?
Click to expand...
I did say that. And I believe I am right to an extent, or there would not be something. I don’t think you are following. Perhaps you need to look at the subject as “emptiness”. Rather than nothingness. It sounds like you have quite a bit to learn. What I said you have very much mis-judged. Find out what is “Inherent Existance”. I’ll leave that to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top