Calling all Thomists

[cpayne]

. Now we have a situation where it is true that it is a sock, and it is not true that it is a sock. Now I understand that these truths are not contradicting each other because they are both relative to the intellect that is making the determination. Now assuming that the divine intellect is not concerned with the concept of sock, insofar as it was not created by him directly, but indirectly through the creation of man who created the sock, how could we possibly define exactly what a sock is?

Going back to the OP: You are correct that they do not contradict each other, because we have a situation in which one person is using the sock as a sock and the other person is using it, probably equally well, as a mitten. They are not contradictory situations. But we still know what a sock is. We simply know that the second person is using the sock as a mitten. (Notice we know what a mitten is, too.)

 

[natsclem]

*But for another, you’ll want to take note that Aristotle and Aquinas are incredibly close buddies, and Aquinas is in agreement with probably over 98% of everything Aristotle ever said.

In all seriousness, I doubt you should ever start out by simply disagreeing with Aristotle about anything… because even if all of his final conclusions are not quite right, most all of the fundamental principles that he was are working with to reach that conclusion are perfectly solid.*

:bowdown: ARISTOTLE!

aquinas is not aristotle’s buddy…he is aristotle’s intellectual disciple

 

[MindOverMatter]

Going back to the OP: You are correct that they do not contradict each other, because we have a situation in which one person is using the sock as a sock and the other person is using it, probably equally well, as a mitten. They are not contradictory situations. But we still know what a sock is. We simply know that the second person is using the sock as a mitten. (Notice we know what a mitten is, too.)

If we are talking about objectivity, they are neither truly a sock or a mitten; they are inventions of our minds. These are purely intellective distinctions, which have no actual reality outside of a mere idea. Can you please read my posts, as they go into greater detail? I sense a debate brewing between me and you. At least i hope so, because I’m bored.

 

[MindOverMatter]

aquinas is not aristotle’s buddy…he is aristotle’s intellectual disciple

Okay; lets have a debate about this. I would say that one can interpret Aristotle and Aquinas as “intellectual buddies”. And lets face it, allot of people usually become friends purely on the basis of being able to agree on most things.

 

[cpayne]

If we are talking about objectivity, they are neither truly a sock or a mitten; they are inventions of our minds. These are purely intellective distinctions, which have no actual reality outside of a mere idea. Can you please read my posts, as they go into greater detail? I sense a debate brewing between me and you. At least i hope so, because I’m bored.

Regarding objectivity: Let’s say we both have identical piles of stuff. We are supposed to separate these things into piles of socks, mittens, and computers. I’d be willing to bet that we both come up with exactly the same sets of piles.

In fact, we would come up with the exact same three piles even if we had never seen a sock, a mitten, and a computer before, and had no idea what they were.

Because their reality and their differences are objective in nature, and not mind-dependent, we would see which grouping goes together and which doesn’t.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Did you read my other posts?

Regarding objectivity: Let’s say we both have identical piles of stuff. We are supposed to separate these things into piles of socks, mittens, and computers. I’d be willing to bet that we both come up with exactly the same sets of piles.

Thats only because we have both decided and agreed that the objective realities in question all reflect what we mean by the idea of a computer a sock or a mitten. Apart from our intellectual inference, there is no such thing as that which has the nature of a sock, or the nature of a mitten or even that which has the nature of a computer. The purposes that these things serve are intellectual in nature. There is no such thing as a sock, insofar as it is meaningless to say that a sock exists for the purpose of going on the foot. We have simply taken a piece of material, shaped it, and said that this is for the purpose of going on my foot. There is no objective nature that is a sock. Its the same with a computer. We have invented the idea of a computer, and we have manipulated certain material realities to function according to our idea of a computer. But there is no such thing as a nature that is a computer. There is no such thing as an object that objectively exists for the purpose of computing information. We have invented that purpose.
We would need the power of God to create a true nature. For example, there truly is a nature that is a personal-human-being. Its not something we have invented in our minds. Its an objective truth.

In fact, we would come up with the exact same three piles even if we had never seen a sock, a mitten, and a computer before, and had no idea what they were.

If we have no idea of what a mitten, a computer, and a sock are, one can hardly expect us to put them in their correct piles!!

 

[cpayne]

Did you read my other posts?

If we have no idea of what a mitten, a computer, and a sock are, one can hardly expect us to put them in their correct piles!!

Yes, we could. We would not be able to point at a pile and say, “Those are mittens” (since we would not know what a mitten is), but we would be able to point at a pile and say, “Those are all the same thing.”

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, we could. We would not be able to point at a pile and say, “Those are mittens” (since we would not know what a mitten is), but we would be able to point at a pile and say, “Those are all the same thing.”

I’m not sure that i am getting you there. If we don’t know what a mitten is, if we have no concept of a mitten, then how can we point to it, or even describe it?

What is a mitten?

 

[cpayne]

My point is that since mittens, socks, and computers all do have an objective reality, we are able to categorize them into “piles,” as we do with pretty much everything.

Even if I didn’t know what mittens, socks, and computers were, I could categorize them. Let’s say I had three socks, one mitten, and one computer. I could look at them and see that the three elongated things go together. I could see they look somewhat like the other thing, but not really. I could see that all four of those things don’t look anything like the big heavy thing.

Using philosophical terms, I would say that I could perceive the thing’s “genus,” its reason for being classed with other things like it. You might say this is purely a mental construction; I would say it is a mental response to the reality of the thing itself.

 

[MindOverMatter]

My point is that since mittens, socks, and computers all do have an objective reality.

Do they?

Even if I didn’t know what mittens, socks, and computers were, I could categorize them. Let’s say I had three socks, one mitten, and one computer. I could look at them and see that the three elongated things go together. I could see they look somewhat like the other thing, but not really. I could see that all four of those things don’t look anything like the big heavy thing.

But objectively speaking, they are just things. The only objective nature they have is size, shape and matter, organized in a particular way that suits our ends.

Using philosophical terms, I would say that I could perceive the thing’s “genus,” its reason for being classed with other things like it. You might say this is purely a mental construction; I would say it is a mental response to the reality of the thing itself.

You are saying that there is an objective nature that is “sock”.
I’m saying that there is an objective reality called matter that we have shaped in to our idea of a sock, insofar as particular materials and shapes fit nicely on to our feet. But it does not follow that the materials and shapes therefore exist for the purpose of going on to our feet. Thats a false association. Hence there is no such thing as an objective nature called sock, although there is an objective nature called “matter”.
We call a sock a sock for the purpose its serves; but the purpose is invented, it has no objective nature. But matter has an objective nature, matter remains matter, and therefore there can be no objective error or mistake in using a sock for the purposes of a hat, since in reality you are merely shaping objective matter to serve your intellectual purposes and ideas.

 

[cpayne]

Do they?

Yes. For example, I’m wearing socks now, and writing on a computer. How could I be doing that if these things are not real?

But objectively speaking, they are just things. The only objective nature they have is size, shape and matter, organized in a particular way that suits our ends.

You are saying that there is an objective nature that is “sock”.
I’m saying that there is an objective reality called matter that we have shaped in to our idea of a sock, insofar as particular materials and shapes fit nicely on to our feet. But it does not follow that the materials and shapes therefore exist for the purpose of going on to our feet. Thats a false association. Hence there is no such thing as an objective nature called sock, although there is an objective nature called “matter”.
We call a sock a sock for the purpose its serves; but the purpose is invented, it has no objective nature. But matter has an objective nature, matter remains matter, and therefore there can be no objective error or mistake in using a sock for the purposes of a hat, since in reality you are merely shaping objective matter to serve your intellectual purposes and ideas.

I’ll bet you dress kind of funny.

But the shape of the sock does exist for the purpose of going on our feet. The materials are there because without them there would be no shape. The purpose is inherent in the sock. Minus the purpose, the sock would not be made.

Purposes exist as well in natural objects and processes. For example, blood clots IN ORDER TO prevent bleeding. Trees drop seeds in order to produce trees. Socks exist in order to protect feet and keep them warm. By analogy, the purpose inherent in all of these examples is placed there by intelligence.

 

[cpayne]

Oops. One of my comments got stuck in the quoted part.

 

[cpayne]

I’ve got to get packed —off to a conference in Minneapolis. So no more for tonight. Bye, all.